/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210127.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 27, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 14 Headlines 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action AARGON AGENCY: Wilson to File Report on Doe Defendants by Feb. 2 ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Jackson Stockholder Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ANWORTH MORTGAGE: Carlisle Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info APKE ECOMMERCE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says BLACKBAUD INC: Roth Breach Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina BP EXPLORATION: Joint Proposed Scheduling Order in Vargas Ordered BRAD RAMBO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: To Settle Securities Suit by Way of CCAA Plan CHINA XD PLASTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline CLEANSPARK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Lawsuit CLEARVIEW AI INC: Ill. BIPA Class Action Belongs in State Court CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS: Huertas Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Rapid COVID-19 Test DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Mar. 16 Deadline DISCOVER BANK: Faces Aliga Suit Over Improper Banking Practices EOS ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Continues Probe re Securities Law Breach FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 as Part of Class Settlement FEDEX GROUND: Westfall Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California FLOWBIRD URBAN: Grey Files Suit in W.D. Tenn. Over ADA Violation GENWORTH LIFE: Overcharges Life Insurers, McMillan Suit Alleges GOOGLE LLC: Black Suit Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly GRUBHUB INC: Farmer's Wife Sues Firm in Class Action Case HOUSE OF MARLEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON MARK: Kemp Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona LIZHI INC: Rosen Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline MADE TO DESTROY: Sanchez Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website MANHATTAN GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store MDL 2873: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Suit Over Toxic AFFF MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MINICLIP SA: Mastel Sues Over Wiretapping of Mobile's Communication NATIONAL PACKAGING: Wilkerson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEVADA: Iden's Bid to Enforce Deal in Riker Suit v. Gibbons Denied NEW YORK: Sow Files Civil Rights Suit NORTHERN DYNASTY: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline NOSLER INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Paguada Suit Claims NV5 LLC: Ricketts Sues Over Unpaid OT for Environmental Inspectors OLO INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PANASONIC CORP: Settles Battery Price-Fixing Class Suit for $6.3MM PENUMBRA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Thornton Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline PK MANAGEMENT: Additional Tenants Can Intervene in Riley Class Suit QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: RM LAW Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline RANDY TAYLOR: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses REALOGY HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Toss Amended Chinitz TCPA-UCL Suit RGS FINANCIAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Tataru FDCPA Suit SHEET MUSIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIERRA BULLETS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOLE TECHNOLOGY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Dhanowa Sues Over Mislabeled Tuna Sandwich SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Wheeler Sues Over Viracta Merger Deal SWEET SPECIALTY: Macias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, BIPA Violations TRICIDA INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline TRITERRAS: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Filed WALMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action WALMART INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline WALMART INC: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $10 Million WELLS FARGO: Former Client Associate Files Overtime Class Action WELLS FARGO: Pina Suit Removed to Massachusetts Dist. Ct. YRC INC: Shroeder Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir. ********* 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- 22nd Century Group, Inc. (NYSE American: XXII), a leading plant-based, biotechnology company that is focused on tobacco harm reduction, very low nicotine content tobacco, and hemp/cannabis research, announced on Jan. 19 the dismissal with prejudice of the federal securities class action lawsuit captioned Noto. V. 22nd Century Group, Inc., 19-CV-1285 by a federal district court in the Western District of New York on January 14, 2021. The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of New York, where it was captioned Bull v. 22nd Century Group, Inc. 1:19-CV-00409. In denying the Plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to file another amended Complaint, the Court held that "further amendment would be futile." "We are pleased with the Court's decision to dismiss this baseless lawsuit," said James A. Mish, chief executive officer of 22nd Century Group. "We have consistently maintained that these claims were without merit. We remain committed to building shareholder value through the advancement of our strategies in tobacco, hemp/cannabis, and plant science." About 22nd Century Group, Inc. 22nd Century Group, Inc. (NYSE American: XXII) is a leading plant biotechnology company focused on technologies that alter the level of nicotine in tobacco plants and the level of cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering, gene-editing, and modern plant breeding. 22nd Century's primary mission in tobacco is to reduce the harm caused by smoking through the Company's proprietary reduced nicotine content tobacco cigarettes - containing 95% less nicotine than conventional cigarettes. The Company's primary mission in hemp/cannabis is to develop and commercialize proprietary hemp/cannabis plants with valuable cannabinoid profiles and desirable agronomic traits. [GN] AARGON AGENCY: Wilson to File Report on Doe Defendants by Feb. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACOBI WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARGON AGENCY, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 19 Civ. 11563 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the Plaintiff to submit a status report regarding the John Doe Defendants by Feb. 2, 2021. On Dec. 17, 2019, Wilson filed a proposed class action against Aargon and John Does 1-25 alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On March 12, 2020, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. On March 27, 2020, the parties stipulated to dismiss the action against Aargon. Failure to comply with Court orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5x5ly5v from Leagle.com. ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Jackson Stockholder Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled WILLIAM JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. LLC, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. HOLDINGS LLC, ALLIANZ SE, ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, ALLIANZ OF AMERICA, INC., ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA, L.P., and ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA LLC, Case No. 650015/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 21, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00570 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law related to the marketing and management of several funds. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC is a global investment firm headquartered in New York, New York. Allianz Global Investors U.S. Holdings LLC is a limited liability company that operates as an investment firm, headquartered in New York, New York. Allianz SE is a European multinational financial services company headquartered in Munich, Germany. Allianz Asset Management GmbH is an investment management firm based in Germany. Allianz of America, Inc. is a company that provides insurance and asset management services based in Novato, California. Allianz Asset Management of America Holdings Inc. is an asset management firm with its principal place of business in California. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P. is an asset management firm with its principal place of business in California. Allianz Asset Management of America LLC is an asset management firm with its principal place of business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esq. Stephanie G. Wheeler, Esq. Jacob M. Croke, Esq. Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager, Esq. Hilary M. Williams, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2468 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 - and – Robert A. Skinner, Esq. Amy D. Roy, Esq. Mary Elizabeth Brust, Esq. Cole A. Goodman, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 951-7000 Facsimile: (617) 951-7050 ANWORTH MORTGAGE: Carlisle Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL CARLISLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANWORTH MORTGAGE ASSET CORPORATION, JOSEPH E. MCADAMS, JOE E. DAVIS, ROBERT C. DAVIS, MARK S. MARON, LLOYD MCADAMS, and DOMINIQUE MIELLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00566 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation and the members of Anworth's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Anworth will be acquired by Ready Capital Corporation through Ready Capital's subsidiary RC Merger Subsidiary. According to the complaint, on January 4, 2021, Ready Capital filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Anworth stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for Anworth and Ready Capital and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; (ii) Credit Suisse's potential conflicts of interest; and (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction. Defendants allegedly authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Registration Statement in violation of the Exchange Act. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation invests in agency mortgage assets, including mortgage pass-through certificates, collateralized mortgage obligations, and other real estate securities. [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 APKE ECOMMERCE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APKE ECOMMERCE HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00544-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.urbanbikesdirect.com, 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 Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. APKE ECOMMERCE HOLDINGS LLC is an online electric bike, electric scooter and electric skateboard dealer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal BLACKBAUD INC: Roth Breach Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARTIN ROTH, CHARI ROTH, and RACHEL ROTH on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-20136, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on January 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00053-JMC to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises out of the ransomware attack and data breach which occurred intermittently between February 7, 2020 and May 20, 2020 of Blackbaud, an entity that currently and has provided cloud solutions to not for profit companies, including educational institutions for decades on various forms of its software, including its Educational Edge software and legacy versions of that software. The Plaintiffs allege that Blackbaud knowingly, recklessly or negligently failed to take steps to either remove such unencrypted information from its data bases or to encrypt such information, thereby subjecting such information to a data breach.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard T. Longman, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800 Livingston, NJ 07039 Telephone: (973) 994-2315 Facsimile: (974) 994-2319 E-mail: Hlongman@ssbny.com BP EXPLORATION: Joint Proposed Scheduling Order in Vargas Ordered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTONIO SAAVEDRA-VARGAS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., SECTION "L" (2), Case No. 18-11461 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial and Modify Scheduling Order. The case arises from Plaintiff Saavedra-Vargas's shoreline clean-up work near Hopedale, Louisiana, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that during that response work, he was exposed to particulate matter that caused him to suffer from chronic bilateral maxillary sinus disease. He worked from approximately May 2010 to November 2010 and was diagnosed in 2017. Based on the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants BP Exploration and BP America Production Co. pursuant to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement ("MSA") reached in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179. This allows class members claiming "later-manifested physical conditions" diagnosed after April 2012 to sue through the Back-End Litigation Option. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, scarring and disfigurement, other economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear of future medical issues. The trial in the case has been continued three times due to the pandemic. Most recently, the trial has again been rescheduled to May 10, 2021, but the Aug. 24, 2020 deadline for the Plaintiff's expert report was not continued. The Plaintiff has now filed a motion to re-open the expert deadlines and reset his expert disclosure date to April 1, 2021. He contends that good cause exists under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to allow the modification of the Court's scheduling order because his proposed new expert will require time to develop opinions in the case. A recent study has revealed additional oil deposits from the Deepwater Horizon spill. The study was designed to examine the full extent of the oil released for the purpose of determining its level of toxicity to marine organisms in open waters. The Plaintiff has since retained one of the study's authors, Dr. Perlin, to conduct a new study to quantify the level and duration of his toxic exposure to determine whether there is any causal relationship between it and his malady. The Plaintiff insists that the proposed study will help him meet his burden of proof on medical causation. In response, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to show good cause for re-opening the deadline, since he had at least February 2020 to effectuate the proposed study. They also challenge the study's relevance, as it dealt entirely with toxic-to-biota (i.e., marine life) concentration ranges in offshore waters. Further, the Plaintiff has stipulated that particulate matter caused his sinus condition, not polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in the oil. Lastly, the Defendants argue that BP would be prejudiced by the resulting need to retake expert discovery and re-issue reports from its own experts. An oral argument was held on Jan. 5, 2021. Judge Fallon finds that good cause exists to re-open expert discovery in the case. He anticipates challenges to the relevance and reliability of Dr. Perlin's opinions as to this particular Plaintiff, but these may be more properly be addressed on a Daubert motion. The parties will confer and submit a joint proposed scheduling order to cure any potential prejudice to the Defendants as a result of this extension. Accordingly, Judge Fallon granted the Plaintiff's motion. He directed the parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling order by no later than Feb. 2, 2021. The Judge denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to file supplemental authority in support. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yymh3bwe from Leagle.com. BRAD RAMBO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brad Rambo & Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brad Rambo & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00549 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brad Rambo & Associates, Inc. was founded in 1983. The Company offers men's apparel and furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: To Settle Securities Suit by Way of CCAA Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- CannTrust Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust" or the "Company") (unlisted) on Jan. 20 disclosed that it has entered into a Restructuring Support Agreement ("RSA") with plaintiffs who have commenced litigation in Canada and the United States (the "Securities Claims") asserting claims against CannTrust and others on behalf of a global class of CannTrust shareholders (together, the "Securities Claimants") and their legal counsel. The RSA provides a comprehensive framework for settling the Securities Claims under a Court-approved plan of compromise, arrangement and reorganization ("Plan of Arrangement") pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) ("CCAA"). "The announcement represents a significant milestone towards the resolution of substantially all of the civil litigation claims that were filed against CannTrust following the Company's non-compliance with certain Health Canada regulations," said Greg Guyatt, Chief Executive Officer at CannTrust. "Although much work remains to conclude the matters contemplated by the RSA, I am pleased that, in addition to relaunching our medical and recreational businesses, we are also making further tangible progress to exit from the CCAA and put CannTrust in a position to be a successful player in the cannabis industry." The RSA contemplates that the Securities Claims will be settled as part of a broader restructuring of the Company and its subsidiaries pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement that will be completed under the CCAA. Implementation of the Plan of Arrangement will be subject to several conditions, including negotiation of mutually satisfactory definitive documentation and approval of the Plan of Arrangement by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Ontario Court") in the CCAA proceedings. The RSA requires the parties to negotiate in good faith to finalize the terms of definitive agreements and the Plan of Arrangement on terms consistent with the terms of the RSA and to cooperate in good faith during the mediation ordered by the Ontario Court on May 8, 2020 (the "Mediation"). In addition, the RSA requires the other parties to cooperate with CannTrust to pursue and support the settlement of the Securities Claims in the manner contemplated by the RSA. The RSA also contemplates the resolution, pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, of all claims against CannTrust and certain other defendants in the Securities Claims, including Greg Guyatt, Mark Dawber, John Kaden, Robert Marcovitch, Shawna Page, Mitchell Sanders and Cajun Capital Corporation. Upon the implementation of the Plan of Arrangement, CannTrust will, among other things, pay CAD $50 million into a trust that will be established for the benefit of the Securities Claimants. The RSA permits other defendants to elect to join in the settlement of the Securities Claims pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, subject to certain conditions. The Company stated that its cash position at January 19, 2021 was approximately CAD $78 million. CannTrust also expressed its appreciation for the tireless efforts and wise counsel provided to all parties to the RSA by retired Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, Dennis O'Connor, OC, OOnt, who has supervised the Mediation. CannTrust remains under CCAA protection to facilitate its efforts to resolve its civil litigation claims and complete its review of strategic alternatives, which includes a review of financing options. Aspects of the ongoing efforts remain confidential, and the Company is unable to predict with any certainty either their timing or outcome. In the meantime, the reinstatement of its cannabis licenses and the restoration of its ongoing operations, CannTrust's re-entry into the Canadian recreational and medical cannabis business segments and its entry into the RSA are essential to the Company's focus on rebuilding its franchise. For more information about CannTrust's CCAA proceedings, please visit: www.ey.com/ca/canntrust. About CannTrust CannTrust is a federally regulated licensed cannabis producer. CannTrust is committed to research and innovation, investing in developing technologies for new products in the medical, recreational, and wellness markets, while contributing to the growing body of evidence-based research regarding the use and efficacy of cannabis. [GN] CHINA XD PLASTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of shareholders of China XD Plastics Company Limited (NASDAQ: CXDC) for their violations of Sections 13(d) and (e), 14(a) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the issuance of materially defective proxy materials and Schedule 13Ds and Schedule 13E3s which resulted in the approval of a cash out merger which delivered the totality of the equity of CXD to controlling insiders. China XD Plastics Company Limited is a China-based specialty chemicals company, said on November 5, 2020 that its stockholders had approved the company's agreement to go private via a planned acquisition by Faith Dawn and its Faith Horizon subsidiary. Under the deal, announced in June 2020, Faith Dawn will acquire all outstanding shares of the China XD Plastics, which focuses on polymer composite materials primarily for automotive applications, for a cash consideration then equal to $1.20 per share. All investors who purchased shares of China XD Plastics Company Limited and object to the transaction are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. If you hold in shares of China XD Plastics Company Limited, you may, no later than February 8, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of China XD Plastics Company Limited. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] CLEANSPARK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on January 20, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cleanspark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is December 31, 2020 through January 14, 2021. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-cleanspark-inc/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Cleanspark, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than March 22, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. [GN] CLEARVIEW AI INC: Ill. BIPA Class Action Belongs in State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Manson, writing for Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing software company Clearview AI Inc. of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act belongs in state court, a federal appeals court held. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue the suit in federal court and that it should be litigated in Cook County Circuit Court instead. Federal standards for standing are more demanding than those in Illinois. [GN] CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS: Huertas Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ SALVATORE HUERTAS, JESSE SWINSON, and JAMES KOBE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00026-D (E.D.N.C., Jan. 19, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and the South Carolina state laws. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to pay them an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 per week by misclassifying them as independent contractors. The Defendant also deducted substantial amounts from Plaintiffs' weekly pay for alleged unlawful "chargebacks," which deprived them of full payment of wages and often reduced their weekly hourly pay below the statutory minimum wage. The Plaintiffs performed satellite television repair services at residential and commercial customers' homes in North Carolina and South Carolina for the Defendant. Custom Communications, Inc. is a North Carolina-based regional satellite installation and repair company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Rothstein, Esq. ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA 1312 Augusta Street Greenville, SC 29605 Telephone: (864) 232-5870 Facsimile: (864) 241-1386 E-mail: drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. Matthew Patton, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com mpatton@llrlaw.com DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Rapid COVID-19 Test ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a putative federal securities class action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 15 against a medical diagnostics company that had been sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly making false claims about a rapid COVID-19 test. Beginning in March, Westlake Village, California-based Decision Diagnostics Corp. began to claim it had developed a finger-prick blood test that could detect COVID-19, and made various representations regarding its progress toward achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the test, according to the complaint filed on Jan. 15 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in Anthony Sanchez v. Decision Diagnostics Corp. and Keith M. Berman. The lawsuit was first reported in the D&O Diary blog. In December, the SEC filed a complaint against the company and Mr. Berman, its CEO, chief financial officer, secretary and sole director, in U.S. District Court in New York, charging it with making false and misleading claims about the test. A complaint states that following the SEC lawsuit, the company's common share price fell 6 cents per share to close at 4 cents per share. It charges the defendants with violating federal securities law. A company spokesman could not be reached for comment. In March, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against a pharmaceutical company that allegedly falsely promised a quick coronavirus vaccine, and whose stock plunged once it failed to deliver.[GN] DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Mar. 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 20 announced the filing of a federal securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Decision Diagnostics Corp. ("Decision Diagnostics" or "the Company") (OTCBB: DECN) on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") All investors who purchased shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp., you may, no later than March 16, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp. According to the filed Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Decision Diagnostics failed to develop a viable COVID-19 test in any form, let alone a test that could detect the virus in less than one minute. The Company was not capable of meeting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) EUA testing requirements for its purported COVID-19 test. Despite this inability to meet FDA requirements, the Company touted an unrealistic time to market for its tests. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] DISCOVER BANK: Faces Aliga Suit Over Improper Banking Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- ALIGA ONLINE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER BANK; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV02535 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2021) is an action against the Defendants alleging improper conversion of the Plaintiff's bank account. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that from August 4, 2020 to the date of filing the complaint, the Defendant caused the Plaintiff's funds to be improperly frozen and converted the Plaintiff's funds in the amount of $640,850.63, all to the Plaintiff's damage. This is despite no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Plaintiff to support any of the Defendants' allegations, the suit says. The Plaintiff has been damaged by the alleged improper conduct of the Defendants including the inability to conduct regular business as well as the loss of use of funds resulting from sales of the online business. As a result, the Plaintiff has been further damaged as all drafts to accounts were improperly and unreasonably rejected including business expenses, costs and tax payments. The Plaintiff suffered significant business damage, bounced checks to vendors and the IRS and inability to cover payroll and payroll expenses, added the complaint. Discover Bank provides banking services. The Company offers online banking, business loan, saving accounts, debit card, mobile banking, checking accounts, personal loan, e-statement, direct deposit, real estate loan, and insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vahe Hovanessian, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN 100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536 Glendale, CA 91203-2642 Telephone: (818) 240-1333 Facsimile: (818) 240-1369 E-mail: vahe@vhlaw.com EOS ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Continues Probe re Securities Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. ("Eos Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOSE) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Eos Energy investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/eos-energy-enterprises-inc/.You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On January 14, 2021, Iceberg Research published a report entitled "Eos Energy ($EOSE): Fake Customers Won't Recharge a Dead Battery," alleging among other things that Eos Energy has "failed technology and dubious customers." Citing findings that "the disclosed customers are extremely unlikely to have the financial ability to honour their contracts," the report "estimate[s] that EOS' equity is worth only $144M . . . which represents a 90% downside from its current market cap of $1.5B." On this news, Eos Energy stock price fell $3.85, or 13.55%, to close at $24.56 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Eos Energy should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 as Part of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cole Lauterbach, writing for The Telegraph, reports that about 1.6 million Illinoisans with a Facebook page who joined a class-action lawsuit could get about $350 in the coming months as part of a settlement. The checks are from a $650 million settlement that alleged the social media giant violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. One out of every five eligible Facebook users filed a claim before the Nov. 23 deadline. Christopher Dore, partner at Edelson PC, said the turnout was high for a typical class action lawsuit. "There were 1.6 million claims filed, which is really remarkable for a class-action," he said. "Often in class actions, it's in the single digits." The figures were released during a final approval hearing in California federal. The payouts could still get tangled up further in court. "If there are no appeals, we hope that checks would be distributed in the next two-or-so months after that. If there are appeals, it becomes a little bit more unpredictable and, unfortunately, could extend out many more months after that," Dore said. Those who qualified aren't necessarily Illinoisans but could be former residents. To qualify for the class action, you had to be one of the approximately 7 million Facebook users that had a profile after June of 2011. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans have left the state, most commonly heading to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, or neighboring states. They would qualify as long as they lived in the state for at least six months during that near-decade window. Dore said the estimated payout is still in line with their initial estimate of between $200 and $400 but was slightly lowered after a last-minute rush of Facebook users seeking class participation just before the deadline. The suit was initially filed in 2015 by Edelson, claiming Facebook's facial recognition feature was taking biometric data from users without their express permission, a central tenet of BIPA. Illinois' law is unique in that it's the only one of its kind that allows for private action, whereas other states rely on their attorney general to file suit. Fines for breaking BIPA start at $1,000 per instance and can be upgraded to $5,000 if it can be proven that the accused purposefully broke the statute. [GN] FEDEX GROUND: Westfall Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SANDRA WESTFALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-4565, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 21, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00116-JAM-KJN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to pay for all time worked, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to furnish an accurate itemized wage statement upon payment of wages, unfair competition, and public nuisance. FedEx Ground Package System Corporation is a company that provides package delivery services, with its principal place of business located in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Alexander M. Chemers, 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 alexander.chemers@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com FLOWBIRD URBAN: Grey Files Suit in W.D. Tenn. Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flowbird Urban Intelligence, U.S. The case is styled as Jeremy Grey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flowbird Urban Intelligence, U.S. (d/b/a Parkeon), Case No. 2:21-cv-02020-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 7, 2021). The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is assigned to Judge Thomas L. Parker. Flowbird Urban Intelligence, U.S., (d/b/a Parkeon), is a parking services and transport systems company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lucas Sanderson, Esq. WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C. 44 N. Second Street, Suite 502 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 523-1844 Facsimile: (901) 523-1857 E-mail: luke@wcwslaw.com GENWORTH LIFE: Overcharges Life Insurers, McMillan Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATSY H. MCMILLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00091-MC (D. Or., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and conversion. According to the complaint, the Defendant has deducted charges from the accumulated values of the Plaintiff and Class members in excess of amounts specifically identified and permitted by the terms of their life insurance policies. As a result, the Defendant has caused material harm to the Plaintiff and the Class by improperly draining monies they have accumulated in the accumulated values under their policies, the suit says. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company is a life insurance company, with its principal place of business located in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE 707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 228-6474 Facsimile: (503) 228-2556 E-mail: david@sugermanlawoffice.com nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com - and – Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Ethan Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and – John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com GOOGLE LLC: Black Suit Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00077 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, Google's Play Store is available to mobile device users running Google's Android operating system. While Google claims that the Android OS is maintained as "open" source software, Google has allegedly engaged in course of conduct designed to deter competition in the market for Android mobile applications of "apps" and products sold with such apps ("Android Mobile App Market"). Google has engaged in anticompetitive conduct through its distribution and preinstallation agreements with Android phone manufacturers, to monopolize the market for apps and in-app purchases, the suit asserts. Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Paul J. Tahan, Esq THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com ptahan@simonlawpc.com GRUBHUB INC: Farmer's Wife Sues Firm in Class Action Case --------------------------------------------------------- Susan Wood at The North Bay Business Journal reports that fed up with calling Grubhub to ask the food delivery business to take her Sebastopol restaurant off its list, Farmer's Wife owner Kendra Kolling's last straw came in the form of a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois. The Chicago-based online service has until Jan. 29 to reply to the legal complaint submitted two months ago with Kolling of the Farmer's Wife on McKinley Street and Lynn Scott of Antonia's in Hillsborough, North Carolina, as lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs stated Grubhub advertises their restaurants among its site, without permission. Further, in addition to charging restaurants 30% fees if they partner with the online delivery service, the suit said the service provided to its customers is flawed. "Grubhub's financial success has come at restaurants' expense," the legal complaint reads. When an order is placed, consumers believe they have a "direct line into the kitchen." But when a Grubhub order comes in to an unaffiliated restaurant, that request is relayed directly to the driver, who places the order to the restaurant in person or on the phone with a corporate credit card. The lack of accountability leads to confusion - one in which these diners' experiences are "rife with operational challenges," the complaint adds. Details emerged of drivers arriving late and acting unprofessionally, while using outdated menus and allowing for canceled orders too often, the lawsuit and restaurant owners say. "They did something that was nefarious, without my consent," Kolling told the Business Journal. Grubhub has declined to comment on the pending litigation according to company spokeswoman Katie Norris. Calls to its law firm, Cozen O'Connor, were unreturned. The online food delivery platform has spent 15 years telling its customer base that numbered more than 15 million active users by 2018 that "it had partnered with local restaurants to offer the coordinated takeout or delivery services," the complaint reads. The lawsuit makes a claim that Grubhub profited from adding on as many restaurants as possible on its list. But in October 2019, the company "was forced to slash its projections," as competing services DoorDash and Uber Eats were taking a bite out of its market share. "The company was looking for a quick return to the rapid growth and astronomical market valuations it had previously enjoyed," the suit states. According to a Chicago Business Journal article published June 10, Grubhub Inc. was sold to Just Eat Takeway.com of The Netherlands for $7.3 billion. Many restaurants have been invited to join the class action fight. The law firm managing the suit hasn't placed an end-all amount for damages on the suit, but the complaint estimates the figure may exceed $5 million. "It's not about the money," Kolling insists, adding the cost of a tarnished reputation remained dire. Instead she added, her restaurant operates on a high standard of unique recipes and organic ingredients for its farm-to-table brand. "We have a saying around here: 'You're only as good as your last sandwich.'" But the Farmer's Wife was billed as an eatery with pub seafood to Grubhub, and sometimes the drivers would deliver orders 45 minutes away. Her signature hot-melt dishes were not intended for that kind of ride, Kolling lamented. "I'm a tough lady, but I'm not about to go under because of corporate greed," Kolling said. Located in the Barlow, the Farmer's Wife has built a following over its 14 years in business. When it appeared the arrangement with Grubhub wasn't working out, she contacted the company five times last fall to get removed from the list to no avail. State law addresses the issue Then, California's Assembly Bill 2149 - the Fair Food Delivery Act - went into effect on Jan. 1. The law specifically prohibits companies such as Grubhub from arranging for food delivery unless the restaurant agrees to it. "The damage has been done," said Alex Bukac, the case's attorney at Gibb's Law based in Oakland. "We've had more phone calls and emails about this than I can count. What you're describing is the impetus for this law," California Restaurant Association spokeswoman Sharokina Shams told the Business Journal. Horror stories were shared with the state restaurant industry trade group. Shams recalled one instance in which a restaurant discovered French fries in one meal delivery were skimmed off the top. Iron Springs Pub owner Anne Dubinsky Altman said she and her husband Mike tried using Grubhub and DoorDash online services but prefer controlling deliveries at their Marin County restaurant using their own employees. During the pandemic's latest shutdown that only allowed for curbside and delivery, they bought a truck for that purpose. Since she found the online services used outdated menus, the arrangement didn't work out for the couple. "This was one big reason we got the truck," she said. "We'd get customer complaints. Sometimes (Grubhub drivers) wouldn't pick up for an hour. Then, the customer would yell at us." [GN] HOUSE OF MARLEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The House of Marley, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The House of Marley, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00537-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. House of Marley -- https://www.thehouseofmarley.com/ -- offers bluetooth speakers, headphones, earbuds & turntables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal JOHNSON MARK: Kemp Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Mark LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jake L. Kemp, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Johnson Mark LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00109-JJT (D. Ariz., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Johnson Mark, LLC -- https://www.jmlaw.com/ -- is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com LIZHI INC: Rosen Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lizhi Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI) pursuant and/or traceable to Lizhi's January 17, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lizhi investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Lizhi class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1986.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or 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, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1986.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] MADE TO DESTROY: Sanchez Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADE TO DESTROY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00546-PGG (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website, www.factbrand.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Made To Destroy, LLC is a clothing company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal MANHATTAN GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00569-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website, www.manhattantoy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Manhattan Group, LLC is a children's toys company, with its principal place of business located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MDL 2873: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Suit Over Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------------- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC has filed a class action lawsuit for the contamination of the groundwater relied upon private well owners in Lubbock, Texas. The class action complaint was filed against manufacturers of aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") containing perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and manufacturers of fluorosurfactants containing PFOS and PFOA. The class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Decades of use, storage, and disposal of AFFF at the former Reese Air Force Base caused the widespread PFOA and PFOS contamination of groundwater in the surrounding community, including contaminating private wells serving residents in Lubbock. To date, over 500 private drinking water wells have been sampled for PFAS, and the Air Force has installed 220 whole-house filters. Testing data has revealed elevated levels of PFAS in dozens of private wells exceeding the USEPA health advisory levels for PFOA and/or additional PFAS for which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") has published protective concentration levels (PCLs). The class action complaint alleges that plaintiffs and others similarly situated with private water wells in Lubbock have been exposed to high levels of PFAS and are now at an increased risk of several health effects, including testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, effects on the liver and the immune system, high cholesterol, changes in thyroid hormone, as well as kidney and other cancers. Studies have also shown an association between increased PFOA blood levels and increased risks for several health effects in children (for example, effects on birth weight, cognitive and behavioral development, immune function, and cholesterol levels). Unfortunately, many of these serious health issues can be long-term, especially in children. The complaint also states that property values in the area have dropped as a result of the contamination. We strongly encourage Lubbock residents with a private water well who may have been exposed to these toxic chemicals and are now suffering from the various diseases and cancers listed above to seek medical help and contact our environmental legal team. Our knowledgeable staff will explain your legal options; the consultation is free and confidential. There is no obligation and we only recover fees if we win your case. There are strict time limitations for filing an action for both property damage and personal injury claims, so do not lose your opportunity to file or receive compensation by not contacting us. We look forward to the opportunity to help you too; contact us for your free, no-obligation case evaluation today. [GN] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micron Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00559 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Micron Technology, Inc. -- https://www.micron.com/ -- is an American producer of computer memory and computer data storage including dynamic random-access memory, flash memory, and USB flash drives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MINICLIP SA: Mastel Sues Over Wiretapping of Mobile's Communication ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MASTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINICLIP SA and APPLE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00059 (E.D. Cal., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Constitution, the Stored Communications Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged wiretapping of electronic communications of the users of Miniclip's 8 Ball Pool mobile application. Miniclip, without a user's permission and with the aid of Apple, is able to view text entries saved on the Pasteboard on an iPhone device, even though such text came from other mobile applications, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class members did not consent to any of the Defendants' alleged actions in accessing the content of their Pasteboard. Nor have the Plaintiff or Class members consented to Defendants' intentional access, interception, reading, learning, recording, and collection of their electronic communications, the suit added. Miniclip SA is an international digital games and entertainment company, with its principal place of business at 18 Faubourg de l'Hopital, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company, with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com NATIONAL PACKAGING: Wilkerson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Wade Wilkerson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL PACKAGING SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00092-WCG (E.D. Wis., Jan. 21, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employee and to the benefit of the Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to compensate the Plaintiff for meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30 consecutive minutes in duration, in violation of the WWPCL (and which resulted in overtime violations of the FLSA); (3) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Operator at Defendant's Green Bay, Wisconsin production facility. The Defendant is headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and is a privately-owned company that provides packing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com NEVADA: Iden's Bid to Enforce Deal in Riker Suit v. Gibbons Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID RIKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. JAMES GIBBONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:08-cv-00115-LRH-CLB (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied inmate Richard Iden's Motion for Notice of Violation of Settlement Agreement and Motion for Clarification. Mr. Iden, an inmate at Ely State Prison, identifies himself as a "real party in interest" to the closed Section 1983 civil rights class action. Currently before the Court are his Motion for Notice of Violation of Settlement Agreement and Motion for Clarification. The Defendants oppose the motions. Iden did not file replies, and the deadline to do so expired without a request for extension. The underlying action addressed the Plaintiffs' allegations that Ely State Prison lacked a constitutionally adequate health care system. The Plaintiffs were represented by a class counsel. On Oct. 25, 2010, the Court held a fairness hearing regarding a proposed settlement agreement. It entered an order on Oct. 28, 2010, approving the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismissing this case with prejudice. Judgment was entered on Oct. 28, 2010. Mr. Iden's motions claim that the Defendants and their successors are not timely filling his "KOP" medications on a monthly basis. He asserts that the Defendants' inaction violates the terms of the settlement agreement in the case and he, therefore, asks the Court to enforce the agreement. The Court-approved settlement agreement states that subsequent to the dismissal of the Riker litigation with prejudice, the parties' sole remedy to enforce or interpret the agreement, or to otherwise resolve any disputes that may arise from the agreement, other than by pursuing the dispute-resolution process set forth in Section V(M) of the agreement, will lie in an action for breach of contract seeking specific performance only (and expressly not money damages), commenced in a Nevada state court applying Nevada law, and not reinstatement of the Riker litigation in any court for any purpose. As such, Judge Hicks denied Iden's motions. Inmate Iden will file no further documents in the closed action. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxe28o2z from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: Sow Files Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of New York, et al. The case is styled as Adama Sow, David Jaklevic, Alexandra de Mucha Pino, Oscar Rios, Barbara Ross, Matthew Bredder, Sabrina Zurkuhlen, Maria Salazar, Dara Pluchino, Savitri Durkee, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. City Of New York; Mayor Bill de Blasio; New York City Police Department Commissioner; NYPD Detective Edward Carrasco (Shield No. 1567); NYPD Officer Talha Ahmad (Shield No. 21358); NYPD Officer Kevin Argo (Shield No. 8054); NYPD Officers John and Jane Does # 1-40; Case No. 1:21-cv-00533-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deema Azizi, Esq. Jonathan C Moore, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. Marc Arena, Esq. Rebecca Leigh Pattiz, Esq. David Bruce Rankin, Esq. BEDLOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Ste. 26th Fl./PH New York, NY 10016 Phone: (347) 445-0928 Email: deema.azizi@gmail.com jmoore@blhny.com ldroubi@blhny.com marena@blhny.com rpattiz@blhny.com drankin@blhny.com - and - Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq. 16 Cornelia St Brooklyn, NY 11221 Phone: (413) 329-3238 Email: elenacohenesq@gmail.com - and - Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq. 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (646) 263-3495 Fax: (646) 349-2914 Email: gideon@gideonlaw.com - and - Jessica Massimi, Esq. 99 Wall Street, Suite 1264 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (646) 241-9800 Email: jessica.massimi@gmail.com - and - Remy Green, Esq. COHEN & GREEN 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 Phone: (929) 888-9480 Fax: (929) 888-9457 - and - Wylie M. Stecklow, Esq. WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC 231 West 96th Street Professional Suites 2B New York City, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 566-8000 Fax: (212) 202-4952 Email: ecf@wylielaw.com NORTHERN DYNASTY: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Jan. 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK) between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd&id=2517 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd&id=2517 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 2, 2021. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] NOSLER INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Paguada Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOSLER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00564-PGG (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website, shop.nosler.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Nosler, Inc. is a firearms and accessories manufacturing company based in Bend, Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com NV5 LLC: Ricketts Sues Over Unpaid OT for Environmental Inspectors ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEF RICKETTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NV5, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00056 (S.D. W. Va., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked as an environmental inspector in and around Mineral Wells and Dunbar, West Virginia from approximately June 2018 until October 2018. NV5, LLC is a provider of compliance, technology, and engineering consulting solutions headquartered in Hollywood, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. James S. Nelson, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com OLO INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olo Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Olo Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00540 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olo -- https://www.olo.com/ -- powers digital ordering and delivery programs that connect restaurant brands to the on-demand world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PANASONIC CORP: Settles Battery Price-Fixing Class Suit for $6.3MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Craig, writing for GCR USA, reports that Panasonic has become the final company to settle a class-action lawsuit in Canada that accused eight electronics companies of conspiring to fix the price of lithium-ion battery cells. [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Jan. 20 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. PINS Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12284&wire=1 PEN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-information-request-form?prid=12284&wire=1 QS Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12284&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS) PINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12284&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Pinterest, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN) PEN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-information-request-form?prid=12284&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Penumbra, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's public statements as set forth above were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:QS) QS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12284&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 http://www.zlk.com[GN] PENUMBRA INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 19 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Penumbra investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Penumbra class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2003.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already occurred; (3) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's public statements as set forth in the complaint were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2003.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Thornton Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased Penumbra stock or other securities between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Penumbra to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The case alleges that Penumbra and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already occurred; and (3) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues. Interested Penumbra investors have until March 16, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Penumbra Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] PK MANAGEMENT: Additional Tenants Can Intervene in Riley Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEORA RILEY, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2337-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Intervene, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Response to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of 2nd Intervenor Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Intervene. The Plaintiffs bring their motion pursuant to the Court's Memorandum and Order which granted them leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and granted the request of additional tenants of Central Park Towers to become Intervenor-Plaintiffs. The Court allowed intervention by tenants that the Plaintiffs' counsel had identified at the time, and also permitted counsel to later seek to add more tenants as the counsel were able to meet with them in person and fully advise them about their rights and obligations as participants in the lawsuit. The issue arose because the counsel's efforts have been hampered by Covid-19 concerns and safety measures imposed by governmental authorities. As a result, not all current and former tenants that might be represented by the Plaintiffs' counsel were included in the motion to intervene as of its filing. The Plaintiffs therefore asked the Court to consider timely any motion to intervene they would file within 45 days of the date of the order on the motion to intervene. The Court granted the motion, but set the deadline for 30 days later. The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion pursuant to and consistent with the Court's order granting intervention. Defendants Aspen Companies Management, LL and Central Park Holdings, LLC ("Holdings") oppose the motion by repeating the arguments made in their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to intervene. The Court has twice rejected their arguments, first granting the motion to intervene and later denying Aspen and Holdings' motion to reconsider. But Aspen and Holdings also oppose the instant motion on the grounds that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' claims should be compared to a prior version of the complaint. In so doing, they conflate the status of the operative complaint with that of an earlier version. The operative class action complaint is the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. Magistrate Judge James finds the argument to be without merit. She holds that the claims in the proposed Complaint of Second Wave Intervenors satisfy the commonality requirement the Court considered in allowing intervention. The Plaintiffs attached to their reply a version of the proposed Complaint of Second Wave Intervenors that is different than the one attached to their motion. They explain the differences as two name corrections, the addition of one omitted party, and the deletion of a tenant who has since died. Aspen and Holdings draw one of those changes to the Court's attention in a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Response to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of 2nd Intervenor Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Intervene. In their proposed sur-response, they oppose the addition of Ellen Montgomery, who was not identified by the deadline of Sept. 28, 2020. The only stated basis for their opposition is untimeliness. The Plaintiffs contend that the request to include Ms. Montgomery should be considered timely because the motion underlying it was not made out of time, even if her name was omitted from their proposed pleading. They offer no legal or logical support for their contention, which the Court rejects. But the Plaintiffs explain that Ms. Montgomery sent her signed paperwork to the counsel on the day of the deadline, and counsel received it after the deadline. They urge the Court to exercise its discretion to permit her inclusion, as doing so will not be unduly prejudicial to the Defendants but refusing her inclusion would result in prejudice to Ms. Montgomery because she would have to file her own state court action. In their reply, Aspen and Holdings stand by their untimeliness argument. They have not asserted prejudice. Magistrate Judge will, therefore, permit the Plaintiffs to make the changes they propose to the Complaint of Second Wave Intervenors. To avoid confusion and to simplify a record that is already voluminous, Magistrate Judge requires the Plaintiffs to file a single consolidated complaint that combines the Third Amended Class Action Complaint and the proposed Complaint of Second Wave Intervenors found at ECF No. 329-1, thereby comprehensively stating the claims of all the Plaintiffs and all the Intervenor-Plaintiffs. With the parties' history of failing to agree on procedural issues, the Magistrate Judge directs the Plaintiffs to submit a draft of the consolidated complaint (titled "Consolidated Third Amended Class Action and Intervenors' Complaint") to the defense counsel, who will review the draft only for the ministerial task of confirming it complies with her Order. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge James granted the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Intervene. The Plaintiffs will create a Consolidated Third Amended Class Action and Intervenors' Complaint as described. No later than Jan. 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs will provide a copy of the document to defense counsel. No later than Feb. 1, 2021, the defense counsel will confirm that the document complies with the Order. No later than three business days after the defense counsel has confirmed the document's compliance, the Plaintiffs will file and serve the Consolidated Third Amended Class Action and Intervenors' Complaint. The Magistrate Judge also granted the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Response to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of 2nd Intervenor Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Intervene. Aspen and Holdings will file the sur-response within five business days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxgtlm84 from Leagle.com. QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: RM LAW Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. on Jan. 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. ("QuantumScape" or the "Company") (NYSE:QS) securities during the period from November 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period"). QuantumScape shareholders may, no later than March 8, 2021 move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of QuantumScape and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here https://www.rmclasslaw.com/case/qs The filed complaint alleges that QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 8, 2021 request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or click here https://www.rmclasslaw.com/case/qs For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website by clicking here https://www.rmclasslaw.com/ RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. CONTACT: RM LAW, P.C. Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 rm@maniskas.com http://www.rmclasslaw.com[GN] RANDY TAYLOR: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------- MCKENNA ALYSSE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANDY TAYLOR CONSULTING LLC, HARVEST DISPENSARIES, CULTIVATIONS AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21SMCV00156 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to maintain required records. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid employee. Randy Taylor Consulting LLC is a consulting firm based in Arizona. Harvest Dispensaries, Cultivations and Production Facilities LLC is a cannabis growing and dispensary company based in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Roy@kicklawfirm.com Daniel@kicklawfirm.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Toss Amended Chinitz TCPA-UCL Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The putative class action alleges multiple violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The gravamen of the SAC is that Defendants Realogy Holdings, Realogy Intermediate Holdings, Realogy Group, Realogy Services Group, and Realogy Brokerage Group, operate a national conglomerate of real estate companies, including Coldwell Banker, whose agents make cold calls to potential clients listed on the National Do Not Call Registry maintained by the Federal Trade Commission. Defendant Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC is said to be an autodialing company used by Realogy in connection with the calls. Realogy asks to dismiss the SAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion and failure to allege enough facts to plausibly show that Realogy is responsible for the wrongful cold calls. Judge Donato denied. The case began in the San Jose division of the District, where named Plaintiff Chinitz filed a class action complaint against Coldwell Banker under the TCPA (Case No. 18-6100). Chinitz amended the complaint to "correct" the Defendant's name to "NRT West, Inc. ("NRT West") d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company." As discovery unfolded, Chinitz came to believe that NRT West may also not have been the correct defendant because it did not appear to be a nationwide entity, or the entity that set cold-calling policies for the Coldwell Banker agents. He sought a stipulation to amend again but NRT West refused to agree, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Chinitz filed the action to name what he had concluded were the proper defendants, which resulted in two cases in the District with overlapping allegations and, to some extent, parties. The Court intervened early to help the parties manage this less than optimal situation, and guided the discussion to a plan for an agreement to dismiss the San Jose action in favor of proceeding with the instant lawsuit. The parties eventually stipulated to dismiss the San Jose case, leaving the action as the only one going forward. Given the procedural history, Judge Donato finds it rather surprising that one of Realogy's main arguments for dismissal is that the stipulation it signed precludes the action. The stipulation was agreed to and filed in Case No. 18-6100 in response to the Court's effort to fix a purely procedural sticking point that NRT West was unwilling to resolve in a more straightforward fashion. It did not resolve any of the claims on the merits, and certainly was not intended to do so. To conclude otherwise, the Judge holds, would unfairly and unreasonably deny Chinitz his day in court, an outcome that would be all the more untenable in light of the fact that Chinitz filed the dismissal at the Court's suggestion and in a good-faith effort to improve the efficient management of this litigation. These circumstances are a country mile away from a situation where a finding of preclusion might be warranted to "protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions," the Judge holds. Finding preclusion would also encourage and reward gamesmanship, a flavor of which is present in Realogy's preclusion argument. Realogy's other main argument for dismissal is unavailing, the Judge finds. It says that the SAC does not plausibly allege that Realogy is responsible for the cold calls that may have violated the NDNCR and TCPA. Not so, the Judge holds as the SAC states enough facts to go forward on this score. The allegations in the SAC offer an abundance of detail that is, without doubt, sufficient to plausibly state claims for violations of the TCPA and the UCL against Realogy. To be sure, the SAC identifies several Realogy entities as involved in the cold calling practices. Realogy professes to be befuddled by the identification of multiple entities, but the SAC plausibly lays out a corporate family tree of potentially liable affiliates that is more than enough for pleading purposes. According to the Judge, these statements are measurably more concrete than the boilerplate allegations of agency and relationship found to be inadequate in other cases. Chinitz ultimately will be required to prove which Realogy entities are liable on his claims at summary judgement or trial, but that is an issue for a later day. The only question is whether the SAC plausibly states a basis for going forward on this issue, and it does. Realogy makes a final gesture at dismissal by saying that the SAC does not give it "proper notice" under Rule 8 of the claims against it. What it might mean is left unsaid, and in any event does not hold water in light of the factual detail the SAC provides. The complaint will not be dismissed on this basis, the Judge holds. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4avow8n from Leagle.com. RGS FINANCIAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Tataru FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant RGS FINANCIAL, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GABRIEL TATARU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RGS FINANCIAL, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06106, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Tataru filed suit against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and for failing to accurately identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed, and by making false, deceptive or misleading statements by claiming the debt was owed to "FNB OMAHA II", when there is no such entity by that name. The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, granting the Plaintiff's class certification motion and cross motion for summary judgment and denying its summary judgment motion. The appellate case is captioned as RGS Financial, Inc. v. Gabriel Tataru, Case No. 21-8005, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Jan. 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintif-Respondent GABRIEL TATARU, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C. 111 W. Washington Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 300-4167 Defendant-Petitioner RGS FINANCIAL, INC. is represented by: Robbie Malone, Esq. Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq. MALONE FROST MARTIN PLLC 8750 N. Central Expressway Northpark Central Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 346-2630 SHEET MUSIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheet Music Plus, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sheet Music Plus, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00538 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sheet Music Plus, also known as SheetMusicPlus.com -- https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/ -- is an online retailer of sheet music located in Berkeley, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SIERRA BULLETS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Bullets, L.L.C. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sierra Bullets, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00563-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sierra Bullets -- https://www.sierrabullets.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of bullets intended for firearms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com SOLE TECHNOLOGY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sole Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sole Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00543 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sole Technology -- https://www.soletechnology.com/ -- offers action sports footwear and apparel that is available in more than 70 countries and is one of the largest private action sports companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Dhanowa Sues Over Mislabeled Tuna Sandwich -------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN DHANOWA; and NILIMA AMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., FRANCHISE WORLD HEADQUARTERS, LLC., SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING TRUST FUND LTD. and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-00498-DMR (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendants intentionally make false and misleading representations about tuna being used as an ingredient in some of their food items, including sandwiches and wraps. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants label and advertise the products as "tuna." However, the products' labeling, marketing and advertising is false and misleading since in reality, the products do not contain tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna. The products lack tuna and are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient, the suit says. Allegedly, the products are misbranded under federal and California State law. The Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme of the products includes tactics such as falsely labeling the products as "tuna" on menus throughout the Defendants' "Subway" eatery locations, as well as Defendants' website, the complaint added. Subway Restaurants, Inc., doing business as Subway World, operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers salads, beverages, sandwiches, burgers, and and veggies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Jonathan Wilkerson, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Ste. 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 -and- Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Wheeler Sues Over Viracta Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Wheeler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., STEVE R. CARCHEDI, STEVEN B. KETCHUM, NICOLE ONETTO, HOMER L. PEARCE, DAVID C. STUMP, H. WARD WOLFF, and JAMES W. YOUNG, Case No. 3:21-cv-00511 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2021), is brought against Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the members of Sunesis' Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Sunesis will merge with Viracta Therapeutics, Inc. through Sunesis' wholly owned subsidiary Sol Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction"). On November 30, 2020, Sunesis and Viracta issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated November 29, 2020 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Sunesis to Viracta. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of Viracta common stock will be converted into the right to receive approximately 113,924,602 shares of Sunesis common stock, based on an assumed exchange ratio of 0.4017, subject to adjustment for a reverse stock split of Sunesis common stock to be implemented prior to the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, and further adjusted based on Sunesis' net cash in connection with the closing of the Proposed Transaction. Viracta stockholders are expected to own approximately 86% and Sunesis stockholders will own approximately 14% of the combined company. On December 22, 2020, Sunesis filed a Form 424B3 proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Sunesis stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and Viracta's financial projections and the financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided by the Board's financial advisor, MTS Securities, LLC; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest faced by MTS and Company insiders. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act, it adds. Unless remedied, Sunesis' public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Sunesis. Sunesis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel targeted inhibitors for the treatment of hematologic and solid cancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310/208-2800 Facsimile: 310/209-2348 - and - Richard A. Acocelli WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212/682-3025 Facsimile: 212/682-3010 SWEET SPECIALTY: Macias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSELYN MACIAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEET SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00361 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and requiring them to scan their hands into a biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication without informing them the specific limited purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used their handprints and without obtaining written release from them to collect or store handprints. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-rate employee for the Defendant in Illinois, until the end of 2020. Sweet Specialty Solutions, LLC is a provider of packaging solutions, with its principal place of business in Lemont, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Thalia Pacheco, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E. 5th Ave. Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 TRICIDA INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Tricida investors have until March 8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Tricida's drug candidate, veverimer, is a polymer designed as a potential treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic kidney disease ("CKD"). The Company has completed a Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of veverimer in patients with CKD and metabolic acidosis. On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with CKD. On July 15, 2020, Tricida announced that it had received a notice from the FDA "identif[ying] deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time." The Company stated that "[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.56, or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on October 29, 2020, following its End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA, Tricida announced that it "now believes the FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of efficacy." Tricida also disclosed that it was "significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.90, or 47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (2) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Tricida securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 8, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Tricida securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] TRITERRAS: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Filed ------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts Triterras investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Triterras stock or other securities (NASDAQ:TRIT) between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020. TRIT investors may visit www.tenlaw.com/cases/triterras-inc/ to learn about the case and the lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Triterras investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be eligible to recover as class members. The case alleges that Triterras and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose: (1) the extent to which Triterras' revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; and (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested Triterras investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/triterras-inc/ Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] WALMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Walmart Inc. (NYSE: WMT) between March 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Walmart investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Walmart class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2014.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company knowingly filled prescriptions that were issued by so-called "pill-mill" prescribers; (2) the Company filled thousands of prescriptions that showed obvious red flags, including highly-dangerous cocktails of drugs, (3) the Company's managers made it difficult for Walmart pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations by pressuring them to fulfill as many orders as possible; (4) hence, the Company's pharmacy revenues were inflated because the Company filled thousands of invalid prescriptions in violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements; (5) the aforementioned conduct would subject the Company to regulatory scrutiny; and 6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Walmart's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2014.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WALMART INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Walmart Inc. (NYSE: WMT) between March 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Walmart investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Walmart class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2014.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company knowingly filled prescriptions that were issued by so-called "pill-mill" prescribers; (2) the Company filled thousands of prescriptions that showed obvious red flags, including highly-dangerous cocktails of drugs, (3) the Company's managers made it difficult for Walmart pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations by pressuring them to fulfill as many orders as possible; (4) hence, the Company's pharmacy revenues were inflated because the Company filled thousands of invalid prescriptions in violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements; (5) the aforementioned conduct would subject the Company to regulatory scrutiny; and 6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Walmart's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2014.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] WALMART INC: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $10 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- FindBiometrics, citing Chicago Tribune, reports that Walmart has reached a $10 million settlement with employees in a class action lawsuit in Illinois. The lawsuit was filed in 2019, and alleged that the retail giant violated the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) when it forced employees to use a palm scanner without first obtaining their express written consent. The palm scanner was used to verify and track the identities of employees checking out and returning cash register drawers during their shifts. Walmart stopped using the scanners on February 28, 2018, while Sam's Club stopped using them on April 24, 2019. The class covers every Walmart employee that used the scanners between January 28, 2014, and the end dates for the biometric identification system. It could include as many as 21,677 people, each of which would be entitled to a $461.32 share of the $10 million settlement. However, the actual payout is likely to change based on the number of people who claim their status, and on the eventual attorney fees. The lawyers for the plaintiffs could receive up to a third of the $10 million. Employees will have 90 days to respond once notifications have been sent out. According to Walmart, the palm scan data collected with the system was deleted after it stopped using the technology. At the moment, the settlement has only received preliminary approval from the Cook County Circuit Court. Walmart is one of several major corporations facing BIPA legislation, though its $10 million settlement pales in comparison to Facebook's $650 million settlement in 2020. That settlement was reached after a judge rejected an earlier $550 million agreement, for a class that included as many as 1.6 million Illinois Facebook users. Home Depot and Macy's are some of the other major retailers that have been hit with BIPA lawsuits. Of those, the Macy's case is noteworthy because it stems from the company's use of Clearview AI's controversial facial recognition system. Walmart took advantage of a free trial to conduct a few searches, though it was not a paying Clearview customer and is yet to face any legal action for its use of the platform. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Former Client Associate Files Overtime Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- advisorhub.com reports that a former client associate at a Wells Fargo Advisors branch near St. Louis has filed a putative class-action claim asserting that the firm discouraged him and others from submitting overtime claims despite frequently working more than 40 hours a week. "Defendant maintains a de facto policy of prohibiting client associates from reporting more hours in a day and/or week than the hours for which they are scheduled," according to the suit filed last week in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, fees and damages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all client associates who worked at the firm within three years of the January 13 filing, and under Missouri's minimum wage law for all employees who worked in the state in the previous two years. The suit will initially seek to certify only local employees as class members but could be extended nationally, said Nicholas Conlon, a lawyer at Brown, LLC, the Jersey City, NJ, firm that is lead counsel on the case. He estimated there are hundreds of state employees who could qualify, and thousands nationally, if lawyers expand the case. Marcus D'Addio, the named plaintiff in the case, worked at Wells Advisors' Frontenac, MO, branch for nine years before leaving last May, according to the lawsuit. He became a registered client associate within two years of his start date, according to his BrokerCheck profile, but Conlon said the suit does not limit the potential class to registered associates. Client associates are limited to reporting they worked five eight-hour shifts weekly, and Wells "knew and/or recklessly disregarded" that they were not reporting their overtime hours in its timekeeping system, according to the lawsuit. "Wells Fargo has extensive policies and practices to ensure all employees are compensated for all hours worked, including overtime hours," Shea Leordeanu, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo Advisors, wrote in an email. She did not address whether Wells will seek to dismiss the claim, as is common in class-action filings, or move it to arbitration. "We are not aware of any agreement that would require this case to be sent to arbitration," Conlon said, "but, if shown, we are prepared to pursue it there as well." Wells Fargo Clearing Services, the named defendant, has until early February to respond to the complaint. The bank-owned broker in 2013 reached a $4 million settlement with thousands of client associates who said the bank had an unwritten policy of paying them for scheduled hours only. The settlement was reached after a judge granted class-action status to current and former unlicensed client associates who sued under federal law. The case was adjudicated in the same Missouri district as the one where the D'Addio litigation was filed. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Pina Suit Removed to Massachusetts Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria F. Pina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. doing business as: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Case No. 2083CV00691, was removed from the Plymouth Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 21, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-10107-RGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 x5500 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean R. Higgins, Esq. K&L GATES LLP – MA One Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111-2950 Phone: (617) 261-3100 Email: sean.higgins@klgates.com YRC INC: Shroeder Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jerald Shroeder filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jerald Shroeder v. YRC Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06173-TJH-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Plaintiff employed by YRC at YRC's Tracey, California, terminal. On December 14, 2011, a putative class action was filed by the Plaintiff against YRC, asserting various wage and hour claims. On June 7, 2016, Schroeder filed a second putative class action against YRC alleging claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and claims for violations of the California Labor Code. Mr. Schroeder is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated December 21, 2020, granting YRC's motion for summary judgment and entering in favor of Defendants YRC, Inc, YRC Worldwide Inc.., and Yellow Roadway Corporation. The appellate case is captioned as Jerald Shroeder v. YRC Inc., et al., Case No. 21-55045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Jan. 19, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Jerald Shroeder Mediation Questionnaire is due on January 26, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by February 17, 2021 -- Transcript is due on March 19, 2021; -- Appellant Jerald Shroeder opening brief is due on April 28, 2021; -- Appellees YRC Inc., YRC Worldwide Inc. and Yellow Roadway Corporation answering brief is due on May 28, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JERALD SHROEDER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan Domingo Bello, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 653-0086 E-mail: jbello@lelawfirm.com - and - David M. Derubertis, Esq. THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, CA 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 - and - David Mara, Esq. Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees YRC INC., DBA YRC Freight, YRC WORLDWIDE INC., and YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION are represented by: Lyn Agre, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-6140 E-mail: lagre@kasowitz.com - and - Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 615-6052 E-mail: ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com - and - Pankit Doshi, Esq. Ronald J. Holland, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 415 Mission Street, Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 218-3812 E-mail: pdoshi@mwe.com - and - Alexandra Howard Hemenway, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3652 E-mail: ahemenway@littler.com - and - Daniel Saunders, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 288-7904 E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com ********* 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 ***