---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 13

                            Headlines

35 BAKERY CAFE: Ramirez Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
9F INC: Faces Holland Class Suit Over 18% Drop in IPO Share Price
A&L HOME: Conditional FLSA Collective Status Sought
ABBVIE INC: Bid to Transfer Bystolic Antitrust Suit Venue Denied
ALL NIPPON: Court Narrows Claims in Bugarin Class Suit

AMAZON.COM INC: Ashutosh Sharma Seeks to Certify Class
AMAZON.COM LLC: Ranalli Suit Removed to E.D. New York
ANGIE'S LIST: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ProWater Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Salazar Suggested to Proceed on Eighth Amendment Claims
CAPITAL BLUECROSS: Bellan Bid to Extend Class Status Filing Nixed

CASCADE PROCESS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Dowda FLSA Suit Denied
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Salamon Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
CHEVRON USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Suit Claims
CHOU TEAM: Parties Directed to File Class Cert. Plan by Feb. 5
CITIZENS BANK: Bid to Remand 1st Amended Palmer Class Suit Denied

CLEANSPARK INC: Bishins Sues Over Drop in Share Price
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS: Laborers Union Local 860 Wins Collective Status
CURACAO LTD: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
DOORDASH INC: California Court Refuses to Toss Lona's Class Suit
EASTERN WISCONSIN: Court Denies Partial Dismissal of Kapp TCPA Suit

ECOLAB INC: Franchini Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
FARRIN PC: Garey Asks Court to Amend Order Nixing Class Status
GEICO GENERAL: Munoz, et al. Directed to Amend Class Cert. Reply
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Farooq Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
HEAVENLY VALLEY: Heggen Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California

HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Puerto Rico's Auto Parts Antitrust Suit Tossed
HM CLAUSE INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME CITY: Pansiera Has Until April 15 to File Class Status Bid
INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Expedited Discovery in Young Suit Allowed
JAN AGHA CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges

JUUL LABS: Page Limit for Altria' Dismissal Bid Briefing Extended
KATE BROWN: Class Certification Bid Response Due Jan. 28
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Joe Baltas Seeks to Certify Class Action
L'OREAL USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Chu Says
LIVEONNY INC: Henix's Bid for Summary Judgment in Wage Suit Denied

LIZHI INC: Faces Gutman Suit Over Drop in Share Price
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Galindo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
MDL 2903: Court Presents Class Cert. Rulings in "Sleeper" Case
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Abed's Bid to Certify Class Continued to Feb. 2
MRSS HOSPITALITY: Esquivel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

MURAD LLC: Daly Consumer Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL DELIVERY: Luka Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
NEH INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NESPRESSO USA: Baber Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
NEW JERSEY: Summary Judgment in Fischer Teachers Suit Affirmed

NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Swafford Files Class Certification Bid
NVR INC: Egan Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
OAKLAND, CA: Court Certifies Class of Disabled Renters
OLD DOMINION: Has Until Feb. 15 to Oppose Rizk Class Status Bid
OSF HEALTHCARE: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Smith ERISA Suit

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Remand of Schott to Missouri State Court Denied
PACTIV LLC: Court Issues Revised Class Status Briefing Schedule
PARTS AUTHORITY: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Jaime Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Junks Rokita Class Action
PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Discovery Rulings in Hancock Suit Affirmed

RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Medical Information Data Breach
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Clark Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure of Patient's Info
SANCHEZ OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Finley Suit Alleges
SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of LaSpina Suit

SGF US INC: Last Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Bushansky Says Merger Deal Lacks Info
SONY MUSIC: Extension of Class Certification Scheduling Sought
STEVENS BUSINESS: Weisberger Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ford Balks at Mismanaged Retirement Plans

TAMS MANAGEMENT: Court Strikes Gautier Bid to Certify Class
TOWER HILL: 20 Days Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
TURK HOLDINGS: Rios Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
TURO INC: Cattaneo Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Getz TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

UNITED INSURANCE: Minerva Barrett Seeks to Certify Class
US Bank: King Sues Over Failure to Respond to Borrowers' RFI
WALMART STORES: Lisowski Ruling in Consumer Suit to 3rd Circuit
WHITE FLOWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

35 BAKERY CAFE: Ramirez Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ; and LIZABETH HUERTAS RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. 35 BAKERY CAFE CORP. (D/B/A THE BREAD FACTORY CAFE); JAMES
NICOZISIS; CHRISTINE PAE; BOBBY DOE; and ALBERT PAE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00458 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
workers.

35 Bakery Cafe Corp. owns and operates a restaurant and bakery,
located at New York, NY under the name "The Bread Factory Cafe".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


9F INC: Faces Holland Class Suit Over 18% Drop in IPO Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG J. HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 9F INC., LEI SUN, YANJUN LIN,
YIFAN REN, CHANGXING XIAO, FLYNN XUXIAN HUANG, IVAN XU, JUNSHENG
ZHANG, WING HON CHEUNG, FANGXIONG GONG, DAVID CUI, LEI LIU, SIU
FUNG MING, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, HAITONG
INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, CLSA LIMITED, CHINA
INVESTMENT SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LIMITED, 9F PRIMASIA
SECURITIES LIMITED, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00948 (D.N.J., January 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with 9F Inc.'s August 14,
2019 initial public offering (IPO). The registration statement
failed to disclose the following material facts that existed at the
time of the IPO including that: (1) 9F's provision for doubtful
accounts receivable mainly related to accounts receivable with a
single party, Property and Casualty Company Limited (PICC); (2) 9F
and PICC had been engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute
regarding payment of service fees under the Cooperation Agreement;
(3) PICC was challenging, delaying, and/or otherwise failing to pay
service fees to 9F under the Cooperation Agreement; (4) the amount
of service fees under the Cooperation Agreement that were unpaid or
at serious risk of being unpaid was material and trending upward;
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the collectability of service
fees owed to 9F by PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in
doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; and (6) as a result of
the foregoing, the registration statement had materially
misrepresented the amount of 9F's accounts receivable and
materially understated the company's allowance for doubtful
accounts.

When the truth emerged about the omitted material adverse facts
from 9F's registration statement, 9F's stock price has
significantly fallen below its IPO price, $0.20 per American
depositary share (ADS), or 18%, to close at $0.91 per ADS on
September 29, 2020, damaging the Plaintiff and Class members.

9F Inc. is an information technology (IT) services company based in
Beijing, China.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment banking company
based in New York, New York.

Haitong International Securities Company Limited is a stock
brokerage firm and investment bank based in Hong Kong.

CLSA Limited is a brokerage and investment company based in Hong
Kong.

China Investment Securities International Brokerage Limited is a
financial institution in Hong Kong.

9F Primasia Securities Limited is a financial company based in Hong
Kong.

Cogency Global Inc. is a registered agent service provider based in
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 313-1887
         Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

A&L HOME: Conditional FLSA Collective Status Sought
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE CLARK, et al. for
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. A&L HOME CARE AND
TRAINING CENTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-MWM (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to
Section 216 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying their proposed FLSA collectives
      defined as:

      -- FLSA Travel Time Collective:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of
         the Defendants who, between January 20, 2018 3 and [the
         date the Defendants changed their travel policy to
         include hourly payment for travel time], worked in
         excess of 40 hours per workweek and were required to
         travel between clients' homes;"

      -- FLSA Shift Differential Collective:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of the
         Defendants who, between January 20, 2018 and the
         present, worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
         received shift differential pay;" and

      -- FLSA Minimum Wage Collective:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of the
         Defendants who, between January 20, 2018 and [the date
         Defendants changed their travel policy to include
         hourly payment for travel time], were required to
         travel between clients' homes using their own vehicle;"

   2. implementing a procedure whereby a Court-approved Notice
      of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and  
      e-mail), and a Court-approved Reminder Notice is sent (via  
      e-mail and text message) to Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA  
      collectives; and

   3. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this  
      Court's order, identify all putative collective members by  
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of  
      the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers,  
      dates of employment, and position(s) held, of all putative  
      collective members who meet any one or more of the above  
      collective definitions proposed by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Procedure, for entry of an order:

   1. Certifying this action as a Class Action under Rule 23 of  
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to the  
      Plaintiffs' proposed Rule 23 Classes defined as:

      -- Rule 23 Travel Time Class:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of the  
         Defendants who worked in Ohio between September 20,
         2018 and [the date Defendants changed their travel
         policy to include hourly payment for travel time],
         worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and were
         required to travel between clients' homes;"

      -- Rule 23 Shift Differential Class:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of the
         Defendants who worked in Ohio between September 20,
         2018 and the present, worked in excess of 40 hours per
         workweek, and received shift differential pay;" and

      -- Rule 23 Minimum Wage Class:

         "all current and former hourly paid employees of
         Defendants who worked in Ohio and who, between January
         13, 2018 and [the date Defendants changed their travel
         policy to include hourly payment for travel time], were
         required to travel between clients' homes using their
         own vehicle;" and

   2. designating their selection of counsel, Mansell Law, LLC,
      as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure.

This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), filed as a
Collective and Class Action. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
filed on January 13, 2021, asserts that the Defendants violated the
FLSA and the OMFWSA by: (1) failing to pay their home health aides
for time spent traveling between clients’ homes during their
shift in a single workday; (2) failing to include shift
differential pay in home health aides' regular rates of pay for the
purposes of calculating overtime; and (3) failing to reasonably
reimburse home health aides for the use of their own vehicle to
travel between client homes.

The Plaintiffs are all former home health aides employed by the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis throughout
their employment with the Defendants, and each Named Plaintiff was
paid at or slightly above the applicable Ohio minimum wage.

Th Defendants are in the business of providing home healthcare
services to clients in the southern Ohio region.

A copy of plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional
collective action certification and rule 23 class action
certification dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pbt0oSat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com

ABBVIE INC: Bid to Transfer Bystolic Antitrust Suit Venue Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
20-cv-5735 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue.

The Order relates to: All Actions.

There are two sets of lawsuits before the Court.  The first set of
lawsuits is brought by direct purchasers of Bystolic and generic
equivalents ("Direct Purchaser Actions").  The second set of
lawsuits is brought by indirect purchasers of Bystolic, which
include consumers, health insurers, and welfare plans ("End Payor
Actions").  The lawsuits are brought against the manufacturers and
marketers of Bystolic ("Forest Defendants") and the other drug
manufacturers ("Generic Defendants").

The Forest Defendants are defined as AbbVie Inc., Allergan, Inc.,
Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc.,
Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., Forest Laboratories Ireland,
Ltd., and Forest Laboratories, LLC.

The Generic Defendants are defined as Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs
Ltd., Hetero Drugs Ltd. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Torrent
Pharma Inc., Alkem Laboratories Ltd.; Indchemie Health Specialties
Private Ltd.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, Glenmark Generics Ltd.,
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals S.A.; Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc. (NV),
Watson Laboratories, Inc. (DE), Watson Laboratories, Inc. (NY),
Watson Laboratories, Inc. (CT), Watson Pharma, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

The Forest and Generic Defendants allegedly entered into
anticompetitive settlement and license agreements that had the
effect of delaying the production of generic equivalents to
Bystolic; the Plaintiffs allege that had such equivalents been able
to enter the market earlier, the price of Bystolic would have
decreased, benefitting consumers.

The first action filed in the district was an End Payor Action
filed on July 17, 2020 by the City of Providence against the Forest
Defendants--City of Providence v. AbbVie Inc., No. 20-cv-5538
(S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020).  Six days later, on July 23, 2020, the
first Direct Purchaser action was filed as a related action under
the instant case number by J M Smith Corp. against the Forest and
Generic Defendants.  The remaining consolidated and coordinated
cases were subsequently filed as related to those actions.

The Defendants argue that these cases should be transferred to the
District of New Jersey principally because (1) none of the
Defendants are located in the district while 11 of the 14
U.S.-based Defendants are headquartered in the District of New
Jersey; (2) third parties implicated in the complaint, including
generic producers that would have entered as competitors but for
the allegedly improper agreements, are located in New Jersey; (3)
only two of the named Plaintiffs reside in this district; and (4)
"the purported Generic Defendants' decision to delay was made in
New Jersey and elsewhere (not New York)."

The Defendants also argue that because these cases are brought as
nationwide class actions, the Plaintiffs' choice of forum should
carry less weight.

These cases are brought pursuant to federal and state antitrust
laws, and it is undisputed that they could have been filed instead
in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
The question presented turns on the balance of the private and
public interests.

Among the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant
a motion to transfer venue are, inter alia: (1) the plaintiff's
choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location
of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of
proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative
facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of
unwilling witnesses, and (7) the relative means of the parties."

Judge Liman finds that the balance of relevant factors weighs
against transferring venue.

First, the Defendants have not established that the Plaintiffs'
proffered reasons for bringing suit in the district are
illegitimate or insignificant.  There is no evidence, for example,
that forum was chosen with objective to achieve "perhaps justice
blended with some harassment" or as part of "a strategy of forcing
the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at
some inconvenience to himself."  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
choice of forum weighs against transfer.

Second, the Defendants hang their hat primarily on convenience of
the forum to the witnesses and to the parties.  This factor weights
only slightly in their favor and is not sufficient to carry their
burden to make a "strong case for transfer."  As the Plaintiffs
note, it is easy for a New Jersey resident to travel into New York
City, and the Plaintiffs have averred that witnesses in New Jersey
can be deposed remotely or in whatever location is convenient to
them.  It is in this sense that the proximity of New York and New
Jersey is relevant.

Finally, the remaining factors are either neutral or cut against
transfer.  The Judge finds that there has been no showing that the
relevant documents cannot be easily obtained and shared
electronically.  The locus of operative facts is also debatable.
In addition, the availability of process to compel the attendance
of unwilling witnesses is neutral.  The Defendants have not
identified any witness who is not within the jurisdiction of the
Court but is within the jurisdiction of the District of New Jersey.
The parties agree that the relative means of the parties is a
neutral factor in the case.

For these reasons, Jude Liman denied the Defendants' motion to
transfer venue.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 79.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y64u74nq from Leagle.com.


ALL NIPPON: Court Narrows Claims in Bugarin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BUGARIN, v. ALL
NIPPON AIRWAYS CO., LTD., Case No. 5:20-cv-03341-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that:

   1. ANA's motion to dismiss Bugarin's state law claims is:

      (a) granted with leave to amend as to Claim 1 for failure
          to state claim under Rule 12(b)(6);

      (b) granted without leave to amend as to Claim 2 on
          preemption grounds under Rule 12(b)(6); and

      (c) otherwise is denied.

   2. Any amended pleading shall be filed on or before February
      9, 2021.

   3. Leave to amend is limited to Claim 1 for breach of
      contract.

      -- No additional claims or parties may be added without
         leave of the Court.

The Court said, "ANA's motion to dismiss Claim 1 for failure to
state a claim is granted with leave to amend. On amendment, Bugarin
may attempt to allege facts showing that Section 13(B) does not
create a condition precedent to refund. It is the Court's view that
the language in question does appear to create a condition
precedent. However, as Bugarin has not previously addressed the
language in her pleading, it may be that she can allege facts
showing the contrary. To the extent Bugarin claims that her
performance of any condition precedent was excused, she shall
allege facts supporting that claim with more particularity."

In this putative nationwide class action, Plaintiff Bugarin claims
that Defendant ANA breached its Conditions of Carriage by failing
to issue refunds to thousands of passengers whose flights were
canceled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bugarin asserts two
state law claims on behalf of herself and the putative class, one
for breach of contract and the other for rescission. ANA moves to
dismiss those claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Bugarin, who resides in San Jose, California, purchased a
round-trip flight to Japan on ANA. The outbound flight was from San
Jose, California to Tokyo, Japan, while the return flight was from
Tokyo, Japan to San Francisco, California. Bugarin made the
purchase through a third party, Asaptickets.com (ASAP). ASAP is not
an authorized ticket agent of ANA and does not have a contractual
relationship with ANA.

ANA, also known as Zennikku, is the largest airline in Japan by
revenues and passenger numbers. Its headquarters are located in
Shiodome City Center in the Shiodome area of Minato ward of Tokyo.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c7nzna at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Ashutosh Sharma Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashutosh Sharma v.
AMAZONTXCARE EMPLOYEE INJURY BENEFIT PLAN and AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054-C-BK (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting his motion to certify class.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the civil cover sheet dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39etLbpv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alana K. Ackels, Esq,
          BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP
          2323 Ross Ave., Ste 1900
          Dallas TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-1400

AMAZON.COM LLC: Ranalli Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vince Ranalli, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM LLC, ZAZZLE INC., ARENA
MERCHANDISING BY AND THROUGH AMAZON.COM, LLC, ETSY.COM, LLC, BRAVE
NEW LOOK, OUTDOOR RESEARCH, Case No. GD-20-11702, was removed from
the Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for Western
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00088-RJC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
          Kyle H. Steenland, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS
          201 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 201
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206
          Phone: (412) 545-3015
          Fax: (412) 540-3399
          Email: jward@fentersward.com
                 ksteenland@fentersward.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James L. Rockney, Esq.
          Ginevra Ventre, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 288-4046
          Email: jrockney@reedsmith.com
                 gventre@reedsmith.com



ANGIE'S LIST: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss ProWater Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. ANGIE'S LIST,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No 2:19-CV-08704-ODW (SSx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff ProWater brings the putative class action against
Defendants Angie's List, Inc. ("ALI") and Angi Homeservices Inc.'s
("AHI") on behalf of itself and others who used ALI's website to
promote their businesses.  ProWater is in the business of providing
water treatment services, and the case arises from its efforts to
market those services through the use of two websites run by ALI
and non-party HomeAdviser, Inc., respectively.

ALI operates a website through which users can locate and evaluate
businesses to hire for various contracting jobs.  Businesses that
advertise their services on ALI's website must register with ALI
and pay a fee to do so.  From 2011 to 2019, ProWater was a
registered Service Provider with ALI.

All of ALI's Service Providers must, at minimum, sign a Service
Provider User Agreement ("SPUA") and agree to ALI's Privacy Policy.
ProWater brings the action based on two terms in the SPUA.  First,
the SPUA provides that ALI will not share the Service Provider's
contact information with any third parties.  Second, the SPUA
provides that ALI is not liable for reviewing the content that
consumers or Service Providers post on the ALI website.

HomeAdvisor also operates an online platform similar to ALI's,
through which users can find businesses for hire.  In contrast to
the ALI advertising model, however, a business advertising itself
on HomeAdvisor "would expect to pay per lead for the leads received
from HomeAdvisor."  AHI allegedly became the parent company of both
ALI and HomeAdvisor sometime in 2017.  As ProWater puts it, ALI and
HomeAdvisor, companies that were former competitors, are now under
the common ownership of AHI.  Consequently, ProWater claims, AHI
receives financial benefits from the conduct at issue here, as its
revenue comes from both ALI and HomeAdvisor.  It also alleges that
AHI exerts pervasive operational control over ALI, such that the
two companies function as alter egos.
ProWater claims that ALI violated the two SPUA terms identified
above by "surreptitiously" redesigning its website to send the
personal information of its users and Service Providers to
HomeAdvisor, in such a manner that enables ALI and HomeAdvisor to
double charge Service Providers like ProWater for a single
advertisement.  Specifically, ProWater alleges that when a consumer
searches ALI's website for Service Providers, the consumer's search
information is immediately sent to HomeAdvisor, and HomeAdvisor
immediately sends the information to its own service providers in
the form of leads, for which it charges a per-lead fee.

ProWater asserts that this system results in service providers like
itself being double charged for a single advertisement on ALI's
website (once by ALI for its subscription and again by HomeAdvisor
for the lead).  It also alleges that without a concurrent
subscription to HomeAdvisor's lead services, it appears that the
term-based advertising on the ALI website is useless.

Separately, ProWater alleges that when it decided to end its
subscription with ALI, ALI removed ProWater's information from its
website before ProWater's subscription had expired, and ALI charged
ProWater for an additional month without listing ProWater on its
website.  It claims it disputed that extra charge, which led to ALI
threatening to send the debt to third-party collectors unless
ProWater paid the bill or renewed its subscription with ALI.

Based on these allegations, ProWater asserts three causes of
action, on behalf of itself and a putative class, against ALI and
AHI for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent misrepresentation;
and (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq.
("UCL").

Now, ALI and AHI move to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  In
particular, they argue that (A) the UCL claim fails because the
parties' relationship is governed by Indiana law and because
ProWater fails to otherwise state a claim for relief under the UCL;
(B) the contract claim fails because ProWater does not allege any
breach; and (C) the fraud claim fails because ProWater does not
allege any misrepresentation and because ProWater fails to
otherwise meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).

Judge Wright finds that ProWater fails to establish that Indiana
law conflicts with a fundamental California policy underlying
ProWater's claims, and if there is no such conflict, the court will
enforce the parties' choice of law.  Accordingly, he will enforce
the Clause by applying Indiana law to ProWater's claims.
Furthermore, because a valid choice-of-law provision selecting
another state's law is grounds to dismiss a claim under
California's UCL, he granted the Motion with respect to ProWater's
UCL claim, which is dismissed.

Next, the Judge turns to ProWater's amended breach of contract
claim.  He ultimately concludes that ProWater fails to allege a
breach of either SPUA term identified in the FAC, thereby failing
to adequately allege a claim for breach of contract.  Upon review
of the record, it is readily apparent that the SPUA is not itself
the advertising agreement between ProWater and ALI, yet ProWater is
attempting to hitch a purported breach of the advertising agreement
to the duties arising under the SPUA.  In doing so, ProWater fails
to allege the terms of the advertising agreement and any breach of
the SPUA.

For these reasons, the Judge concludes that the FAC does not set
forth facts sufficient to establish a cognizable theory for breach
of contract.  The Motion is granted with respect to ProWater's
breach of contract claim, which is dismissed.

Lastly, the Judge turns to ProWater's claim for fraudulent
misrepresentation.  He finds that the allegations making up
ProWater's fraud claim amount to a series of misrepresentations
stemming from and about the contract itself.  It is not permitted.
Moreover, the fraud claim fails for the same reasons that compel
dismissal of the contract claim.  Indeed, ProWater fails to allege
a false misrepresentation for the same reasons it fails to allege a
breach of the SPUA.  Simply put, ProWater does not allege facts
sufficient to show that either of the two SPUA provisions
identified by ProWater were materially false.  Accordingly, the
Motion is granted as to the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation,
which is also dismissed.

Without offering any suggestions for how it might amend its claims
in the event they are dismissed, ProWater requests leave to amend
and concedes that a few of its claims in the FAC may need further
elaboration.  Because het cannot say that any amendment would be
futile, the Judge holds that leave to amend is appropriate in the
case.  However, considering the serious deficiencies identified, he
is compelled to clarify what this means, lest there be further
confusion.

ProWater may not reassert a breach of contract claim or fraud claim
premised on the same two SPUA provisions, as such an amendment
would be futile.  The Judge is highly skeptical that any amendment
could save the UCL claim, but if ProWater does attempt to reallege
a UCL claim, it must, at minimum, rectify the deficiencies
identified in the Order.  Subject to these restrictions, ProWater
is granted leave to amend.

In summary, Judge Wright granted the Defendants' Motion.  The FAC
is dismissed in its entirety with leave to amend.  To the extent he
granted leave to amend, ProWater may file a Second Amended
Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above within 21 days
of the date of his Order.  If ProWater timely files an amended
complaint, the Defendants must file their response(s) in accordance
with Rule 15(a)(3).  Failure by ProWater to timely amend will
result in dismissal with prejudice and closing of the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3rnoouy from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Salazar Suggested to Proceed on Eighth Amendment Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California issued her Findings and
Recommendations in the case, KEVIN SALAZAR, Plaintiff v. CLARK, et
al., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01464-NONE BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
regarding the dismissal of certain claims and Defendants.

The Plaintiff is currently housed at California Correctional
Institution, in Tehachapi, California.  The events in the complaint
are alleged to have occurred at the Corcoran State Prison, in
Corcoran, California.  The Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Gavin
Newsom, Governor, (2) Ken Clark, Warden, (3) Flores, Correctional
Officer, 4A-1 Left, (4) Connie Gipson, Director of CDCR, (5) J.
Clark Kelso, Receiver. Defendants are sued in their individual
capacities for monetary damages.

The Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran when he sustained loss of
hearing based on the alleged Defendants' reckless negligence,
intentional tort, and cruel and unusual punishment.  Governor
Newsom is under federal court mandate to bring the prisons in
compliance with the Constitution and American with Disabilities
Act.  Defendants Newsom, Ken Clark, J. Clark Kelso and Connie
Gipson in one way or another caused engineering construction
workers to be hired at Corcoran in the summer of 2019.  The
construction was to expand the width of inmate showers to fit
wheelchairs.  The Defendants did not demand that the construction
workers give the Plaintiff a set of earplugs.

After six weeks of incessant loud operation of the jackhammer,
seven hours a day, the Plaintiff has been deprived of his hearing
in his left ear and partial loss in his right ear.  Defendant
Flores would not move the Plaintiff to another cell.  The
Defendants knew or should have known that when they allowed the
construction workers to demolish Cell 45 and the shower that the
Plaintiff would need earplugs that were worn by the construction
workers.  The Plaintiff kicked on the cell door and asked Ken Clark
for earplugs when the Defendant arrived in the unit to check on the
demolition.

The Plaintiff alleges that he timely filed a claim with the
California Victim Compensation and Claims Board and has been
denied.  He seeks supplemental jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff sues for negligence, intentional tort and cruel and
unusual punishment.  He seeks compensatory damages against and
punitive damages against the Defendants.  It appears that the
Plaintiff may be seeking to represent all of the inmates who were
"similarly situated" as the Plaintiff with the noise.

Plaintiff Salazar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in the
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  He filed
the action in Kings County Superior Court on May 18, 2020.  On Oct.
15, 2020, Defendant Clark removed the action and requested that the
Court screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a) and
that Defendant be allowed 30 days from the screening of the
complaint to file a responsive pleading.

Following notice from the Court, the Defendant amended the notice
of removal because pages were missing.  On Oct. 22, 2020, the
Defendant filed an amended notice of removal, which included a copy
of the Plaintiff's complaint.  The Court screened the Plaintiff's
complaint and granted leave to amend.  The Plaintiff's first
amended complaint, filed on Dec. 14, 2020, is currently before the
Court for screening.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe finds that as a pro se litigant, the
Plaintiff is prohibited from bringing his claims as a class action,
emphasizing that pro se plaintiffs are not adequate class
representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  She also finds that the Plaintiff's first
amended complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Ken
Clark and Officer Flores for violation of the Eighth Amendment for
deliberate indifference to the risk of harm and for negligence
against Defendants Ken Clark and Officer Flores.  Finally, despite
being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, the
Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has been unable to cure
the remaining deficiencies and further leave to amend is not
warranted.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended
that the action proceeds on the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, filed on Dec. 14, 2020, for violation of the Eighth
Amendment for deliberate indifference to the risk of harm against
Defendants Ken Clark and Officer Flores and for negligence against
Defendants Ken Clark and Officer Flores.  All other claims and
Defendants are recommended to be dismissed from the action based on
the Plaintiff's failure to state claims upon which relief may be
granted.

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).  Within 14 days
after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court.  The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation."  The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/y294oo4y from
Leagle.com.


CAPITAL BLUECROSS: Bellan Bid to Extend Class Status Filing Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN BELLAN, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
CAPITAL BLUECROSS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00744-YK (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Yvette Kane entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion
extending the deadline for her to move for class certification of
her state law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

The Court cannot definitively find that the Plaintiff's delay in
requesting an extension of time to move for class certification was
in good faith. Absent any explanation regarding why Rule 23 class
certification was not raised with the Court at an earlier time, or
any response to the Defendant's arguments in opposition to the
instant motion, the Court finds that this factor weighs against
granting any extension. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the
Court will deny the instant motion, the Court says.

The Plaintiff Bellan commenced this action by filing a complaint in
this Court on May 6, 2020, seeking to represent a class of workers
alleging that Defendant Capital BlueCross violated provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and various state wage and
hour laws.

Capital BlueCross is an independent licensee of the BlueCross
BlueShield Association serving 21 counties in Central Pennsylvania
and the Lehigh Valley.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qS6Et7 at no extra charge.[CC]

CASCADE PROCESS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Dowda FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD DOWDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF ON OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff v. CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, INC.,
CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, LTD., DOUG CORCORAN, PAT BRACK, KELLY
MAXWELL, Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-01201-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Judge
Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, San Antonio Division, denied the Defendants' Second
Motion to Dismiss and its alternative Motion to Transfer.

Mr. Dowda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brings the suit against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  He alleges the Defendants violated Section
7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and 215(a)(2), by using an
illegal scheme to avoid paying overtime premiums to certain
non-exempt employees.  Rather than hiring its non-exempt oilfield
workers as full-time employees, Dowda alleges the Defendants paid
these workers by the hour, a day rate, or a combination of both.

Day Rate workers were paid one hour of overtime if they worked over
12 hours in a day regardless of the actual number of hours worked
that day or that week.  Hourly workers were paid overtime for hours
worked in excess of 50 hours in a workweek.  Dowda alleges both
policies violate the FLSA.  Because there are other putative
Plaintiffs who are similarly situated with regard to the work
performed and the Defendants' compensation policies, Dowda seeks to
bring the suit as an opt-in collective class action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The parties do not dispute the case is identical to another class
action, Guzman v. Cascade Process Controls, Inc., No.
5:19-CV-000162 ("Guzman suit"), filed in the Western District of
Texas on Feb. 20, 2019, and assigned to Judge Biery.  In the
previous action, Dowda initially opted in as a putative plaintiff,
but later opted out before the case settled and was voluntarily
dismissed on Aug. 3, 2020.  In the case, it appears Dowda seeks to
certify the same class of individuals certified and noticed in the
Guzman suit, names the same Defendants as the Guzman suit and
asserts the same cause of action based upon the same factual
allegations.

The Defendants move for dismissal of the action for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6).

First, the Defendants contend Dowda's suit should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim based upon the first-to-file rule.  They
argue the Guzman suit was filed first and the same class was
certified in that action that Dowda seeks to certify in the action.
To the extent Dowda had unresolved claims, they argue he should
have addressed them as a class member in the Guzman suit before it
was dismissed with prejudice.  Because the Guzman suit was filed
first and is now resolved, the Defendants contend the first-to-file
rule precludes Dowda from asserting his cause of action here.

Judge Pulliam opines that the Guzman suit concluded and was
dismissed on Aug. 3, 2020.  Because the two suits are not pending
at the same time, the first-to-file rule does not apply.
Consequently, the first-to-file rule does not serve as a basis to
dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal
Rule 12(b)(6).

Next, the Defendants argue the doctrine of collateral estoppel
precludes Dowda from bringing the duplicative collective action.
They assert Dowda should only be permitted to assert his claims on
an individual basis.

The Judge holds that Collateral estoppel does not serve as a basis
to dismiss this suit for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) under these facts.  The Defendants' arguments
pertain to the issue whether the Court should certify the purported
class.  The Court has not yet addressed the issue.  As the
Defendants admit, at the very least, Dowda should only be permitted
to assert his claims on an individual basis.  For this reason,
dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
12(b)(6) is inappropriate.

Finally, the Defendants request in the alternative that the Court
transfers the case to the docket of Judge Biery who adjudicated the
Guzman suit to its conclusion.  Dowda does not dispute the
transfer.

The Judge opines that the transfer of the case to Judge Biery is
not appropriate because the Guzman suit was closed in August 2020.
Therefore, Judge Biery no longer has a similar, pending case before
him.  For this reason, the request to transfer the case to Judge
Biery is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3rbjmpp from
Leagle.com.


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Salamon Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SARAH SALAMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLC, JH MET
SUSIDIARY B LIQUIDATING TRUST, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00286 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an obligation that was allegedly incurred to
Capital One N.A./GM Card Word Elite Mastercard. Defendant JH
purportedly purchased the rights to collect the Capital One N.A./GM
Card Word Elite Mastercard debt who contracted with Defendant C&B
to collect the alleged debt.

Subsequently on or about October 14, 2020, Defendant C&B sent a
collection letter to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant JH. The
Collection letter offers various offers of settlement on the full
balance of $4,687.19. However, the letter confused and deceived the
Plaintiff because it failed to determine when the settlement
payments would be due, whether the payment is due on the 28th of
each month or within 30 days of the last payment, the suit says.

The Defendants allegedly violated Section 1692e as the letter is
open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and by making a
false and misleading representations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' deceptive, misleading
and unfair debt collection practice has affected and frustrated the
Plaintiff's ability to intelligently respond to the Defendant's
collection efforts, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Thus,
the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of New
York consumers seeking damages and declaratory relief.

The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Tel: (201) 282-6500
         Fax: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


CHEVRON USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation d/b/a CHEVRON WITH TECHRON, and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00441-SK (N.D. Cal., January
19, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person, who
is dependent of screen reading software to read website content
using his computer.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's Website,
https://www.chevronwithtechron.com/, has multiple access barriers
which denied him full and equal access similar to that of sighted
individuals. Specifically, the Plaintiff was unable to find the
locations and hours of operation of the Defendant's gas stations on
its Website due to the access barriers which he has encountered
during his numerous visits to the Website, most recently in 2021,
while attempting to navigate the site.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because of its failure to provide
visually impaired consumers with equal access to the Website as a
result of its failure to comply with Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.1.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates gas stations that owns the said
Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


CHOU TEAM: Parties Directed to File Class Cert. Plan by Feb. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erica Reiners v. Chou Team
Realty, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06587-SB-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order issuing a
revised class certification briefing schedule as follows:

   -- The parties are ordered to file, by no later than February
      5, 2021, a "Class Certification Plan," showing all
      anticipated activity and the corresponding date for each
      activity up to the date proposed for the hearing(s) on the
      motion(s).

   -- The proposed briefing schedule must allow for at least
      three weeks between the filing of the reply and the
      hearing. If the parties are not seeking to file the class
      certification motion(s) beyond May 24, 2021, they should
      file instead (by February 5) a proposed briefing schedule
      for the class certification motion(s).

   -- The parties should begin discovery immediately and should
      not assume that the Court will grant them more than 120
      days to file the class certification motion(s).

The Court has reviewed the Joint Rule 26(f) report and has decided
to issue a scheduling order that addresses only class certification
at this point.

The complaint was filed on July 23, 2020. Defendant Nesheiwat filed
a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2020. The Defendants Chou, Van
Loon, Cowell and MonsterLoans filed answers on October 30, 2020,
while Defendants Lend Tech Loans and Martinez filed their answers
on December 21, 2020.

The parties should begin discovery immediately and should not
assume that the Court will grant them more than 120 days to file
the class certification motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sRmsxYat at no extra
charge.[CC]


CITIZENS BANK: Bid to Remand 1st Amended Palmer Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case, LAWRENCE PALMER, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS
BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06309-JSC (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated federal and
state credit reporting laws.  The Plaintiff, a California resident,
alleges that the Defendants obtained his credit information through
an unauthorized inquiry.

On Oct. 24, 2019, after reviewing his credit report from Equifax, a
credit reporting agency, the Plaintiff discovered that the
Defendants submitted unauthorized credit report inquiries to
Equifax.  The Plaintiff further alleges that the inquiries were
intended to "determine credit for the purposes of credit profiling,
data modeling" and make various types of promotional offerings, as
well as to share this information with other vendors, all without
his consent.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants
in San Francisco Superior Court on April 24, 2020, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.  On Aug. 19, 2020, he filed
a first amended complaint ("FAC"), alleging violations of the FCRA,
UCL, and the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code
Section 1785, et seq.

Citizens Bank filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441 on Sept. 4, 2020.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed
the instant motion to remand.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has alleged an
injury-in-fact under his FCRA claim and that, on this basis,
removal of the Plaintiff's FCRA claim is proper and with it the
FAC's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).

Magistrate Judge Corley agrees, holding that the Defendants have
met their burden of showing that removal is proper.  The FAC's
allegations are fatal to the Plaintiff's motion to remand.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(f)(1).  He also alleges that he suffered a measured invasion
of a legally protected interest when the Defendants accessed his
highly confidential personal information on his credit report at a
time when they had no right to do so, which is an invasion of his
right to privacy.

Regarding these allegations, Nayab v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,
942 F.3d 480, 490 (9th Cir. 2019) is unequivocal: A plaintiff has
standing to pursue his FCRA claim based on a defendant's alleged
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(f)(1), and the invasion of the
right to privacy in one's consumer credit report likewise confers
standing, the Magistrate Judge opines.

The Plaintiff's argument to the contrary is unavailing, the
Magistrate Judge finds.  The cases the Plaintiff cites in support
of the proposition that his FCRA claim should be remanded concern
procedural violations of the FCRA, rather than substantive
violations that confer Article III standing.  Therefore, the
Defendants' burden to show that removal is proper remains
satisfied.

For the reasons she set forth, Magistrate Judge Corley denied the
Plaintiff's motion to remand.  The Court will hold an initial case
management conference on Feb. 11, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom video.
A joint case management conference statement is due Feb. 4, 2021.

The Jan. 21, 2021 hearing is vacated.  The Order disposes of Dkt.
No. 23.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2xy9kzz from Leagle.com.


CLEANSPARK INC: Bishins Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BISHINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEANSPARK, INC.; ZACHARY BRADFORD; and LORI
LOVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00511 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021)
is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired CleanSpark securities between December 31,
2020 and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on January 14, 2021, Culper Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark
has "fabricated key elements of its business, including purported
customers and contracts" and that it is "rife with undisclosed
related party transactions." On this news, the Company's share
price fell $3.63, or 9%, to close at $35.71 per share on January
14, 2021, thereby damaging investors. The stock continued to
decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 13%, to close at
$31.15 per share on January 15, 2021, the suit says.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its
customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's
recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party
transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

CleanSpark, Inc. develops renewable energy projects. The Company
manages, constructs, installs, and maintains power plan projects.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007


CLEVELAND HEIGHTS: Laborers Union Local 860 Wins Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL UNION NO. 860
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL., v. CITY OF
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01136-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered an order:

   1. approving and conditionally certifying the following
      collective action:

      "all current or former employees covered under any
      collective bargaining agreement between the City of
      Cleveland Heights and Laborers' Local 860, or its
      predecessor, who, between January 1, 2017 and May 17,
      2019, worked more than 40 hours in a workweek one or more
      times and who are or were eligible for longevity
      payments;"

   2. approving the Notice and Consent Forms but directing the
      parties to update the response dates and time frames in
      the Notice in accordance with the date of this Order;

   3. directing the Defendant City of Cleveland Heights to
      produce the addresses of any potential putative class and
      collective action members within ten days of this Court's
      order; and

   4. directing the parties to submit an updated proposed
      schedule no later than January 19, 2021 that runs from the
      filing of this Order.

Cleveland Heights is a city in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Y6nND0 at no extra charge.[CC]

CURACAO LTD: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curacao, Ltd, et al.
The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Curacao, Ltd, a California limited
partnership and Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:21-cv-00112-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Curacao -- https://icuracao.com/ -- is a department chain store
with locations in California, Nevada and Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


DOORDASH INC: California Court Refuses to Toss Lona's Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled LONA'S
LIL EATS, LLC v. DOORDASH, INC., Case No. 20-cv-06703-TSH (N.D.
Cal.).

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff brings claims for
purported violations of the Lanham Act, California's false
advertising statute, and California's unfair competition statute,
alleging that the Defendant misrepresents to consumers that it
provides delivery and pick-up services for non-partner restaurants
and then misrepresents the restaurants are closed, do not offer
delivery services, or are unavailable for pick-up orders.

DoorDash is in the business of delivering food for restaurants via
its websites and mobile apps. It has partnerships with certain
restaurants around the country. Through these partnerships,
DoorDash takes online orders from customers using its websites or
mobile app, which orders are then relayed to the partner
restaurants. A customer who places an order using DoorDash's
platforms can select to have the food delivered by DoorDash or can
choose to pick it up themselves. If a customer wants delivery,
DoorDash will engage someone from its network of drivers to go to
the restaurant, pick up the order, and deliver it to the customer.
DoorDash then collects payments from the customer for these orders
and also withholds various commissions and fees from partner
restaurants in exchange for its services.

To the extent that it offers a mechanism to order food online and
then have it delivered or made available for pickup, DoorDash
competes directly with restaurants that offer their own online
delivery or pick-up services. DoorDash, which was recently valued
at $16 billion, has developed significant market power,
particularly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. With many
restaurants unable or unwilling to offer dine-in services, many
consumers have turned to DoorDash to order pickup or delivery in
lieu of dining out. DoorDash's market power is such that
restaurants are put in a difficult situation: they can become
partner restaurants and pay exorbitant fees and commissions to the
Defendant, or they decline to do so and risk losing out on sales.

Worse yet, DoorDash pressures non-partner restaurants by setting up
"landing pages" for them, which in some instances still are
available on its website and on its mobile app, according to the
complaint. The landing pages are displayed for the general public
to see, and DoorDash's marketing power is such that the landing
pages are often prioritized on internet search engines and
displayed even before the restaurants' own websites. These landing
pages are complete with DoorDash branding and usually show a
restaurant's full menu, even if the restaurant has no affiliation
with DoorDash and has not authorized the use of its information.
This facade of a connection signals to consumers that the landing
page for the non-partner restaurant is legitimate and can be relied
upon.

The Plaintiff alleges that on these landing pages, DoorDash
publishes false and misleading information about restaurants that
are not its partners, including restaurants being "closed" when
they were in fact open; being "unavailable" as "too far away" for
delivery; and being "unavailable" for pick-up orders when the
restaurant is in fact accepting pick-up orders. Each of these false
and misleading statements steers would-be customers of non-partner
restaurants' to DoorDash's partner restaurants, the Plaintiff
contends.

According to the complaint, Lona's is one such non-partner
restaurant. In June 2020, as the pandemic's effects were crippling
small-business restauranteurs, several customers informed Lona's
that it was being represented as closed online on DoorDash's
landing page for Lona's. If a consumer were to search for "Lona's
Lil Eats delivery," as a result of DoorDash's market power and
internet marketing strategies, then one of the first results
displayed was a link for Lona's on a DoorDash website. Lona's had
no relationship with DoorDash, so its website mock-up of a Lona's'
landing page is itself deceptive, let alone falsely representing
that Lona's was closed. Clicking through the link for Lona's would
bring a consumer to a page with DoorDash branding and Lona's'
complete menu, as if it were possible to place an order through the
site.

At some point thereafter, the false "closed" designation was
removed. Lona's lost business because of DoorDash's
misrepresentation, and there is nothing going forward preventing
DoorDash from again misrepresenting that Lona's and similarly
situated restaurants are closed.

Lona's three-count Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserts a claim of
false advertising under the Lanham Act Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1125(a); a violation of California False Advertising Law
("FAL"), California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500,
et seq.; and a violation of California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200,
et seq.

The Defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DoorDash argues first that Lona's has not alleged a false statement
with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). In Davidson v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d at 964 (9th Cir. 2018), to properly
plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b), a pleading must
identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct
charged, as well as what is false or misleading about the
purportedly fraudulent statement, and why it is false,

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson finds that Lona's alleges clearly
who made the statements (DoorDash) to whom (potential Lona's
customers), what the statements represented (Lona's was "closed,"
"unavailable," or "too far away"), where and how they were made (on
DoorDash's website and mobile app by leading customers to believe
DoorDash "had a business relationship" with Lona's), and when (June
2020, August 18, 2020, and November 11, 2020). Hence, the
specificity requirements of Rule 9(b) are met as to the allegedly
misleading statements. Judge Hixson also holds that Lona's has
adequately alleged that DoorDash's representations were made as
part of commercial advertising or promotion.

DoorDash argues that Lona's fails to offer any facts supporting its
claim that DoorDash's statements deceived consumers or had the
tendency to deceive. DoorDash also argues that Lona's' Lanham Act
fails because Lona's has not adequately pled injury.

Judge Hixson holds that Lona's has sufficiently pled deception to
maintain its Lanham Act claim and that Lona's has sufficiently
alleged a claim under the Lanham Act.

In addition to its Lanham Act false advertising claim, Lona's
alleges that DoorDash has violated California Unfair Competition
Law and California's False Advertising Law. DoorDash argues that
both these claims fail for the same three independent reasons: (1)
Lona's' Lanham Act claim fails; (2) Lona's lacks standing; and (3)
Lona's has not pled with specificity as required by Rule 9(b).

Since Lona's' Lanham Act claim is viable, DoorDash's first ground
is quickly disposed of, Judge Hixson rules. The Judge opines that a
non-consumer plaintiff can allege false advertising claims under
the UCL and FAL without alleging its own reliance, as long as the
plaintiff has alleged a sufficient causal connection. In this case,
Lona's has alleged an economic injury caused by DoorDash's
allegedly misleading or false advertising, and that is sufficient
for standing under the UCL and FAL.

Judge Hixson also finds that Lona's has plausibly alleged an FAL
claim, has pled a viable UCL claim, and has sufficiently alleged
standing for injunctive relief.

For these reasons, the Court denies DoorDash's Motion to Dismiss.

DoorDash will file its answer to Lona's' Amended Complaint within
14 days of the Order (not including the holiday).

The Court will conduct a telephonic Case Management Conference on
February 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The conference will be attended by
lead trial counsel. By February 11, 2021, the parties will file a
Joint Case Management Statement containing the information in the
Standing Order for All Judges in the Northern District of
California, available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/tshorders.The
Joint Case Management Statement form may be obtained at:
http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms.If the statement is e-filed,
no chambers copy is required.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 18, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyoxqmut from Leagle.com.


EASTERN WISCONSIN: Court Denies Partial Dismissal of Kapp TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON KAPP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASTERN WISCONSIN WATER
CONDITIONING CO and UNCO DATA SYSTEMS INC., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-286 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for partial
dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Kapp has filed a class action complaint alleging that
Defendant Unco Data Systems, Inc., an agent of Defendant Eastern
Wisconsin Water made prerecorded telemarketing calls to him (and
the other class members) without his prior written consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

After the matter was transferred to the Court from the Northern
District of Illinois, Kapp filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint that contains the following allegations.  Eastern
Wisconsin Water is a Minnesota Corporation that does business in
Wisconsin under the name "Culligan Water Conditioning of Waukesha,
Wisconsin" and that operates a local dealer in Waukesha.  Unco Data
is a professional software and technology company that provides
services, such as telephone advertising, to the water industry,
including Eastern Wisconsin Water.  As part of its services, Unco
transmits phone calls and leaves prerecorded messages on behalf of
Eastern Wisconsin Water that provide a call-back number for Eastern
Wisconsin Water's local dealer.

Mr. Kapp, a Wisconsin citizen residing in Wauwatosa, purchased a
home that had a Culligan water filtration system already installed.
Soon after purchasing the home, Kapp scheduled a maintenance
inspection of his Culligan water filtration system with Eastern
Wisconsin Water's Waukesha dealer. As part of the maintenance
inspection Kapp provided the Waukesha dealer with his home
telephone number.  However, Kapp did not sign any written agreement
consenting to receive calls using a prerecorded voice from the
Waukesha dealer or its affiliates.   A few years after purchasing
the home, Kapp discontinued the home water filtration service.

Despite discontinuing his filtration service, Kapp continued to
receive prerecorded calls from Unco to his home landline that left
the phone number for Eastern Wisconsin Water's Waukesha dealer.
The prerecorded message did not include an opt-out mechanism or
provide a toll-free number that permitted Kapp to make a
do-not-call request.  Kapp received similar, if not identical,
telephone calls in prior years after discontinuing the water
filtration system at his home.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges a single violation of the TCPA.
Specifically, the Third Amended Complaint alleges, the Defendants
initiated, or caused the initiation of, telephone calls that
introduced an advertisement or constituted telemarketing without
the prior express written consent of the called party and for no
emergency purpose in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227.  The Third
Amended Complaint further alleges, the Defendants' prerecorded or
artificial voice messages failed to clearly state the identity that
was responsible for initiating the calls and did not provide any
telephone number in the message permitting a do-not-call request
during regular business hours.  In addition to statutory damages
the Third Amended Complaint seeks treble damages under 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(3)(C) for the Defendants' alleged "willful or
knowing" violation of the TCPA.

On Aug. 26, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for partial
dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).  They argue that the Third Amended Complaint should be
dismissed to the extent it added allegations relating to 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(b) because those regulations apply to 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(d) and there is no private right of action under that
subsection of the TCPA.

Read as a whole, Magistrate Judge holds that the Third Amended
Complaint does not purport to state a claim for relief for the
Defendants' alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(d) or its
implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b).  The Third
Amended Complaint does not mention subsection (d) of the TCPA.
While it does quote 47 U.S.C. Section 64.1200(b)(1)-(3) and contain
allegations related to those regulations, it is clear from the
Third Amended Complaint that Kapp is seeking relief only under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b).  In other words, Kapp's claim under Section
227(b) does not include a claim under Section 227(d) in disguise,
as the Defendants contend.

Because the Third Amended Complaint does not purport to state a
claim for relief under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(d) or 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(b), and because the Defendants do not dispute that
the Third Amended Complaint plausibly states a claim under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b), their motion for partial dismissal is
denied.

As an alternative to partial dismissal, the Defendants argue that
the Court should strike the paragraphs in the Third Amended
Complaint that relate to 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b) because there
is no private right of action under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(d) and
those allegations are immaterial and impertinent to a claim under
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b).  They maintain that they would be unduly
prejudiced if Kapp were allowed discovery into those allegations.  
Kapp argues that the allegations relating to 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(b) are relevant to whether Defendants' conduct in violation
of the TCPA was 'willful or knowing,' which, if true, would permit
treble damages.

The allegations in the Third Amended Complaint that relate to 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b) are immaterial to Kapp's claim under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b), the Judge finds.  He says it is undisputed
that there is no private cause of action under 47 U.S.C. Section
227(d), the subsection of the TCPA that authorizes the regulations
found at 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b).  Moreover, Kapp acknowledges
that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a claim for
relief only under subsection (b). The allegations relating to 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b) therefore have no bearing on Kapp's claim
that the Defendants' calls violated Section 227(b).

The fact that Kapp seeks treble damages for these alleged
violations does not change this conclusion, according to the
Court's Decision & Order.   Removing the unnecessary clutter from
the case would therefore expedite, not delay, the matter.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 27, 44,
50, 65c, 65d, 78, 81, 85, and 86 of the Third Amended Complaint is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy2mzezp from Leagle.com.


ECOLAB INC: Franchini Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDNA FRANCHINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECOLAB INC., Defendant, Case No. 2021L000059
(Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks to put a stop to its
unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the Class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant failed to inform its employees of the complete
purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric data or to
whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to obtain their
knowing consent to use their biometric data.

Ecolab Inc. is a global provider of water, hygiene, and infection
prevention solutions for customers in food, healthcare,
hospitality, industrial and oil and gas markets. The Company's
services include food safety, sanitation, optimization of water and
energy use, improvement of operational efficiency and
sustainability. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Fish, Esq.
     Mara Baltabols, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
     200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Tel: (630) 355-7590
     Fax: (630) 778-0400
     E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             mara@fishlawfirm.com


FARRIN PC: Garey Asks Court to Amend Order Nixing Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PARKER GAREY, et
al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C. d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, et.
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-542-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order to amend its July 23, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order, to:

   -- as the primary relief requested, certify all classes
      except the Hardison Class, or,

   -- in the alternative, to certify the Lanier Class, the
      Marcari/Riddle Class, the Van Laningham Class, the Crumley
      Class, and the DeMayo Class (including all subclasses) in
      connection with DMV-349 crash reports obtained from the
      CMPD.

James S. Farrin, P.C. operates as a law firm.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to amend order denying class
certification dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sTJR1P at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert P. Holmes, Esq.
          WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC
          3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 844-0400
          E-mail: rob@whiteandstradley.com

GEICO GENERAL: Munoz, et al. Directed to Amend Class Cert. Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martisha Ann Munoz, et al
v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct their Reply
in Support of Class Certification that they brought per the
Parties' agreement.

On June 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging breach of
contract claims against GEICO. The Plaintiffs obtained GEICO
private passenger automobile physical damage insurance policies,
which included comprehensive and collision coverage Geico operates
as an insurance company. The Plaintiffs allege that GEICO failed to
pay the actual cash value for the total loss claims of the
Plaintiffs and others in the putative class.

A copy of the Court's order granting the plaintiffs' updated motion
to amend dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Y8wFYD at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Mallory Morales, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  mmorales@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: service@ednormand.com
                  ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq
          Joshua A. Fields, Esq
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jf@kirtlandpackard.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave, Ste 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Farooq Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMEER FAROOQ, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC
d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-001170 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., January 19, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for their
alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff in attempt to collect an alleged debt, which is a
time-barred debt, in that, the creditor of the debt cannot sue the
Plaintiff to recover or otherwise collect the alleged debt.
However, the Defendant failed to disclose those facts in its
collection letter. Also, the Defendant falsely states that the
Plaintiff promised to pay the alleged debt on July 26, 2019, the
suit says.

The Defendant violated Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692f of
the FDCPA by failing to sufficiently inform the Plaintiff that the
alleged debt was absolutely time-barred.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, and any other relief that the Court deem
appropriate under the circumstances.

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC d/b/a ARS Account Resolution
Services is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


HEAVENLY VALLEY: Heggen Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADAM HEGGEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HEAVENLY VALLEY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. SC20200150, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of El
Dorado to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on January 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00107-WBS-DB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
provide compliant wage statements, failure to pay timely wages upon
employment termination and during employment, failure to maintain
accurate payroll records, and unfair competition.

Heavenly Valley, Limited Partnership is a company that operates
public hotels and motels, headquartered in Nevada. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Evan R. Moses, Esq.
         Melis Atalay, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                 melis.atalay@ogletree.com

HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Puerto Rico's Auto Parts Antitrust Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (Air Flow Meters). GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO, Plaintiff
v. HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LTD., HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
AMERICAS, INC., DENSO CORP., and DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 13-cv-2005, 20-cv-11208 (E.D. Mich.).

The center of the case is the car part known as an air flow meter.
True to its name, the equipment measures the volume of air flowing
into engines.  These engine parts are the focus of the latest part
of the multidistrict antitrust litigation.  In the instant
litigation related to air flow meters, the Government of Puerto
Rico filed a complaint last year.

Puerto Rico seeks at least $50 million under a state-law unjust
enrichment claim as well as injunctive relief under the federal
Clayton Act.  Puerto Rico alleges in its complaint that the
combination and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their
coconspirators allowed them to be unjustly enriched at the expense
of the consumers and governmental agencies of Puerto Rico.

In response, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They make three arguments in
support of its motion to dismiss.  First, they assert that Puerto
Rico fails to state a claim for injunctive relief under the Clayton
Act; there is no threat of injury from an impending antitrust
violation and, even if there were one, the suit would be too late.
Second, the Defendants argue that Puerto Rico's unjust enrichment
claim is barred by state law.  Finally, the Government of Puerto
Rico does not have standing to assert these claims on behalf of its
citizens, they say.  On all three points, Puerto Rico disagrees.

The parties have briefed the issues, and the Court held a Zoom
hearing on Jan. 7, 2021.

Judge Cox first considers whether Puerto Rico has standing to bring
suit at all.  Although it is questionable, he assumes that Puerto
Rico has standing and continues to the merits.

For unjust enrichment, there are five elements to an unjust
enrichment action under Puerto Rico law: 1) existence of
enrichment; 2) a correlative loss; 3) nexus between loss and
enrichment; 4) lack of cause for enrichment; and 5) absence of a
legal precept excluding application of enrichment without cause.
The Defendants say that one does: The Puerto Rico Antitrust Act
("PRAA").  Puerto Rico responds that the PRAA is not an available
avenue because indirect purchasers cannot use it to sue.

The Judge opines that there is a legal precept that forbids Puerto
Rico to recover damages as an indirect purchaser.  So the principle
of unjust enrichment does not apply.  The Supreme Court has held
that indirect purchasers generally may not sue for damages under
federal antitrust laws, citing Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431
U.S. 720, 745-48 (1977).  Some states have passed statutes
expressly permitting such suits under state law.  But as Puerto
Rico acknowledges, its government has not done so.

The vast majority of courts rightly hold that unjust enrichment may
not supply a valid cause of action in states where plaintiffs are
otherwise barred from recovery under relevant antitrust and
consumer protection statutes.  After all, unjust enrichment is an
equitable remedy, and it would be inequitable to permit relief
where the state has clearly made a policy determination that no
such relief should lie.  Puerto Rico's position amounts to an
attempt to circumvent Illinois Brick, which confined antitrust
claims to direct purchasers, in the absence of a showing that such
a recovery is allowed.

Puerto Rico's argument for injunctive relief also fails, the Judge
holds.  The Clayton Act authorizes suits against threatened loss or
damage by a violation of the antitrust laws.  In its brief, Puerto
Rico argues that the Defendants' conspiracy was an unreasonable
restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce and that the
Court should preclude the Defendants from continuing the illegal
activity.

As a threshold question, the Judge questions whether any illegal
activity is still occurring.  The complaint says that illegal
conduct lasted "from at least as early as January 2000 and
continuing until at least February 2010."  But that was more than a
decade ago.  Indeed, the Defendants' motion to dismiss clearly
shows that Puerto Rico's complaint mostly copies allegations made
in 2013.  Having not plausibly pleaded a contemporary harm in its
complaint, Puerto Rico cannot continue to search for one.

The Defendants also state that any injunctive claim would be
time-barred under the doctrine of laches.  Since they have a
winning argument on the merits, however, the Judge does not
consider the alternative assertion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5w9wadv from Leagle.com.


HM CLAUSE INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HM. Clause, Inc. The
case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. HM. Clause, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00514 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

HM. Clause Inc. -- https://hmclause.com/ -- produced and
distributes vegetable seeds. The Company offers multi species,
broccoli, carrot, pumpkin, tomato, and watermelon seed products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


HOME CITY: Pansiera Has Until April 15 to File Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pansiera v. The Home City
Ice Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-01042 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Timothy S. Black entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to
      move for class certification; and

   2. vacating the Calendar Order:

      -- Motion for class certification due April 15, 2021;

      -- Response due May 6, 2021; and

      -- Reply due May 20, 2021.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff indicates the motion is opposed;
however, the Defendant The Home City Ice Company did not respond in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion."

The nature of suit states 370 Torts -- Personal Property involving
Diversity-Fraud.

Home City Ice is a food production company that produces ice
products.[CC]

INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Expedited Discovery in Young Suit Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALTAMESE YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE COMMUNITIES,
LLC, AND BELLEVILLE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & NURSING CENTER, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-00244-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate
Judge Mark A. Beatty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois granted the Plaintiff's motion to allow
expedited jurisdictional discovery and to stay the deadline to file
a motion for remand; and granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to stay all proceedings.

Plaintiff Young filed her class action complaint in the 20th
Judicial Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois, on Oct. 23,
2019.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by using a
timekeeping system that allegedly collected, stored, and used the
biometric identifiers and biometric information of the Plaintiff
and the individuals employed by the Defendants without first
informing and obtaining those individuals' consent, as required by
BIPA.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Integrity Healthcare is a
management company that provides services for Defendant Belleville
Health and other "Integrity" long term care facilities in Illinois.
She herself is a former employee of Defendant Belleville Health
and alleges that the Defendants directed her and other employees to
scan their hands in a biometric timekeeping system to clock in and
out of their jobs.

The Plaintiff brings the suit on behalf of herself and a putative
class of individuals who also scanned their hands in the biometric
time clock system at one Integrity Healthcare facility in Illinois
starting from around Oct. 16, 2014 to the present.

Defendant Belleville Behavioral Health removed the case on March 4,
2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446, arguing
that removal was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  In its notice of removal, Defendant Belleville
Behavioral Health argues that the aforementioned CAFA requirements
are met, as approximately 20 putative class members are citizens of
the State of Missouri.  As Defendant Belleville argues that both
the Defendants are citizens of Illinois, these potential class
members who are also citizens of Missouri are necessary for removal
to federal court pursuant to CAFA's minimal diversity provision.

On April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to allow expedited
jurisdictional discovery and to stay the deadline to remand.  In
the supporting memorandum, she argues that an exception to CAFA,
called the "home state" or "local controversy" exception, likely
applies to the present matter as more than two-thirds of the
potential Plaintiff class members are citizens of Illinois.  The
Plaintiff argues that because the Defendants possess records
relevant to this exception, the Court should permit her to conduct
expedited jurisdictional discovery into the citizenship status of
potential class members to determine whether the home state
exception applies to the present matter.

On May 29, 2020, Defendant Belleville Behavioral Health filed an
amended notice of removal, expanding its basis for removal by
citing to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA") as an additional basis for the Court's jurisdiction.  It
argued that while the Plaintiff herself is not a member of a union,
the majority of the employees and the majority of those who used
the timekeeping system at issue during the five years prior to the
filing of the Plaintiff's Complaint are members of a union.  It
argues that the Plaintiff's class claim is subject to federal
preemption under Section 301 of LMRA, which places the case firmly
in federal court jurisdiction regardless of any potential issues
with CAFA and the home state exception.

That same day, the Defendants filed their response to the
Plaintiff's motion to allow expedited jurisdictional discovery,
arguing that any potential issues with removal pursuant to CAFA and
the home state exception are no longer relevant as the case was
properly removed pursuant to the LMRA. They argue that precedent is
explicit in that LMRA preempts CAFA, so further jurisdictional
discovery is unnecessary.

The Plaintiff filed a reply brief on June 5, 2020, in which she
argued that questions of jurisdiction and the Court's analysis of
whether it has jurisdiction over the present matter pursuant to the
LMRA relies on the named Plaintiff's claims and not the claims of
potential members of an uncertified class.  Therefore, the Court
should consider her request for expedited jurisdictional discovery
as the LMRA does not apply to her claims.

While the parties briefed these issues related to federal subject
matter jurisdiction, the Defendants filed their own motion to stay
all proceedings on May 11, 2020.  In the motion, they requested a
full stay of the proceedings or, in the alternative, an extension
of time in which to file their responsive pleadings.  They argued
that an analogous state appellate court case was in the process of
being decided that could shed light on the issues in the present
matter.  The Plaintiff filed her response in opposition to the
motion on May 26, 2020.

The core issue before the Court is whether the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the present matter.  The Defendants argue
that the Court does, first through CAFA and then the LMRA, and
argues the LMRA preempts any issues that could be present with
removal pursuant to CAFA.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand,
believes that the LMRA does not apply and that the home state
expectation of CAFA may apply, which, if it does, would require the
Court to remand the present matter to state court.  As the
Defendants are correct in that the LMRA would preempt any issues
with removal pursuant to CAFA, Magistrate Judge Beatty begins his
analysis there.

The Magistrate Judge is persuaded by the Northern District's
analysis in Darty v. Columbia Rehabilitation and Nursing Center,
LLC, 468 F.Supp.3d 992, 994-995 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 2020).  In the
present matter, Plaintiff Young is not part of a union and while
the Defendants argue that the majority of the class members that
will join her are members of a union, this is purely speculative at
this moment as the Plaintiff has not yet identified the class
members.  The Defendants have not supported their argument with
applicable case law and, as such, the Magistrate Judge finds that
the Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA
because she was not a member of a union during her employment with
the Defendants.

The Magistrate Judge then finds that the totality of the case law
persuades him to grant the Plaintiff's motion.  While he is
satisfied that the elements of CAFA are met, it is still unclear as
to whether the home state exception applies.

At first blush, the Magistrate Judge notes, it appears the case
would be a prime example of the home state exception.  At the same
time, this is a narrow exception that was "carefully drafted to
ensure that it does not become a jurisdictional loophole."  While
it appears the home state exception may be in play in the case, the
party invoking it must submit evidence as to the citizenship of the
putative class members.  Accordingly, as the Plaintiff has that
burden, she has requested the Court grants her leave to conduct
expedited jurisdictional discovery.  Whether to allow
jurisdictional discovery is within the discretion of the Court.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to
allow expedited jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the
CAFA home state exception applies to the present matter.  The
Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion to remand is stayed pending
jurisdictional discovery.

Turning to the Defendants' Motion to Stay all Proceedings, the
Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional
discovery because he must first ensure the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the present matter.  As such, he granted in part
the Defendants' motion.  The deadline for the Defendants'
responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's complaint is stayed for the
duration of the jurisdictional discovery.  Should the case remain
in the District following the parties' jurisdictional discovery and
the Plaintiff's potential motion to remand, the Defendants'
responsive pleading will be due 21 days following the Court's order
on any motion to remand and responsive briefing from the
Defendants.

The Court will set the matter for a status conference by way of
separate notice to discuss the parameters of and timeline for
jurisdictional discovery.  Its separate notice will provide the
parties some guidance and a timeline for meeting and conferring in
an effort to develop a joint discovery plan for submission to the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ecwudp from Leagle.com.


JAN AGHA CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARXLENIN GALINDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAN AGHA CORP. (D/B/A KENNEDY
FRIED CHICKEN); ABDULLAH NASAR; ABDOUL RAZIQ A.K.A. ABDUL KAYUM;
MOHAMMED DOE; NAJIT DOE; and ABU BAKARI, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00437 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Garcia was employed by the Defendants as cook and cashier.

Jan Agha Corp. owns and operates a fast food restaurant, located at
Bronx, NY, under the name "Kennedy Fried Chicken".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


JUUL LABS: Page Limit for Altria' Dismissal Bid Briefing Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This
Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered an order extending page
limits for briefing, and permitting filing of a Consolidated Motion
to Dismiss.

The parties jointly stipulate and agree, subject to the Court's
approval, to an extension of the page limit for the opening brief
in support of the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Altria Group, Inc.
and Altria Enterprises LLC.

Under the current briefing schedule, the Altria Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss was due Jan. 15, 2021.  In the interest of efficiency,
the Altria Defendants should be permitted to file a single motion
arguing for dismissal of the Consolidated Class Action Complaints
filed by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs, and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs ("Antitrust
Plaintiffs").

The volume, scope and nature of the allegations and claims in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaints filed by the Antitrust
Plaintiffs, and the arguments likely to be raised in support of and
in opposition to the Altria Defendants' Motion to Dismiss require
additional pages beyond the ordinary page limit.

It is stipulated and agreed by the parties, through their counsel,
that:

   1. The Altria Defendants will be permitted to file a single
      Motion to Dismiss in response to the Consolidated Class
      Action Complaints filed by the Antitrust Plaintiffs;

   2. The Altria Defendants will be permitted to file an opening
      brief of no more than 50 pages in support of that motion;

   3. The Altria Defendants and the Antitrust Plaintiffs will
      meet and confer regarding the commensurate number of pages
      for and any consolidation of the Antitrust Plaintiffs'
      opposition briefs after Antitrust Plaintiffs have had an
      opportunity to receive and assess the forthcoming motions;
      and

   4. The Altria Defendants and Antitrust Plaintiffs will also
      meet and confer regarding any potential enlargements to the
      Altria Defendants' reply brief.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Orrick so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yymb8aoo from Leagle.com.

Beth Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- (pro hac
vice), James Rosenthal -- jrosenthal@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- (pro
hac vice), Rakesh Kilaru -- rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- (pro
hac vice), J.J. Snidow -- jsnidow@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- (pro hac
vice), WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Moira Penza -- mpenza@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- (pro hac vice),
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP, in New York City.

Rahul Hari -- rhari@wilkinsonstekloff.com -- WILKINSON STEKLOFF
LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Counsel for Defendants Altria
Group, Inc. and Altria Enterprises LLC.


KATE BROWN: Class Certification Bid Response Due Jan. 28
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Maney, et al. v. Kate
Brown et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570 (D. Oreg.), the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered a scheduling order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' class certification motion regarding
      vaccines is to be filed on or before Jan. 21, 2021;

   2. The Defendants' Response is due by Jan. 28, 2021; and

   3. Oral Argument is set for Tuesday, 2/2/2021, at 10:00 AM in
      Portland by telephone before Magistrate Judge Stacie F.
      Beckerman.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus -
Prison Condition alleging violation of the Prisoner Civil
Rights.[CC]

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Joe Baltas Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joe Baltas v. Keefe
Commissary Network LLC, et al. Case No. 1:21-cv-10105-ADB (D.
Mass,), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting this
action class certification as all proposed members suffered
identical injury and are entitled to identical relief.

Keefe Commissary is the nation's leading provider of automated
commissary management services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2Nq24niat
no extra charge.[CC]

L'OREAL USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Chu Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC.; L'OREAL USA, INC.
d/b/a ATELIER COLOGNE; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00471-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.ateliercologne.com/us_en/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff, the suit says.

Forma Group, LLC owns and operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thiago Coelho, Esq.
           Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
           WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
           3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90010
           Telephone: (213) 381-9988
           Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
           E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                   jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


LIVEONNY INC: Henix's Bid for Summary Judgment in Wage Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AVERY HENIX, ANTHONY WARE, Plaintiffs v. LIVEONNY,
INC., Defendant, Docket No. 158222/2016 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Barbara
Jaffe of the New York County Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment.

By summons and amended complaint dated Sept. 29, 2016, the
Plaintiffs commenced the class action alleging that they and the
class, composed of tissue recovery specialists ("TRSs") who worked
for the Defendant for the six-year before the filing of the action,
were not paid proper wages. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that they were not properly paid for their travel and "on-call"
time, and were not provided with accurate wage statements under the
Labor Law.

A job description for TRSs, prepared by the Defendant, dated July
2003 and revised October 2008, reflects that TRSs are tasked with
traveling to various hospitals and recovery facilities to aid in
"tissue recovery."  TRSs were classified as exempt under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  It provides that TRSs are to carry a
pager during all scheduled on-call hours and respond within 15
minutes, and to arrive at the hospital on time for the scheduled
recovery.

The Defendant's per diem tissue recovery pay rules, effective May
15, 2016, reflect that TRSs were paid by the hour.  The Defendant
contends that TRSs were paid pursuant to their agreement that
provided for piece-rate compensation and included regular,
overtime, and travel pay.  It argues that before May 2015, TRSs
were paid at least $305 per job, which would have required them to
work more than 20 hours for each job to earn below a minimum wage
of $15, and it is undisputed that they never worked more than 20
hours on a job.  Thus, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs'
pre-May 2015 wage and hour claims fail.  It also observes that the
Plaintiffs voluntarily entered into the piece-rate employment
agreement and that the arrangement was long-standing.

Affidavits from various class members reflect that up until May 15,
2016, they were paid a flat rate per case, and thereafter, hourly.
The class members deny having been paid for travel time to and from
hospitals and for the time spent on call.  The Plaintiffs contend
that the Defendant, in violation of the Labor Law, failed to pay
them for their travel and on-call time, and unlawfully provided
them with inaccurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant misclassified them and the
class as exempt under the FLSA until May 15, 2016, and that before
then, they were only paid a flat fee per case and no overtime.
Once they were classified as non-exempt, the Plaintiffs argue, the
Defendant started paying them hourly with overtime for certain
hours worked over 40 in a week, but failed to consider travel time
when calculating whether they worked 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiffs contend that the type of travel that TRSs undertook
is compensable and that the Defendant's standard operating
procedure and pay statements dated after May 2016 reflect that it
agrees that travel time is compensable. They maintain that their
on-call time is compensable, observing that the Defendant includes
on-call time as part of the job description.  Moreover, the
Plaintiffs assert, the Defendant places restrictions of TRSs while
on call.  These restrictions, they contend, require them to be
ensure that they are located in areas accessible by cellphone at
all time.

By decision and order dated May 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was granted, and a class of the following
persons was certified: All current and former TRSs who worked for
Defendant in the State of New York during the Class Period and who
(a) were not compensated for all time spent traveling to jobs and
between jobs; (b) were not compensated for all time spent on-call;
(c) were not paid at their straight or agreed upon rate for all
hours worked under forty (40) hours in a week; (d) were not paid
overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over forty (40) in a week; (e) were not paid spread of
hours pay and/or (f) were not provided accurate wage statements.

By notice of motion, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
the class, move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an order awarding them
summary judgment.  The Defendant opposes.

Judge Jaffe first examines whether TRS travel time compensable.
She finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that they engaged in
any other activity related to tissue recovery while traveling.
Rather, they moved from one place to another.  Thus, the Plaintiffs
fail to meet their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement
to compensation for travel time.

That TRSs accepted another job immediately after the conclusion of
another job does not render the travel between work locations
compensable.  It is immaterial that TRSs may have been required to
travel long distances, or that they were reimbursed by their
employer for mileage and gas.  As the Plaintiffs fail to meet their
prima facie burden, the Judge holds that sufficiency of the
Defendant's opposition is immaterial.

The Judge then determines whether the TRS on-call time is
compensable.  She finds that the Plaintiffs also fail to
demonstrate prima facie that their time spent on-call is
compensable.  Pursuant to 12 NYCRR Section 142.21(b), employers are
required to compensate employees for time the employee is required
to be available for work at a place prescribed by the employer.

The pertinent question is whether the employee was "engaged to
wait," for which the time would be compensable, or "waiting to be
engaged," for which the time would be non-compensable.  The
Plaintiffs' evidence reflects that they were waiting to be engaged,
as the restrictions placed on them while on-call were minimal and
allowed them freedom to use their time for personal activities,
such as going to dinner, grocery shopping, etc.

As the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to
compensation for their travel and on-call time, and their
inaccurate wage statements claim is premised on that compensation,
they too fail to demonstrate prima facie their entitlement to
summary judgment on their inaccurate wage statements claim.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Jaffe denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Decision + Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6btncvk from Leagle.com.


LIZHI INC: Faces Gutman Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
YOAV GUTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIZHI INC.; JINNAN LAI; NING DING; ZELONG
LI; XI CHEN; TAO HUANG; YE YUAN; RICHARD ARTHUR; COLLEEN A. DE
VRIES; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; HAITONG INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED; AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC; TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED; CHINA MERCHANTS
SECURITIES (HK) CO. LIMITED; VALUABLE CAPITAL LIMITED; PRIME NUMBER
CAPITAL LLC; and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00317 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Lizhi American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the
Company's January 17, 2020 initial public offering, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on August 6, 2019, Lizhi filed with the
SEC a confidential draft registration statement on Form F-1, which,
incorporating and in combination with related documents on Form
F-6, and filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), would be used for the
IPO following a series of amendments in response to SEC comments.
The SEC provided comments emphasizing the importance of adequately
disclosing material trends and risk factors, as required by Items
303 and 105. Following subsequent amendments, the registration
statement was declared effective on January 16, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"). Thereafter, on January 17, 2020, Lizhi
filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and
with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

The Offering Documents used to effectuate Lizhi's IPO and secure
this enormous sum for the Defendants from Plaintiff and the Class
were negligently prepared and, as a result, allegedly contained
untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.
Specifically, the Offering Documents failed to disclose Lizhi's
direct and escalating exposure to the devastating coronavirus
epidemic, then already raging in China and engulfing its business,
customers, and employees at the time of the IPO, the suit says.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) at the time
of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the home
base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its
employees, and its customers; (2) the complications associated with
the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business,
as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment,
or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and
monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior
to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to,
Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial
condition and prospects; and (4) as a result, the Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.

Lizhi Inc. operates a mobile application 'Lizhi" to create, store,
share, discover, and enjoy audio. The Company also provides online
user generated content audio community, interactive audio
entertainment platform, audio artificial intelligence technologies,
and other services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Galindo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAFAEL GALINDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV45322, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on January 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00551 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wage due to
discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to indemnify for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties, and unfair and unlawful business practices.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a privately held medical
staffing company headquartered in Columbia, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                   
         John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue
         Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com

                 - and –

         Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (949) 399-7000
         Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
         E-mail: alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com

MDL 2903: Court Presents Class Cert. Rulings in "Sleeper" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER, MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No.
1:19-md-2903), Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford enters the following order to
memorialize the rulings on class-certification discovery issues
raised in the parties' January 12, 2021 Joint Status Report.

   -- YouTube Videos Advertising the Rock 'n Play Sleeper

      The court is satisfied that Defendants made a reasonable
      search and have produced available video material,
      including YouTube videos. No further production or
      explanation is required from the Defendants on this issue
      at this time.

   -- Packaging for the Rock 'n Play Sleeper / Point of Purchase
      Advertisements

      The Defendants are required to supply Plaintiffs with a
      compiled list of stock-keeping units (SKUs) for the
      products at issue and to identify for Plaintiffs which
      mechanical drawings are associated with each SKU.
      Production shall occur within 30 days.

   -- Discovery from Mattel/Fisher-Price Media Team

      The court is satisfied that the Defendants' searches -- an
      original search of outward-facing statements that was not
      custodian-specific, and a second search using search terms
      for email custodians -- sufficiently captured materials
      from Defendants' "media team." No further production or
      explanation is required from the Defendants on this issue
      at this time.

   -- Congressional Productions / Privilege Log


      Within seven days of the January 14, 2021 status
      conference, the Defendants shall supply the Plaintiffs
      with a cross-reference sheet that enables the Plaintiffs
      to determine whether the Defendants' production in this
      case fully reproduces the production to Congress.

      The Defendants shall obtain and share with Plaintiffs a
      letter from Covington & Burling LLP on that firm's
      letterhead indicating whether that firm prepared or
      produced a privilege log in association with its
      production to Congress. The letter shall be provided
      within seven days.

   -- Reopening of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

      The Plaintiffs are entitled to reopen the Rule 30(b)(6)
      deposition for a period not exceeding 90 minutes solely to
      address the topic of "influencers" in Defendants' social
      media advertising and the guidelines issued to those
      "influencers."

   -- Productions Made in Wrongful-Death Cases

      Counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case are authorized to
      contact counsel for the plaintiffs in related wrongful-
      death cases and request documents produced in those cases.
      Any such documents produced to the Plaintiffs must be in
      accordance with the applicable protective order and
      process in the related case, and Plaintiffs must produce
      copies to Defendants.

   -- Remaining Issues

      A. Experts

         At the January 14, 2021 status conference, the
         Plaintiffs shared the name of the damages expert they
         have hired. The Defendants have agreed to share the
         names of its experts after reviewing the Plaintiffs'
         class certification motion, which is due on February 8,
         2021.

      B. Next Status Conference
         The court will schedule a further status conference in
         mid-spring 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c7p0SA at no extra charge.[CC]

MIKE BLOOMBERG: Abed's Bid to Certify Class Continued to Feb. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramzi Abed, et al., v.
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02231-CBM-JC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order
continuing the plaintiff's motion to certify class and scheduling
conference, currently scheduled for January 26, 2021, to February
2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is located in New York and is part of the
Membership Organizations Industry.

A copy of the civil minutes -- general dated Jan. 20, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ogHqD1 at no
extra charge.[CC]

MRSS HOSPITALITY: Esquivel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRSS HOSPITALITY,
INC. The case is styled as Maria G. Esquivel, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. MRSS HOSPITALITY, INC., a California
corporation, Case No. BCV-21-100131 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Jan.
20, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

MRSS HOSPITALITY INC is in the Hotels and Motels industry in
Bakersfield, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
          SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd #1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 818-473-5003


MURAD LLC: Daly Consumer Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DALY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MURAD, LLC, Case No. 2020-CH-07174, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00339 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of express
warranties by mislabeling and misrepresenting its Clarifying
Oil-Free Water Gel products.

Murad, LLC is a manufacturer of skin care products, headquartered
in El Segundo, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Michael Duvall, Esq.
         Marilyn Rosen, Esq.
         DENTONS US LLP
         233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 876-8000
         E-mail: Michael.duvall@dentons.com
                 Marilyn.rosen@dentons.com

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Luka Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON LUKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-60130 (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated delivery drivers overtime premiums for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Luka was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver.

National Delivery Solutions, LLC is a courier logistics company,
headquartered in Estero, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
         PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
         3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 544-8900
         Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
         E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com

NEH INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEH Inc. The case is
styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. NEH Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00513
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Neh, Inc. was founded in 2000. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of electrometallurgical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


NESPRESSO USA: Baber Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM BABER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NESPRESSO USA, INC.; NESTLE USA, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06533, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on January 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00487-JSC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
failure to pay all wages owed every pay period, failure to pay all
wages upon separation, and unfair competition.

Nespresso USA, Inc. is a company that provides coffee machines and
accessories, with its principal place of business located in Long
Island City, New York.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a food and beverage company based in Arlington,
Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Linda Claxton, Esq.
         Kathleen J. Choi, Esq.
         Melis Atalay, Esq.
         Sage S. Stone, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
                 kathleen.choi@ogletree.com
                 melis.atalay@ogletree.com
                 sage.stone@ogletree.com

NEW JERSEY: Summary Judgment in Fischer Teachers Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SUSAN G. FISCHER; JEANETTE SPECK, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY;
NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION. ANN SMITH; KARL HEDENBERG; MELISSA POULSON; MICHAEL
SANDBERG; LEONARDO SANTIAGO; and RACHEL CURCIO, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. NEW JERSEY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION; CLEARVIEW EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; HARRISON TOWNSHIP
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; KINGSWAY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, as
representatives of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the
New Jersey Education Association; NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION;
CLEARVIEW REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION;
HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION; KINGSWAY REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, as representatives of the class of all
school boards in New Jersey; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; JOEL M.
WEISBLATT; PAUL BOUDREAU; PAULA B. VOOS; JOHN BONANNI; DAVID JONES,
in their official capacities as chairman and members of the New
Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, Appellants in Case
Nos. 19-3914, 19-3995, 19-3914, 19-3995 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
grant of summary judgment to all the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are New Jersey public school teachers who paid dues
and other fees to the state teachers' union, the New Jersey
Education Association ("NJEA").  Most Plaintiffs notified NJEA that
they wished to disaffiliate from the union and terminate all
payments to it.  NJEA allowed the Plaintiffs to disaffiliate and to
opt out of the payments, but only after the lapse of waiting
periods set forth in a state statute and/or in their
union-membership agreements.  The Plaintiffs assert that the
waiting periods are unconstitutional under Janus v. American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 138 S.Ct.
2448, 2486 (2018).

The Plaintiffs sued the state governor and NJEA on behalf of
putative classes under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the
Defendants violated Janus by collecting union dues from them
without their consent and after they indicated that they wished to
terminate all such payments and seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment
that the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act ("WDEA") and
Defendants' revocation practices are unconstitutional, (2) an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing that  statute and
those practices, and (3) monetary damages for the dues that they
paid after they submitted their resignation notices.

Following targeted discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary
judgment.  The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motions,
granted the Defendants' motions, and dismissed the case. The Court
held that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge
the WDEA because (1) its 10-day notice requirement "was not
enforced against the Plaintiffs as written," and (2) its 30-day
effective date permitted the Plaintiffs "to resign their union
memberships earlier than they otherwise would have been entitled
to" under their membership agreements, and so the statute did not
cause Plaintiffs any injury.

The District Court also rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that
Janus requires public-sector unions to obtain waivers of their
First Amendment rights before collecting dues from members.  It
held that the Plaintiffs have a right to resign from the union and
cease paying union dues, but Janus does not serve to invalidate
their previously signed membership agreements or, concurrently, the
restrictions in those agreements relating to the effective date of
a membership-resignation notice.

The Plaintiffs appeal.

The Third Circuit affirms the District Court's holding that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the WDEA after
examining the Plaintiffs' standing to challenge the WDEA in two
parts: first, their standing to challenge the provision relating to
the 10-day notice period and, second, their standing to challenge
the provision relating to the 30-day waiting period.

The Court opines that the 10-day period had no impact on the
Plaintiffs.  Put differently, to the extent that these Plaintiffs
have suffered any financial injury, the 10-day notice provision of
the WDEA was not the cause of it.  They therefore lack standing to
recover damages as part of their statutory challenge.  Poulson,
Sandberg, and Santiago also lack standing to seek injunctive relief
against enforcement of the 10-day notice requirement because, at
the time that their complaint was filed, there was no imminent and
certain risk that the 10-day requirement would be enforced against
them.

The Court further opines that absent enforcement of the WDEA's
30-day provision, these Plaintiffs would have sustained a greater
injury because they would have had to wait three months longer
before the withdrawal of union dues would have stopped.  Under
these circumstances, the Fischer Plaintiffs, Poulson, and Santiago
cannot establish that the WDEA's 30-day provision is the cause of
their injuries.

The Third Circuit also affirms the District Court's conclusion that
the Plaintiffs' challenge to their membership agreements fails.
The Plaintiffs chose to enter into membership agreements with NJEA,
rather than abstain from membership and, instead, pay nonmember
agency fees.  They did so in exchange for valuable consideration.
By signing the agreements, the Plaintiffs assumed the risk that
subsequent changes in the law could alter the cost-benefit balance
of their bargain.  Because Janus does not abrogate or supersede the
Plaintiffs' contractual obligations, which arise out of
longstanding, common-law principles of "general applicability,"
Janus does not give the Plaintiffs the right to terminate their
commitments to pay union dues unless and until those commitments
expire under the plain terms of their membership agreements.

Because the District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs lack
standing to challenge the statute and because Janus does not impact
their contractual obligations to the union, the Third Circuit
affirmed.

Judge Peter J. Phipps concurred in part and concurred in the
judgment.  He agreed with the Majority's outcome and much of its
analysis, but he respectfully disagreed with several aspects of the
Majority's Article III standing analysis for the
former-union-member Plaintiffs (Susan Fischer, Jeanette Speck,
Melissa Poulson, Michael Sandberg, and Leonardo Santiago).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y4dvan3g from Leagle.com.

Michael P. Laffey -- mlaffey@messinalawfirm.com -- Red Bank, NJ,
William L. Messenger, [ARGUED] Aaron B. Solem, National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation, in Springfield, Virginia, Counsel
for Appellants Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck.

Jonathan F. Mitchell [ARGUED] Austin, TX, Walter S. Zimolong, III
-- wally@zimolonglaw.com -- Wayne, PA, Counsel for Appellants Ann
Smith, Karl Hedenberg, Melissa Poulson, Michael, Sandberg, Leonardo
Santiago, and Rachel Curcio.

Eric Apar -- Eric.Apar@law.njoag.gov -- [ARGUED] Jana R. DiCosmo,
Jeremy Feigenbaum, Lauren A. Jensen, Donna S. Arons, Office of
Attorney General of New Jersey, in Trenton, New Jersey, Counsel for
Appellee Governor of New Jersey.

Raymond Baldino -- rbaldino@zazzali-law.com -- Robert A. Fagella --
rfagella@zazzali-law.com -- Jason E. Sokolowski --
jsokolowski@zazzali-law.com -- Zazzali Fagella Nowak Kleinbaum &
Friedman, Newark, NJ, Counsel for Appellees New Jersey Education
Association, Clearview Education Association, Harrison Township
Education Association, Kingsway Education, Association, and
National Education Association.

Leon Dayan, Ramya Ravindran [ARGUED] Bredhoff & Kaiser, in
Washington, D.C., Counsel for Appellees New Jersey Education
Association, Township of Ocean Education Association, Clearview
Education Association, Harrison Township Education Association,
Kingsway Education Association, and National Education,
Association.

Jeffrey R. Caccese -- jcaccese@comegnolaw.com -- Comegno Law Group,
Moorestown, NJ, Counsel for Appellees Kingsway Education
Association and Kingsway Regional, School District Board of
Education.

Frank P. Cavallo -- fcavallo@parkermccay.com -- Andrew W. Li --
ali@parkermccay.com -- Brett E.J. Gorman -- bgorman@parkermccay.com
-- Parker McCay -- bgorman@parkermccay.com -- Mount Laurel, NJ,
Counsel for Appellees Clearview Regional High School District Board
of, Education and Harrison Township Board of Education.

Don Horowitz, Frank C. Kanther, Public Employment Relations
Commission, Trenton, NJ, Counsel for Appellees Joel M. Weisblatt,
Paul Boudreau, Paula B. Voos, John Bonanni, and David Jones.


NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Swafford Files Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Lansden Swafford v.
Newfield Exploration Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02746 (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff files motion for class certification and
Brief in Support.

The nature of suit states Other Contract involving Diversity-Breach
of Contract.

Newfield Exploration Company was a petroleum, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids exploration and production company organized in
Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[CC]

NVR INC: Egan Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NVR, Inc. The case is
styled as John Egan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NVR, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00087-DSC (W.D.
Pa., Jan. 20, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- operates in two business
segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LTNCH LLP-Pittsburgh
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


OAKLAND, CA: Court Certifies Class of Disabled Renters
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN SMITH, et al., v. CITY
OF OAKLAND, Case No. 4:19-cv-05398-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jon S. Tigar entered an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all Oakland renters who have mobility disabilities and
      thus need accessible rental units in the City of Oakland;"

   2. appointing the Public Interest Law Project and Disability
      Rights Advocates as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g);
      and

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs Ian Smith and Mitch Jeserich as
      class representatives.

The Court holds that the differences in disability among the
proposed class, and the corresponding differences in what
accommodations the renters might require to make a unit accessible,
do not render the Plaintiffs' class definition unclear and do not
foreclose class certification. The Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(c)(1)(B) by providing -- through the defined terms "mobility
disability" and "accessible unit" - a definite and objective
definition of the proposed class.

The City first argues that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification should be denied because the proposed class
definition is not clearly defined and "assumes a conclusion that
all renters with a 'mobility disability' require an 'accessible
unit.'"

The Plaintiffs Ian Smith and Mitch Jeserich are disabled renters in
Oakland, California. They have sued the City of Oakland on behalf
of themselves "and other Oakland renters with mobility disabilities
who need accessible housing," alleging that the City's "Rent
Adjustment Program" violates the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).

The Plaintiffs assert that since the mid-1980s, various laws and
regulations have mandated that at least some newly constructed
private rental units in California be accessible to people with
mobility disabilities.

Oakland is a city on the east side of San Francisco Bay, in
California.

A copy of the Court's order granting motion for class certification
dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pgf0KE at no extra charge.[CC]

OLD DOMINION: Has Until Feb. 15 to Oppose Rizk Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  EILEEN RIZK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SITUATED, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01865-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J.
Philip Calabrese entered an order granting the Defendant's Motion
for Extension of Time to Oppose Conditional Class Certification:

   -- The Defendant shall have until February 15, 2021 to Oppose
      the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

   -- The Plaintiff shall have until March 1, 2021 to reply.

   -- The remaining dates in the Court's previous Order, dated
      December 10, 2020, remain in effect.

In connection with her FLSA and related state claim, the Plaintiff
alleges that in her position of OS&D Supervisor with freight
carrier Old Dominion, she was misclassified as an exempt employee,
and is therefore due overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week during the period she held that position. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of OS&D Supervisors
who worked for Old Dominion during the three-year period preceding
the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff, a current employee of Old Dominion, filed her
Complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Ohio state wage and hour law, and violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, on August 21, 2020.

Old Dominion is an American less than truckload shipping company.
It offers regional, inter-regional and national LTL service.[CC]

OSF HEALTHCARE: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Smith ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered Final Order and Judgment in the case,
Sheilar Smith, Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey, Peggy Wise, and June
Schwierjohn, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,
Plaintiffs v. OSF HealthCare System; The Sisters of the Third Order
of St. Francis Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee; and
Retirement Committee for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Saint
Anthony's Health Center, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00467-SMY
(S.D. Ill.).

The litigation involves claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended with
respect to the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees
Pension Plan and the Retirement Plan for Employees of the Saint
Anthony's Health Center.

On Oct. 7, 2020, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving
the Settlement, Certifying the Class, Approving Notice to the
Class, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing.  The Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing on Jan. 15, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., to determine
whether to give final approval to the proposed settlement.  Due and
adequate notice having been given to the Settlement Class as
required in the Preliminary Approval Order

Having considered the Settlement Agreement, all papers filed and
proceedings held therein, and good cause appearing therefore, Judge
Yandle certified the following Settlement Class: All vested or
non-vested participants of the OSF Plans (and their beneficiaries)
as of the date of the filing of the Complaint (April 27, 2016).

The Judge fully and finally confirmed the appointment of (i)
Sheilar Smith, Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey, Peggy Wise, and June
Schwierjohn as Class Representatives; (ii) Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC as the Class Counsel.
The Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,632,118.21, and $92,881.79 in reimbursement of the Class
Counsel's and other counsel's reasonable expenses incurred in
prosecuting the Action.  The Defendants will pay such amount to the
Class Counsel pursuant to the timing requirements in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  Any incentives awarded
will also be paid by the Defendants to the Class Counsel pursuant
to the timing requirements in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Judge granted the Class Counsel's motion for incentive awards
totaling $25,000 ($5,000 for each Named Plaintiff) in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

All members of the Settlement Class are bound by the Judgment and
by the terms of the Settlement, including the scope of the Released
Claims described in the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice the Action, the Fourth Amended
Class Action Complaint and all Released Claims against each and all
Releasees, as identified and defined in the Settlement Agreement,
and without costs to any of the Parties as against the others.

Upon entry of the Order, all the Named Plaintiffs and Settlement
Class Members will be bound by the Settlement Agreement (including
any amendments) and by the Judgment.

The Court finds that no reason exists for delay in ordering final
judgment, and the Clerk is directed to enter the Judgment
forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ytksb9 from
Leagle.com.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Remand of Schott to Missouri State Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHRYN SCHOTT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00684-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and
Motion to Engage in Limited Jurisdictional Discovery.

The Plaintiff originally filed the putative class action in
Missouri state court, making claims related to the amount of tax
charged on her purchase of an item from Defendant Overstock's
website.  She asserts in her Petition that she purchased Mules Faux
Leather Slides from the Defendant's website, www.overstock.com, for
delivery to a Fenton, Missouri address.  The purchased item was
shipped from Iowa.  She contends Overstock overtaxed her for the
purchase.

According to the Plaintiff, Missouri law sets out a taxing scheme
that provides for a sales tax which, she suggests, applies to all
sales of tangible personal property between a Missouri seller and
Missouri buyer.  While the relevant statute generally levies a tax
upon all sellers for the privilege of engaging in the business of
selling tangible personal property, there is an exemption from that
provision for sales "made in commerce between" Missouri and any
other state.

The Plaintiff posits that taxable sales shipped from a location
outside Missouri to a Missouri address are subject to the
"compensating use tax," even if they are exempt from the sales tax.
The vendor making the sale subject to use tax is responsible for
collecting the use tax.

Overstock ran afoul of the tax scheme, the Plaintiff argues, by
charging excess tax on sales of products through remote sales
channels, which include "internet websites, telephone, catalog or
other remote communications systems."  She purports to bring claims
on behalf of herself and all persons or entities who, in the five
years prior to the inception of the action, purchased a product
from Overstock via a remote sales channel that was shipped
out-of-state to a Missouri address and was "charged tax monies at a
higher tax rate than" the applicable use tax rate.

As to her individual claims, the Plaintiff states that the
applicable use tax rate on the slides she purchased was 4.225% but
Overstocked charged her 8.250% instead.  As for the class, she
asserts that "thousands" of others similarly purchased products
from Overstock through remote sales channels that were delivered to
Missouri from an out-of-state location and were "illegally and
erroneously charged tax monies at a higher tax rate rather than the
lower use tax rate."

Pursuant to her four claims--unjust enrichment, negligence, money
had and received, and one Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
("MMPA") claim--the Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, namely the "return of the full amount of
excessive taxes paid;" a preliminary and permanent injunction
preventing Overstock from continuing to charge the higher tax rate;
punitive damages; and attorney's fees.

Overstock removed the case to the Court on May 22, 2020, pursuant
to diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  In her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff challenges the
Court's jurisdiction on the grounds that Overstock has not
satisfied CAFA's $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement.  She
raises two particular issues with the amount in controversy: first,
that Overstock has not provided sufficient evidence supporting that
amount; and second, that even if Overstock has provided proper
evidentiary support, it has "wholly overstated" its calculations in
asserting that the claims meet CAFA's required monetary threshold.

Judge Schelp finds, based on the compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and punitive damages claimed, that the amount in controversy
in the case exceeds $5 million by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Plaintiff has not established to a legal certainty that her
claims are for less than $5 million.  That being so, the Court
properly has jurisdiction under CAFA and need not reach the issue
of the value of potential injunctive relief for purposes of
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Judge concludes that Overstock has provided
sufficient evidence that the amount in controversy in the case,
including potential compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and
punitive damages, exceeds $5 million.  As such, the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA and the case will remain in
federal court.  The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is therefore
denied.  Based upon the foregoing, the Judge also finds further
discovery on these jurisdictional issues to be unnecessary.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion to Engage in Limited
Jurisdictional Discovery is also denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9zy8t3 from Leagle.com.


PACTIV LLC: Court Issues Revised Class Status Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Wilson v. Pactiv LLC,
et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01691-SB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order issuing a revised class
certification briefing schedule as follows:

   -- The parties are ordered to file, by no later than February
      5, 2021, a "Class Certification Plan," showing all
      anticipated activity and the corresponding date for each
      activity up to the date proposed for the hearing(s) on the
      motion(s).

   -- The proposed briefing schedule must allow for at least
      three weeks between the filing of the reply and the
      hearing. If the parties are not seeking to file the class
      certification motion(s) beyond May 24, 2021, they should
      file instead (by February 5) a proposed briefing schedule
      for the class certification motion(s).

   -- The parties should begin discovery immediately and should
      not assume that the Court will grant them more than 120
      days to file the class certification motion(s).

The Court has reviewed the Joint Rule 26(f) report and has decided
to issue a scheduling order that addresses only class certification
at this point.

The complaint was filed on May 29, 2020. The Defendant removed the
action August 21, 2020 and answered on August 28, 2020

The Plaintiff intends to file a motion for class certification by
July 14, 2021. The Defendant intends to file a motion to deny class
certification "in May 2021." Regardless of which party is the
moving party, the proposed briefing schedule would result in a
hearing set more than 120 days from the date originally set for the
scheduling conference.

Pactiv is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and
foodservice products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets,
restaurants, institutions and foodservice outlets across North
America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sUtlP1 at no extra charge.[CC]

PARTS AUTHORITY: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Jaime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hugo Jaime, Randall Gohn,
and Robert Davis Jr., for themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Parts Authority, LLC, Parts Authority, Inc., Yaron
Rosenthal, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Delivery
Systems, Arizona Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems,
BBB Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems, Michigan
Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems, Larry Browne, Does
1-20 d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems, and Does 21-40, Case No.
2:21-cv-00015-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   a. conditionally certify the case to proceed as a collective
      action;

   b. directing the Defendants to identify all Collective
      Members;

   c. directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses,
      phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and employment dates of
      all Collective Members to the Plaintiffs' counsel within
      14 days;

   d. directing the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice,
      via mail, email, text message, and conspicuous placement
      in Parts Authority stores and facilities;

   e. appointing Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
      Garber, LLP, Weinhaus & Potashnick, and Kercsmar & Feltus
      PLLC as class counsel; and

   f. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

The Defendants Parts Authority, LLC and Parts Authority, Inc. own
and operate an automotive parts sales and distribution business
operating in several states. The Defendants Northeast Logistics,
Inc., Arizona Logistics, Inc., BBB Logistics Inc., and Michigan
Logistics, Inc. together doing business as "Diligent", own and
operate a staffing business.

The Parts Authority uses thousands of delivery drivers provided by
Diligent to deliver automotive parts to Parts Authority's customers
(Delivery Drivers). These delivery drivers are misclassified by the
Defendants as "independent contractors." Through this
misclassification, the Defendants uniformly deny the Delivery
Drivers overtime wages and minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/366Pa4kat
no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Hugo Jamie, Randall Gohn, and Robert
Davis Jr. and the putative class, are:

          Sean J. O'Hara, Esq.
          KERCSMAR & F ELTUS PLLC
          7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 421-1001
          Facsimile: (480) 421-1002
          E-mail: sjo@kflawaz.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
          Andrew C. White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 298-3287
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  bsilverman@fbfglaw.com
                  awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Court Junks Rokita Class Action
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ROKITA, et al., v.
JOHN WETZEL and PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Case No.
3:20-cv-00153-SLH-KAP (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie L.
Haines entered an order:

   1. dismissing the case without prejudice to the individual
      actions at Case No. 3:20cv183, Case No. 3:20cv184 and Case
      No. 3:20cv186;

   2. vacating as moot the the Report and Recommendation dated
      September 10, 2020, recommending that the complaint in
      this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim if
      plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint, in light of
      the dismissal of the action;: and

   3. denying as moot the motions for class certification filed
      be each of the three Plaintiffs in light of the dismissal
      of this action.

The Court said that it will accept in whole the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge Pesto in this matter. All
three plaintiffs have been granted the opportunity to pursue their
claims in their individual cases, and continuing with the matter at
this case number is unnecessary and would constitute a drain on
judicial resources.

This is a civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
and the Americans with Disabilities Act by Mark Rokita, Patrick
McCamey and Brian Sines, all inmates incarcerated at SCI-Houtzdale,
against John Wetzel and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(PaDOC).

The Plaintiffs allege that they are being denied drug treatment at
SCI-Houtzdale and seek to proceed as representative plaintiffs for
a class of twenty-thousand inmates in the custody of the PaDOC who
likewise are being denied such treatment. This matter was referred
to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance
with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S. C. Section 636, and Local
Civil Rule 72.D.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the Pennsylvania
state agency that is responsible for the confinement, care and
rehabilitation of approximately 47,000 inmates at state
correctional facilities funded by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdR8HF at no extra charge.[CC]

PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Discovery Rulings in Hancock Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
the district court's orders denying the Hancock Plaintiffs' motion
to intervene and denying in part the Hancock Affiliates' motion to
quash in the cases, IN RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PORSCHE
AUTOMOBIL HOLDING SE FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Section
1782 GRANTING LEAVE TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN
PROCEEDINGS. PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL HOLDING SE, Petitioner, Appellee, v.
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (USA); JOHN HANCOCK ADVISERS,
LLC; JOHN HANCOCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Respondents,
Appellants, FPCAP LLC; FINEPOINT CAPITAL LP; FINEPOINT PARTNERS
LLC, Respondents. IN RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL
HOLDING SE FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 GRANTING
LEAVE TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS, PORSCHE
AUTOMOBIL HOLDING SE, Petitioner, Appellee, v. FINEPOINT CAPITAL
LP; FINEPOINT PARTNERS LLC; FPCAP LLC; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY (USA); JOHN HANCOCK ADVISERS, LLC; JOHN HANCOCK INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Respondents, JOHN HANCOCK WORLDWIDE
INVESTORS PLC; CRAIG BROMLEY, as Trustee for John Hancock Variable
Insurance Trust, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III, and
John Hancock Strategic Series for JHF Income Fund, Interested
Parties, Appellants, Case Nos. 20-1239, 20-1241 (1st Cir.).

The appeals require that the First Circuit considers challenges to
a district court's discretionary rulings in connection with a
request under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 to conduct court-ordered
discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  The foreign proceeding
is one of approximately 200 separate securities fraud actions
brought against Porsche in Germany in 2016 ("German Actions").

The German Actions arose out of Porsche's alleged malfeasance in
connection with so-called "defeat devices" employed to circumvent
emissions testing in certain diesel vehicles manufactured by
Volkswagen AG.

In June 2020, Porsche moved ex parte in the District of
Massachusetts to obtain an order compelling discovery under section
1782 from (among others not party to the appeal) the following
Hancock Affiliates: John Hancock Advisers, LLC and John Hancock
Investment Management Services, LLC, which are investment managers
for various German Plaintiffs, and John Hancock Life Insurance Co.
(USA), an entity that maintains records of securities transactions
for the John Hancock Funds.

The Hancock Affiliates are not parties to the German Actions.
Rather, as corporate affiliates of the Hancock Plaintiffs, they
provide investment advice and management services.  Porsche sought
discovery from the Hancock Affiliates regarding the trading
activities of, and strategies employed on behalf of, the Hancock
Plaintiffs.

After the district court granted Porsche's application for
discovery, Porsche served relevant subpoenas.  The Hancock
Affiliates then moved to vacate or modify the district court's
order granting the subpoenas, so as to quash or modify the
discovery.  The Hancock Affiliates also sought reciprocal
discovery.

The Hancock Plaintiffs purported to "informally join" the motion to
vacate or modify, but did not file any motion to intervene.  The
district court referred the Hancock Affiliates' motion to a
magistrate judge, who conducted a hearing and issued a detailed
report.  The magistrate judge found that some of Porsche's
discovery requests were overbroad, but that some discovery was,
nevertheless, warranted. The magistrate judge therefore recommended
that a pared-down version of the requests be allowed, subject to a
confidentiality order.  The Hancock Affiliates timely sought de
novo review by the district court; in turn, the magistrate judge
stayed any ordered discovery pending that review.

While the district court's review was pending, and five-and-a-half
months after the motion to quash was filed, the Hancock Plaintiffs
sought to intervene.  The magistrate judge recommended denying the
motion, finding that it was untimely and that it was simply an
attempt to relitigate the magistrate judge's decision on the motion
to quash.  Agreeing with the magistrate judge, the district court
issued orders on Feb. 19, 2020, denying both the motion to
intervene and, in large part, the motion to quash.

The Hancock Plaintiffs now appeal the denial of their motion to
intervene, while the Hancock Affiliates appeal the district court's
rulings granting section 1782 discovery and denying reciprocal
discovery.

The First Circuit considers first the Hancock Plaintiffs' appeal of
the denial of their motion to intervene.  The Hancock Plaintiffs
contend that the district judge failed to conduct de novo review of
the magistrate's report and recommendation denying that motion.

The First Circuit is unimpressed holding that the Hancock
Plaintiffs' reliance on different wording in the district court
judge's ruling on the discovery motion is misplaced.  In any event,
the district court concluded in its discretion that the Hancock
Plaintiffs' intervention would have had no material impact on the
outcome of the motion to quash, presumably because the discovery
was sought from the Respondents, not the Plaintiffs.  The Hancock
Plaintiffs offer no convincing rejoinder to that conclusion.
The First Circuit has considered the other arguments floated by the
Hancock Plaintiffs in their effort to challenge the district
court's exercise of its wide discretion in ruling de novo on the
motion to intervene.  Finding none that rise to a level that would
require further attention, it finds no abuse of discretion in the
district court's denial of the Hancock Plaintiffs' motion to
intervene.

Turning now to the Hancock Affiliates' appeal of the denial of
their motion to quash, the First Circuit reviews that denial for
abuse of discretion.  It holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that Porsche met the statutory
requirements of section 1782(a), nor did it abuse its discretion in
weighing the Intel factors.  All in all, the district court's
judgments are quintessentially the types of discretionary
adjudications made by district courts in resolving discovery
disputes.  Even when such rulings could have gone either way in the
district court, they rarely provide suitable fodder for
successfully sustaining an appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit finds no reason to
upset the well-reasoned decisions of the district court.
Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's orders denying the
Hancock Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and denying in part the
Hancock Affiliates' motion to quash.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y322jcge from Leagle.com.

Olav A. Haazen -- ohaazen@gelaw.com -- Alice Y. Lee --
acho@gelaw.com -- and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., on brief for
appellants John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA); John Hancock
Advisers, LLC; John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC;
and for interested parties John Hancock Worldwide Investors PLC;
and Craig Bromley, as trustee for John Hancock Variable Insurance
Trust, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Funds III, and John
Hancock Strategic Series for JHF Income Fund.

Suhana S. Han -- hans@sullcrom.com -- Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and Nolan J.
Mitchell and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP on brief for
appellee Porsche Automobil Holding SE.


RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Medical Information Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, a minor, by and through Guardian ad Litem, LATASHA POPE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL-SAN DIEGO, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00114-JM-RBB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) alleges
violation of the California's Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act (CMIA).

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff John
Doe, through his Guardian ad Litem, Latasha Pope learned that his
medical information was involved in the data breach after Ms. Pope
received a notification letter from the Defendant. The Plaintiff
and the other Class Members' Private Information is now at risk
because of the Defendant's alleged negligent conduct and unfair
acts and practices. The Private Information that the Defendant
collected and maintained has been placed in the hands of criminal
hackers and the Defendant cannot reasonably maintain that the
hackers destroyed the Private Information, the suit says.

As a provider of health care, the Defendant is subject to the
requirements for preserving the confidentiality of medical
information set forth under California's CMIA. The Defendant has a
duty to reasonably protect the confidentiality of the medical
information that it maintains, preserves, stores, abandons,
destroys, or disposes of, and failure to comply with this duty
exposes the Defendant to liability under the CMIA. Allegedly, the
Defendant failed to uphold its duty under the CMIA when it allowed
an unauthorized party to obtain the medical information of its
patients.

Rady Children's Hospital San Diego of California provides medical
and general surgical services. The Hospital offers cancer care,
cardiovascular diseases, children care, neurology, orthopedics,
rehabilitation, fertility, weight loss, epilepsy, and gynecology.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com


RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Clark Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CLARK, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC;
MEDUIT GROUP, LLC; and EHS HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC. d/b/a
ADVOCATE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00298
(N.D. Ill., January 19, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated against the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff has incurred a medical debt, that went into default,
to Defendant Advocate Home Health for personal medical services.

According to the complaint, Defendant Advocate contracted with
Defendant Meduit to collect the alleged debt on Defendant
Advocate's behalf, and Defendant Meduit retained Defendant RMP to
collect the alleged debt on its behalf. Subsequently, Defendant RMP
began attempting to collect the alleged debt by contacting the
Plaintiff via phone calls on October 29, 2020 stating that the
Plaintiff's balance was $195.61 despite the Plaintiff has already
paid $30 to Advocate on August 17, 2020.

On October 29, 2020, the Plaintiff paid the remaining balance of
his debt directly to Defendant Advocate, and closed out the Account
in full. However, Defendant RMP continued placing calls to the
Plaintiff on November 6, 2020, November 18, 2020, and again on
December 8, 2020 demanding for payments by allegedly using
robocalls and prerecorded or artificial voices. Additionally, none
of the Defendants had the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls, the suit says.

The Plaintiff asserts that he has experienced emotional distress
from speaking with the Defendant RMP's representatives and arguing
with them sine he indicated that he had paid in full. Also, the
Defendants' robocalls annoyed the Plaintiff, and has invaded his
privacy. Thus, the Plaintiffs seeks actual damages, statutory
damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and other relief as
the Court deems proper.

Receivable Management Partners, LLC and Meduit Group, LLC operate a
collection agency. Advocate Home Health Services provides medical
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Brown, Esq.
          MAIN STREET ATTORNEY, LLC
          PO Box 247
          Chicago, IL 60690
          Tel: (773) 453-7410
          E-mail: daniel@mainstreetattorney.com

                - and –

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Michael Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS, LLC
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Tel: (312) 757-1880
          Fax: (312) 265-3227
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure of Patient's Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROPER ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE, BON SECOURS
ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a ROPER ST. FRANCIS, and
TORTFEASORS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2021CP1000245 (S.C. Ct. Com.
Pl., 9th Jud. Cir., Charleston Cty., January 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence and breach of
confidentiality.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and failure
to protect the private medical, personal and financial information
of their patients, including the Plaintiff, following a data breach
between October 14, 2020 and October 29, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and Class members have suffered damages, economic, non-economic,
and mental anguish due to the data breach, including but not
limited to expenses and costs of credit monitoring, fraud
protection, and identity theft, the suit says.

Roper St. Francis Healthcare is a healthcare services company based
in Charleston, South Carolina.

Bon Secours St. Francis Health System, Inc., doing business as
Roper St. Francis, is a healthcare services company, headquartered
in Charleston, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., Esq.
         Anna E. Richter, Esq.
         THE RICHTER FIRM, LLC
         622 Johnnie Dodds Blvd.
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (843) 849-6000
         E-mail: LRichter@RichterFirm.com
                 Anna@RichterFirm.com

                - and –

         Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
         SLOTCHIVER & SLOTCHIVER LLP
         751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 100
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (843) 577-6531
         E-mail: dan@slotchiverlaw.com

                - and –

         Brent S. Halversen, Esq.
         BRENT SOUTHER HALVERSEN, LLC
         751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 200
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (843) 284-5790
         E-mail: brent@halversenlaw.com

SANCHEZ OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Finley Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL FINLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00039 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2021) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the Class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Jimison was employed by the Defendant as staff.

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation manages oil and gas properties. The
Company generates drilling opportunities, as well as reduces risks
through cutting-edge, controlling large land positions, and
acquiring and controlling 3D seismic surveys. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esqs.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of LaSpina Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETHANY LASPINA, Appellant v. SEIU PENNSYLVANIA STATE
COUNCIL; SEIU LOCAL 668; SEIU HEALTHCARE PA; SEIU LOCAL 32BJ;
PENNSYLVANIA JOINT BOARD OF WORKERS UNITED; LACKAWANNA COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM; SCRANTON PUBLIC LIBRARY, Case No. 19-3484
(3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of each claim for lack of an Article
III case or controversy.

When LaSpina began working for the Scranton Public Library, all
Library employees were exclusively represented in collective
bargaining by Local 668 of the Service Employees International
Union.  But no employee had to join the Union.  An employee could
join (and pay full membership dues) or decline to join (and pay a
lesser nonmember "fair-share fee"), at the employee's discretion.
LaSpina joined the Union.

Then came Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).  In
Janus, the Supreme Court held that compelling non-members to pay
fair-share fees violates their First Amendment associational
rights.  In the wake of Janus, LaSpina resigned from the Union.
On Oct. 18, 2018, LaSpina sued.  In the operative complaint,
LaSpina pleaded three counts.  First, LaSpina sought a refund of
the compulsory portion of the membership dues she made prior to
Janus.  Second, she sought a refund of the membership dues that
were diverted from her wages after she submitted her
union-resignation letter and demanded the Union cease deducting
membership dues, as well as an injunction to prevent the union and
her employer from diverting her wages in the future.  Finally,
LaSpina sought classwide injunctive relief on behalf of all public
employees who are paying some form of dues to the Union but who
have not submitted a waiver of their constitutional rights under
Janus.

In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the District Court
dismissed each claim for lack of an Article III case or
controversy.

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court.  The Third Circuit
opines that LaSpina had no standing to seek a refund of any portion
of the Union dues she made prior to Janus because she cannot tie
the payment of those dues to the Union's unconstitutional deduction
of fair-share fees from nonmembers.  In addition, it holds that if
LaSpina is due a refund of certain monies that were deducted from
her wages after she resigned, the claim is not a federal one;
rather, it is, if anything, a state court claim for conversion or
trespass to chattels.  Finally, LaSpina's claim that the Union may
not collect any dues from an employee until that employee knowingly
and freely waives their constitutional right to resign from Union
membership and withhold payments to the Union is moot as LaSpina no
longer is a Union member.

The Third Circuit also opines that the District Court should not
feel compelled to grant LaSpina leave to amend her Second Amended
Complaint should she seek to do so.  LaSpina already has amended
her complaint twice and, when pressed at oral argument, failed to
suggest what she might add were the District Court to grant leave
to amend it again.  Thus, amendment would be futile.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2j37duq from Leagle.com.

Shannon Conway -- sconway@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott J.
Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin PC, Dallas,
TX, Jonathan F. Mitchell -- jonathan@mitchell.law -- [ARGUED]
Mitchell Law PLLC, in Austin, Texas; Edmond R. Shinn, Law Offices
of Edmond R. Shinn, in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania; Walter S.
Zimolong III -- wally@zimolonglaw.com -- Zimolong LLC, in
Villanova, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Appellant.

Lauren M. Hoye -- lhoye@wwdlaw.com -- Willig Williams & Davidson,
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Scott A. Kronland --
skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- [ARGUED] P. Casey Pitts --
cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, in San
Francisco, California, Counsel for Appellee SEIU Local 668.

J. Timothy Hinton, Jr. -- timhinton@haggertylaw.net -- Haggerty
Hinton & Cosgrove LLP, in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, Counsel for
Appellee Scranton Public Library.


SGF US INC: Last Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SGF US INC. The case
is styled as Donovin Last, on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SGF US INC., Case No. BCV-21-100136 (Cal. Super., Jan.
20, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

SGF Global -- http://www.sgfglobal.com/-- provides staffing and
support solutions in over 35 countries worldwide, having expanded
by successfully integrating the processes of recruitment,
development and retention of personnel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC,
          5211 E Washington Blvd., No 2262, City of Commerce
          Los Angeles, CA 90040
          Phone: (213) 599-8255
          Fax: (213) 402-3949
          Email: blanchardlawgroup@gmail.com


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Bushansky Says Merger Deal Lacks Info
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; STEWART
BUTTERFIELD; ANDREW BRACCIA; EDITH COOPER; SARAH FRIAR; SHEILA B.
JORDAN; MICHAEL M. MCNAMARA; JOHN O'FARRELL; and GRAHAM SMITH,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00488 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff against Slack Technologies, Inc.
("Slack" or the "Company") and the members of Slack's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Slack
will be acquired by Salesforce.com, Inc. ("Salesforce") through its
wholly owned subsidiaries Skyline Strategies I Inc. ("Merger Sub
I") and Skyline Strategies II LLC ("Merger Sub II") (the "Proposed
Transaction").

According to the complaint, on December 1, 2020, Slack and
Salesforce issued a joint press release announcing that they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 1, 2020
(the "Merger Agreement") to sell Slack to Salesforce. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Slack common stock
will receive $26.79 in cash and 0.0776 shares of Salesforce common
stock for each share of Slack common stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $27.7 billion.

On December 23, 2020, Salesforce filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The
Registration Statement, which recommends that Slack stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the financial projections for Slack and Salesforce; (ii) the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial
advisors, Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst") and Goldman Sachs & Co
LLC ("Goldman"); and (iii) Qatalyst's and Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The Defendants authorized the
issuance of the false and misleading Registration Statement in
violation of the Exchange Act.

Slack Technologies, Inc. operates as a software company. The
Company designs and develops a communication platform that provides
real-time messaging, file sharing, archiving, and searching
services for teams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E.
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 208-2800
     Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
     E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


SONY MUSIC: Extension of Class Certification Scheduling Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johansen v. Sony Music
Entertainment, Case No. e 1:19-cv-01094-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court for a limited modification of the Court's January 14,
2021 Order extending certain of the deadlines contained in the
Court's November 6, 2020 Scheduling Order Regarding Class
Certification, as follows:

         Event              Current Deadline  Modified Deadline

   Parties' identification    Jan. 22, 2021    Jan. 29, 2021
   of Absent Class Subset
   for Phase 1 discovery:

   SME to substantially       Jan. 22, 2021    Jan. 29, 2021
   complete production
   of the underlying
   recording agreements
   between SME and the
   putative class members
   seeking termination:

This is the second request for an extension of these deadlines. The
prior request was granted. This extension will not affect any other
deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs consent to the
extension, says Defendant's Atty. Gabrielle Levin.

Sony Music is an American global music company, which is part of
the Sony Music Group owned by conglomerate Sony Corporation of
America, incorporated as a general partnership of Sony Music
Holdings Inc. through Sony Entertainment, all of which are
ultimately owned by the Japanese conglomerate Sony.

A copy of consent letter motion dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2KJqZBhat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gabrielle Levin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Telephone: (212) 351-3901
          Facsimile: (212) 351-5301
          E-mail: GLevin@gibsondunn.com

STEVENS BUSINESS: Weisberger Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIMON WEISBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEVENS BUSINESS SERVICE INC., and
John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00277 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 19, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against
the Defendant seeking damages and declaratory under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to National Grid fka
Keyspan NY that arose out for transactions primarily for personal,
family or household purposes, specifically utility services.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter on or about December 2, 2020 from the Defendant, who
contracted with National Grid fka Keyspan NY to collect the alleged
debt. The letter intimidates and threatens the Plaintiff by
implying that his account information will be reported twice to the
national credit reporting agencies. Also, the letter is deceptive
for stating that two companies will report to the credit reporting
agencies on the same debt, the suit says.

As a result, the Plaintiff has incurred an informational injury as
the Defendant falsely asserted that the same debt would be reported
twice to the national credit reporting agencies twice on the same
debt.

The Defendants allegedly violated Section 1692e as the letter is
open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and by making a
false and misleading representations.

Stevens Business Service, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Tel: (201) 282-6500
         Fax: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ford Balks at Mismanaged Retirement Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FORD; LEAH MCDONALD; and REBECCA WILMHOFF, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1–14, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10090-MPK (D. Mass., Jan. 19, 2021) is an action
by the Plaintiff and the Class of participants and beneficiaries of
the Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A, Inc. Savings and Retirement Plan
("Plan") against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as fiduciaries to the
Plan, the Defendants are obligated to act prudently, diligently and
for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and beneficiaries in
ensuring that, among other things, the Plan's investments are
prudent and remain prudent. These duties are the "highest known to
the law" and must be discharged with "an eye single to the
interests of the participants and beneficiaries."

Instead of acting diligently and prudently, the Defendants
allegedly retained a suite of unproven collective investment trust
target date funds as investment options in the Plan, known as the
Northern Trust Focus Funds ("Focus Funds"). The Focus Funds
suffered from significant and ongoing quantitative deficiencies and
turmoil resulting in massive underperformance relative to
well-established, prudently managed, comparable target date funds
that were available to the Plan. Given these deficiencies, a
prudent fiduciary would have removed the Focus Funds and replaced
them with a prudent investment alternative, which would have
avoided millions of dollars in losses suffered by Plan participants
who invested in these funds, the suit says.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. provides pharmaceutical
services. The Company distributes metabolic, respiratory,
immunology, oncology, central nervous system, gastroenterology,
cardivascular, and general medicinal products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert T. Naumes, Esq.
     Christopher Naumes, Esq.
     NAUMES LAW GROUP
     2 Granite Ave., Suite 425
     Milton, MA 02186
     Tel: (617) 227-8444
     Fax: (617) 696-2437
     E-mail: robert@naumeslaw.com
             christopher@naumeslaw.com

          -and-

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
     Joel Rohlf, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO, 63102
     Tel: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com
             kstruckhoff@uselaws.com


TAMS MANAGEMENT: Court Strikes Gautier Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULES GAUTIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC, PAY CAR MININC, INC., BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES,
INC., BLUESTONE RESOURCES, INC., BLUESTONE COAL CORP., Case No.
5:20-cv-00165 (S.D. W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered
an order:

   1. striking the Plaintiff Jules Gautier's Motion to Certify
      Class the motion and accompanying memorandum;

   2. directing the Plaintiff to submit compliant filings within
      48 hours; and

   3. directing the Clerk to transmit copies of this order to
      all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

In the Southern District of West Virginia, Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 7.1 requires that exhibits be attached to the motion, not
the supporting memorandum, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/39debwlat no extra charge.[CC]

TOWER HILL: 20 Days Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Florida profit Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00157-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Parties file the Joint
Emergency Motion to Continue the Class Certification Hearing
scheduled for January 21, 2021, for 20 days.

The Plaintiff's co-lead counsel, John H. Ruiz, Esq., tested
positive for COVID-19 over two weeks ago. Accordingly, Mr. Ruiz has
been self-quarantined since that date during which he experienced
mild COVID-19 symptoms.

Moreover, the Defendant Tower Hill joins in this motion for a
continuance based on the following reasons: its attorneys, Nicole
Smith and Samantha Duke, were notified this morning that the
federal magistrate who presided over a 5-day, in-person evidentiary
hearing that took place from January 11 through January 15, 2021,
in another matter, has tested positive for COVID-19. Given the need
to quarantine (and immediately begin testing for the virus),
counsel for Tower Hill is unable to attend the class certification
hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YhJHmB at no extra charge.[CC]

TURK HOLDINGS: Rios Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turf Holdings, et al.
The case is styled as Chelsie Rios, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Turf Holdings (doing business as Weed Man
USA, WM Utah County), Case No. 2:21-cv-00039-CMR (D. Utah, Jan. 20,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Weed Man -- https://weedman.com/ -- offers full range of lawn care
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW OFFICE
          1887 N 270 E
          Orem, UT 84057
          Phone: (801) 845-2581
          Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com


TURO INC: Cattaneo Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HELEN CATTANEO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TURO INC., Case No.
20-00002-14320-1-SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of
Washington for King County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on January 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00071 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Washington's Consumer Protection Act and the Washington insurance
laws by acting as an insurer in Washington without a certificate of
authority issued by the Insurance Commissioner or otherwise
complying with Washington law for providing insurance in the
state.

Turo Inc. is an American peer-to-peer car sharing company based in
San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Andrew R. Escobar, Esq.
         Virginia Weeks, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
         Seattle, WA 98104-7029
         Telephone: (206) 839-4800
         Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
         E-mail: andrew.escobar@us.dlapiper.com
                 virginia.weeks@us.dlapiper.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Getz TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL GETZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 20-025707-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on January
20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-20234 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages and telephone calls to the Plaintiff's and Class members'
cellular telephones.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. is a healthcare services company
based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
         Roy Taub, Esq.
         Gregg I. Strock, Esq.
         GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
         200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 491-1120
         E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
                 khia.joseph@gmlaw.com
                 roy.taub@gmlaw.com
                 cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com
                 gregg.strock@gmlaw.com
                 lisa.webster@gmlaw.com

UNITED INSURANCE: Minerva Barrett Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA BARRETT, as
Executrix of the Estate of Chester Barrett, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00215-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all African American persons who have purchased an
   Industrial Life Policy from United Life Insurance Company of
   America, Inc., on which they are or were required to pay
   premiums in excess of the face value of the policy itself."

Excluded from this Class are persons who hold or have held
executive or legal positions with the Defendant, the spouses or
children of any such person, the spouses or children of the
Plaintiff's counsel, the Honorable Christopher L. Ray and any other
judge, magistrate or special master to whom this case may be
assigned or referred, in whole or in part, as well as their spouses
and children.

According to the complaint, Mr. Barrett's policy was a type of
industrial life insurance (also known as home life insurance)
policy that is heavily marketing to low-income, particularly
African Americans, for the stated purposes of providing funds for
their burial and other end-of-life expenses.

Mr. Barrett's policy had a face value of $5000 and according to the
policy itself would be fully paid when he reached the age of 100,
36 years after his policy was issued. At the time of his death, Mr.
Barrett had paid approximately $14,394.60 on the $5000 policy.
Generally, industrial life policies are directly linked to, and
reliant upon racial discrimination, the complaint adds.

Life Insurance Expert, Dr. Robert Klein says that for many years in
the United States, it has been a common practice to market
particularly expensive (in relation to benefit) life insurance
policies to low-income persons and racial minorities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pfalbX
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Bartley Turner, Esq.
          Carolyn M. Adams, Esq.
          SAVAGE TURNER PC
          102 E Liberty St., 8th Floor
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 231-1140
          E-mail: Bturner@savagelawfirm.net
                  Cadams@savagelawfirm.net

US Bank: King Sues Over Failure to Respond to Borrowers' RFI
------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00100 (C.D. Cal., January 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by failing to adequately respond
to the Plaintiff's and other borrowers' requests for account
information. Under RESPA, loan servicers, including the Defendant,
must respond within 30 days upon receiving a Qualified Written
Request (QWR) or a Request for Information (RFI) from borrowers.

U.S. Bank, N.A. is a banking company, headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

                - and –

         Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
         St. George, UT 84790
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

                - and –

         Alan Gudino, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
         San Diego, CA 92108
         Telephone: (619) 233-7770
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: alan@kazlg.com

WALMART STORES: Lisowski Ruling in Consumer Suit to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Lisowski filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. WALMART STORES, INC.,
t/d/b/a WALMART, Case No. 2-20-cv-01729, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Pennsylvania denied the
Plaintiff's motion to remand based on the Tax Injunction Act and
principles of comity.

Mr. Lisowski sued Walmart in state court for conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law. The complaint alleges that Walmart
improperly collected sales tax on two, 6-packs of "5 Hour Energy"
supplements purchased by Mr. Lisowski. He alleges that 5-Hour
Energy drinks are tax-exempt "Dietary Supplements and Substitutes"
under 61 Pa. Code Section 58.1. He further alleges that the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue gave express notice that dietary
supplements and substitutes, in any form are exempt from tax.

Mr. Lisowski seeks review of the District Court's order entered
January 12, 2021, denying his motion to remand the case to state
court.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Lisowski v. WalMart
Stores Inc., Case No. 21-8004, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 19, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
          Emily E. Town, Esq.
          ROTHMAN GORDON
          310 Grant Street, 3rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1185
          E-mail: fgsalpietro@rothmangordon.com
                  eetown@rothmangordon.com

Defendant-Appellee WALMART STORES INC, TDBA WalMart is represented
by:

          Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
          Paul Berks, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL
          50 East Washington Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 379-0949
          E-mail: sagrawal@masseygail.com
                  pberks@masseygail.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Pest, Esq.
          Thomas E. Sanchez, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
          600 Grant Street
          44th Floor, US Steel Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-1930
          E-mail: mpest@eckertseamans.com
                  tsanchez@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Robinette, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL
          1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20024
          Telephone: (202) 539-1583
          E-mail: krobinette@masseygail.com

WHITE FLOWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Flower Farm,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. White Flower Farm,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00512 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

White Flower Farm -- https://www.whiteflowerfarm.com/ -- is a
source of plants, shrubs, bulbs and gardening supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***