/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 16

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Trial Date Set in Class Suit Over Defective Ear Plugs
ADT INC: Class Actions Over Security Camera Breach Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: DeKalb Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert. Hearing Deadline Set for July 23

ANTERO RESOURCES: Romeo's Bid to Exclude Expert Report Partly OK'd
APPLE INC: Altroconsumo Files Class Suit Over Planned Obsolescence
APPLE INC: Faces Italian Class Action Suit Over iPhone Battery Life
APPLE INC: Faces Nelson Suit Over Alleged Illegal Internet Gambling
BANK OF AMERICA: West Virginia Court Refuses to Dismiss Shuff Suit

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: 1 SANT Ruling in Insurance Suit to 3rd Cir.
BIC PICTURE: Support Memorandum of Renewed Class Cert. Bid Granted
BIG HEART: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28
BIT DIGITAL: Faces Investor Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Feb. 3 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought

BOOTHWYN PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
BROTHER'S BAKERY: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
C&D SECURITY: Feb. 12 Extension for Class Cert. Filing Date Sought
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 10
CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over First Nation Water Crisis

CANADA: First Nations Children Still Awaiting Settlement Payout
CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Browne's Counsel Awarded $120K in Fees & Costs
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Strikes Modification of Scheduling Order
DISCOVER BANK: Feldman Sues Over Conspiracy to Convert Funds

DONALD TRUMP: Court Junks Gallardo Class Action
DYCK O'NEAL: Cheeks FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
EASY HEALTHCARE: Premom App Users Sue Over Sharing of Personal Info
ENERGY RECOVERY: Court Junks Visser Class Suit without Prejudice
FIELD MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Installers, Howell Says

FSNY RESTAURANT: Flowers Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
GARRETT MOTION: Court Consolidates Three Class Securities Suits
GOLDBERG & MILLER: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Paralegals, Munoz Says
GOLDMAN SACHS: Deadline for Class Certification Bid Set for May 1
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Stockholders Class Certified in St. Louis

GREAT LAKES: Misallocated Payments, Student Loan Borrowers Claim
GRILL CONCEPTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Suit Claims
GRUBHUB INC: TCPA Class Action Suit Pending in Illinois Court
HAPPIEST MINDS: Class Certification Filing Due June 10
HOLDEN OUTERWEAR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims

HOME DEPOT: Deadline for Class Status Bid Continued to June 28
HORMEL FOODS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Claims
HORNADY MFG.: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says
JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Directed to File Class Cert. by Oct. 15
KENYA POWER: Averts Class Action Over Inflated Electricity Bills

LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Chain Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over Misreported Advertising Metrics
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Synergy RX Sues Over Inflated Metrics
LIZHI INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
LUMONDI INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Claims

MARY ANN'S BAKING: Vargas Labor Suit Filed in Calif. State Court
MERCEDES MEDICAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Animal Medical Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Adkins Suit
MISSOURI HIGHER: Dykes Sues Over Student Loan Servicing Failures
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McNamee Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Nixed

NEDBANK GROUP: Customers File Class Suit Over Unjust Sale of Homes
NEEDHAM & CO: Senomyx Merger Deal Lacks Info, Goldschmidt Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Home Shelter Online Access
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hagens Berman Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
OAKLEY PUB: Durbin Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Says
PAYPAL INC: Fernandez Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PHARMACARE US: Corbett Sues Over Mislabeled Elderberry Supplements
PLAYBOY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bornholt Suit Alleges

REALOGY HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Dismisses Tanaskovic Securities Suit
ROMA UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Foster Suit Alleges
SAKE HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Brewer Suit Claims
TELENAV INC: Ryan Sues Over False and Misleading Proxy Statement
TRICIDA INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline

ULTRA MUSIC: Class Suit Seeks Refunds Over COVID-Canceled Festival
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Full Day Rate, Garza Says
WILLIAM MARS: Seballos Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID-19 Closure
WORLDPAC INC: Honeycutt Seeks Unpaid OT for Drivers Under FLSA
YOUTUBE: Responds to Copyright Infringement Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Evaluation Finds Asbestos An Unreasonable Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $51.0MM Liabilities at Sept. 25


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Trial Date Set in Class Suit Over Defective Ear Plugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Barrett, writing for wuwf88.1, reports that a trial date has
been set for a lawsuit that affects thousands of veterans and
current military members.

"There are now more than 220,000 service members who have filed
suit," said Bryan Aylstock, an attorney at the Aylstock, Witkin,
Kreis and Overholtz law firm in Pensacola. The suit has been filed
against the company 3M over defective ear protection the company
made for the military that led to hearing loss for the people who
used them.

The suit will be heard in Pensacola by Judge Casey Rodgers, Chief
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida.

"In cases like this, when there is a 'mass tort,' a lot of times
one federal judge will be appointed to oversee the entire
litigation, and that judge is Judge Rodgers in this case. She has
worked hard, and the parties, both sides, have worked hard at
advancing the case. And we now have a trial set for late March
involving three service members. And then two subsequent trials
involving single service members, what we call 'bellwether trials,'
to help the parties and the court determine what the evidence is,
what the facts show, and how to proceed following those trials."

Aylstock says this type of "mass tort" lawsuit is very different
from a class-action lawsuit.

"In personal injury suits, and certainly in the 3M ear plug
litigation, we're taking a different tact. We're signing up
individual service members who have hearing loss of tinnitus
following use of these defective ear plugs, and we're individually
filing their lawsuits. So there are an awful lot of them, probably
too many to ever go to trial. But they are treated individually,
their cases rise and fall on their own merit. And what we like is
we get to talk to the individual service members and understand
their case and have that interaction with them that typically you
don't get in a class action where it's not an individualized
process and you never meet your lawyer or even talk to that law
firm.

The lawsuit is only against 3M, not the government or the military.
In fact, in 2018, 3M already settled with the government and agreed
to pay 9.1 million dollars. But none of that money went to service
members who suffered hearing loss. "That was for the fraud that 3M
committed in selling defective ear plugs to the U.S. military. In
fact, these ear plugs had a huge mark-up. It was about a ten-times
profit margin, and they were selling these products for a huge
profit to the U.S military for 15 years without telling them the
truth about how the ear plugs really worked and the defects that
the company executives knew about."

So far, the only involvement of the military in this case is
providing records to the plaintiffs. The judge has dismissed 3M's
attempt to use the Government Contractor Defense to immunize the
company from liability. The company has also tried to shift at
least some of the liability in the case to the government. The
judge has yet to rule on that motion. There has also yet to be any
negotiations on settling the cases.

"Well, we're always open to listening to 3M if they are willing to
come to the table, like they ultimately did with the U.S
government, and pay fair compensation to our service members. Both
those set for trial (and) the others that we represent. But at this
point we are focused on the trial and we believe we will be trying
these cases and we're prepared to try many more to hold 3M
accountable."

In an email to WUWF News, 3M issued this statement:

"We are confident in our case and look forward to defending against
plaintiffs' claims at the upcoming trial. As we will demonstrate,
the Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 product was not defectively
designed and did not cause injuries. The Combat Arms Eearplugs
Version 2 product is effective and safe to use, and its design
reflected the direction and feedback of individuals acting on the
military's behalf." [GN]


ADT INC: Class Actions Over Security Camera Breach Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Levine, writing for popculture, reports that a former ADT
home security technician pleaded guilty to charges related to
hacking into customers' video feeds to watch their "most intimate
moments," federal prosecutors in Texas said on Thursday, Jan. 21.
Telesforo Aviles, 35, pleaded guilty to computer fraud and admitted
to watching customers for "sexual gratification." He admitted to
hacking into over 200 customers' accounts more than 9,600 times
over four and a half years.

"This defendant, entrusted with safeguarding customers' homes,
instead intruded on their most intimate moments," Prerak Shah, the
acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, said in a
statement. "We are glad to hold him accountable for this disgusting
betrayal of trust." FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge Matthew J.
DeSarno added that Aviles "used his position of employment to
illegally breach the privacy of numerous people."

According to the plea documents, Aviles told prosecutors he added
his email to customers' "ADT Pulse" accounts, violating the
company's policies. This gave him live access to video feeds of
their homes. In some cases, he would tell the customers he needed
to add his personal emails to "test" their system, but in other
cases, he did not tell customers about it at all. He said he "took
note of which homes had attractive women," according to
prosecutors, and logged into their accounts frequently for "sexual
gratification." Aviles "watched numerous videos of naked women and
couples engaging in sexual activity inside their homes,"
prosecutors said. Aviles waived indictment and faces up to five
years in federal prison.

In April 2020, ADT announced it was investigating allegations from
a customer that a Dallas-area technician added his personal email
to get unauthorized access to their account. As soon as the company
discovered Aviles' email, they fired him and reported the case to
law enforcement. In a May update, the company said it contacted all
220 customers whose video feeds were hacked.

In May, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed against ADT on
behalf of the customers, the Dallas Morning News reported at the
time. "Moments once believed to be private and inside the sanctity
of the home are now voyeuristic entertainment for a third party,"
the lawsuits read. "And worse, those moments could have been
captured, shared with others, or even posted to the internet." The
lawsuits were filed in Florida, where ADT's headquarters is
located. The lawsuits seek over $5 million in damages, each.

In the lawsuits, customers also accused ADT of trying to get
customers to sign a confidentiality agreement after they were
notified of the breach, reports BuzzFeed News. One customer claimed
she was offered $2,500 and credit for upgraded equipment. When she
refused, ADT allegedly increased the offer to $50,000. "In speaking
to our customers and apologizing for what happened, it's clear that
the employee's abuse of access impacted each customer differently,"
an ADT spokesperson said. "Therefore, we took steps to address
their concerns individually." [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: DeKalb Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ALLERGAN PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12089-CM-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Lead Plaintiff DeKalb
County Pension Fund asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure;

   2. appointing the Lead Plaintiff to serve as Class
      Representative; and

   3. appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.

Allergan is an American, Irish-domiciled pharmaceutical company
that acquires, develops, manufactures and markets brand name drugs
and medical devices in the areas of medical aesthetics, eye care,
central nervous system, and gastroenterology.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan.
21, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2NFfgF7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel,
are:

          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Lubna Faruqi, Esq.
          Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  rkillorin@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  klenahan@faruqilaw.com

ALTA DEVICES: Gunderson Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GUNDERSON, DANIEL
PATTERSON, BEN LENAIL, BRENDAN KAYES, JAMES BUSTAMANTE, OCTAVI
SEMONIN and ANNETT SUESS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., Case
No. 5:19-cv-08017-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the
      specific statutory provisions contemplating class
      treatment of claims under the Worker Adjustment and
      Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and its California
      counterpart, California Labor Code:

      "all former employees of Alta Devices, Inc. who worked at
      or reported to the facility located at 545 Oakmead Pkwy,
      Sunnyvale, CA 94085 until they were laid off, furloughed
      and/or terminated, without cause on their part, on or
      about October 21, 2019, within 30 days of that
      date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably
      expected consequence of, the mass layoff and/or plant
      closing occurring on or about October 21, 2019, or
      thereafter, and who do not file a timely request to opt-
      out of the class;"

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C.,
      and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the form and manner of Notice to the Class; and

   5. granting such other and further relief as this Court may
      deem proper.

According to the Plaintiffs' Declarations, the Plaintiffs and the
240 or so putative class members were terminated without cause on
their part, on or about October 21, 2019 and thereafter from the
Facility without the 60 days' advance written notice required by
the WARN Act.

On December 6, 2019, and as amended thereafter, the Plaintiffs,
through counsel, filed the captioned class action against Alta
Devices, Inc. to recover sixty 60 days' pay and benefits under the
WARN Act.

In the WARN Action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated
the WARN Acts by ordering a mass layoff and/or plant closing in
October 2019 and thereafter, at the Facility and by failing to give
any advance written notice that complied with the requirements of
the WARN Act.

Alta Devices, Inc. develops solar technology.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sTH48K
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

         Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
         LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
         132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 581-5005
         Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

              - and -

         Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
         M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
         THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
         182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
         Mobile, AL 36602
         Telephone: (251) 433-8100
         Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

              - and

         Justin T. Berger, Esq.
         Sarvenaz "Nazy" J. Fahimi, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com
                  sfahimi@cpmlegal.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert. Hearing Deadline Set for July 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luben Romanov v.
Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02692-SB-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an
order granting joint stipulation for continuance as follows:

        EVENT                     CURRENT DATE     NEW DATE

   Complete Mandatory             Dec. 8, 2020   Apr. 30, 2021
   Settlement Conference:

   Fact Discovery to be           Dec. 8, 2020   Apr. 30, 2021
   completed

   Initial expert                 Dec. 22, 2020  Apr. 21, 2021
   witness disclosures:

   Rebuttal expert witness        Jan. 22, 2021  May 24, 2021
   disclosures:

   Complete Expert Discovery:     Feb. 22, 2021  June 22, 2021

   Motion for Class               Mar. 22, 2021  July 23, 2020
   Certification Hearing
   Deadline:

   Motion for Summary             Apr. 22, 2021  Aug. 20, 2021
   Judgment Hearing
   Deadline:

The Court said, "In their stipulation, the parties generally state
that the pandemic has caused delays. This general statement --
which neglects to detail the resulting impediments and the
reasonable efforts taken to surmount them -- falls short of the
specificity required to find good cause. The Court previously
expressed concern at the almost complete level of inactivity since
the case was filed nearly nine months prior. It is incumbent upon
the parties to diligently prosecute their case, rather than wait
and hope for the Court to grant them relief. While the Court is
sensitive to the Plaintiff's counsel's health issues, the caption
of his declaration alone lists three other attorneys from multiple
law firms. Nevertheless, the Court shall grant the requested
extension, as modified below, with an admonition that the parties
should not expect any further continuance."

Amazon Services offers many of the Web service platforms that are
Amazon offers.

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

ANTERO RESOURCES: Romeo's Bid to Exclude Expert Report Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and
denying-in-part the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert
witness testimony of Kris Terry in the lawsuit captioned JACKLIN
ROMEO, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated;
SUSAN S. RINE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; DEBRA SNYDER MILLER, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17CV88 (N.D.W. Va.).

The Plaintiffs own oil and natural gas interests in leases assigned
to Antero. On May 15, 2017, they filed a class action complaint
asserting a single breach of contract claim related to Antero's
alleged failure to pay them a full 1/8th royalty payment for their
natural gas interests. Gas produced under the leases at issue (the
"Class Leases"), consists of "wet gas" (saturated with liquid
hydrocarbons and water) that must be treated and processed to
obtain marketable "residue gas." Likewise, this gas contains
valuable liquid hydrocarbon components (ethane, butane, isobutane,
propane, and natural gas) ("NGLs") that must be extracted and
fractionated prior to sale.

The Plaintiffs contend that, because no royalty provision in the
leases at issue expressly permits such deductions, West Virginia
law imposes a duty on Antero to calculate royalties based on the
price it receives from third parties for the residue gas and NGLs,
without deductions. The Plaintiffs assert that, despite this duty,
Antero has deducted various post-production costs for residue gas
and NGLs from their royalty payments.

Terry, Antero's proposed expert, is the President of Kris Terry &
Associates, Inc., a consulting firm that advises businesses in the
oil and gas industry. Antero retained her to offer relevant
opinions in this case on the history and operations of the oil and
gas industry. Based on her "Expert Merits Report," she proposes to
testify on the usage and meaning of industry terms, industry
customs and practices, and how the industry's terms, customs, and
practices apply to Antero's calculation of royalty payments
pursuant to the provisions of the Class Leases. She also intends to
opine on "industry contractual and property arrangements for
leasing minerals, as well as the production, transportation,
processing, and marketing of natural gas and NGLs." Finally, she
will offer her opinion on whether Antero breached the terms of the
Plaintiffs' leases.

Terry's report first provides a general description of the physical
flow of natural gas, the historical development of the industry,
and the process of selling natural gas and NGLs. It then
specifically examines the Class Leases, the class definition, and
the various provisions in the oil and gas leases that impact
Antero's royalty calculations. It also discusses how Antero's
marketing strategy differs for each well depending upon its
location, the gas quality, and the availability of marketing
outlets.

In Terry's opinion, the individual valuations required by this
marketing strategy preclude any uniform answers to the common
questions the Court has identified. She also criticizes the
opinions offered by the Plaintiffs' expert witness, Donald Phend.

Terry's report concludes with the following opinions, offered to a
reasonable degree of certainty: 1. Whether Antero breached a Class
Lease cannot be determined on a class-wide basis because the Class
Leases contain modifications that impose different obligations upon
Antero at different times; 2. Antero's methodology for calculating
royalties on a lease by lease, month by month, well by well basis
exceeds the best practices in the industry and results in royalty
payments that are greater than required by the Class Leases and
more generous than the industry standard; 3. Phend has not
calculated class-wide damages using relevant information or in a
reliable manner under industry standards; 4. Whether the Plaintiffs
or other Class Members have enforceable leases cannot be determined
on a class-wide basis because of the various title issues arising
under each lease individually; and 5. Whether the Plaintiffs and
Class Members complied with their lease obligations cannot be
determined on a class-wide basis because the provisions outlining
the Class Members' obligations vary among the Class Leases.

The Plaintiffs seek to exclude all of Terry's proposed opinions for
three reasons. First, they contend that her opinions regarding "the
extent of Antero's royalty payment obligations under the applicable
Class royalty provisions" should be excluded because they
constitute inadmissible contract interpretations that conflict with
West Virginia law, citing Energy Dev. Corp. v. Moss, 214 W.Va. 577
S.E.3d 135, 143 (2003). Second, they argue that Terry's opinions
regarding the propriety of class certification conflict with the
Court's prior Order of March 23, 2020, which preliminarily granted
class certification. Finally, they argue that Terry is not
qualified to criticize Phend's calculation of the Class Members'
damages, and, even if qualified, her opinions lack a proper
foundation and are erroneous as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs seek to exclude Terry's opinions regarding the
extent of Antero's obligations under the royalty provisions of the
Class Leases. Specifically, they argue that her opinion, that
Antero is not obligated to pay royalties based on the prices it
receives on its sale of residue gas and NGLs at the point of sale,
violates the holdings in Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, 219
W.Va. 266 (2004); and Wellman v. Energy Resources, Inc., 210 W.Va.
200 (2001) (Dkt. No. 296 at 9-13).

According to Antero, by offering opinions regarding its obligations
under the royalty provisions in the Class Leases, Terry is not
attempting to interpret Antero's legal obligations under those
leases but rather to aid the jury's understanding of natural gas
marketing, and of terms and conditions that are unique to the oil
and gas industry.

District Judge Irene M. Keeley notes that in the case, the
interpretation of the royalty provisions in the Class Leases is a
question of law and Terry's opinions regarding Antero's obligations
to pay royalties pursuant to these provisions are inadmissible. As
those royalty provisions are not ambiguous, there is no need for
Terry to opine on the parties' obligations under those provisions.
The Court, therefore, excludes Terry's opinions regarding Antero's
obligations to pay royalties solely on the wellhead value of the
Class Members' natural gas.

Nevertheless, to the extent Terry intends to explain terms of art
in the oil and gas industry, and to describe certain customs and
usage within that industry, such testimony will aid the jury's
understanding of a complex industry and is admissible, Judge Keeley
holds. Although the Plaintiffs argue that several of Terry's
opinions are contrary to the holdings in Wellman and Tawney,
general testimony about operational aspects of the oil and gas
industry should not tread on the ultimate legal question of
Antero's duties under the Class Leases, Judge Keeley opines, citing
Clarendon, 453 F. App'x at 278 (citing Anderson, 499 F.3d at
1237).

Judge Keeley adds that the ruling is not limited solely to
Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Terry's expert report, but applies equally
to any other attempt by Terry to offer her opinion on the legal
impact of Wellman and Tawney on Antero's obligations under the
royalty provisions of the Class Leases.

The Plaintiffs also seek to exclude, among other things, the
following opinions that Terry offers on the market enhancement
modification clause found in two of the Class Leases: (1) that gas
may be a marketable product at the wellhead; (2) that Antero is
expressly permitted to deduct post-production costs; and (3) that
Antero may deduct the cost of transporting the already marketable
product to the point of sale. According to the Plaintiffs, such
testimony encompasses inadmissible contract interpretations in
conflict with the holding in Tawney. For the same reason, they
contend Terry's opinion, that some Class Members have modified
their leases to specifically permit the deduction of
post-production costs in limited circumstances, is inadmissible.

Antero asserts that, because Terry's opinions describe the purpose
of market enhancement clauses and the "various marketing
circumstances that otherwise affect the market enhancement clauses
and transportation costs at issue in the action," her opinions will
aid the jury's understanding of a complex industry. It further
asserts that Terry's extensive knowledge of present-day marketing
conditions would aid the jury because such considerations were not
addressed in Wellman or Tawney, which considered only the costs of
delivering natural gas to one particular point of sale in the
stream of commerce.

Judge Keeley holds that Terry's opinions in this area undoubtedly
would aid the jury in understanding what a market enhancement
clause is, as well as how such a clause operates in the industry.
The Judge, therefore, will allow her to explain how natural gas is
marketed, and to discuss the general operation of market
enhancement clauses in the industry. But opinions about whether
such a clause modifies the Class Leases so as to permit Antero to
deduct post-production costs constitute inadmissible legal
conclusions. Therefore, Terry may not opine about the legal effect,
if any, of the market enhancement clause on Antero's royalty
payment obligations under the modified Class Leases, and whether
those Class Leases, as modified or in their original form, comply
with the holdings in Wellman and Tawney.

Accordingly, the Court rules that Terry is qualified to testify and
offer opinions as follows:

   1. She may explain industry terms of art and their custom and
      usage within the oil and gas industry;

   2. She may explain how natural gas is marketed, what a market
      enhancement clause is, and the purpose of such a clause in
      the natural gas industry;

   3. She may explain how natural gas leases generally are
      modified and in which scenarios Antero may seek such
      modifications;

   4. She may explain how Antero processes natural gas, chooses
      which natural gas to process, extracts NGLs, sells natural
      gas in both its processed and raw forms, gathers and
      transports natural gas to various points of sale, and that
      processing and transportation costs are incurred;

   5. She may discuss the marketing conditions faced by Antero at
      various points of sale located within West Virginia and
      beyond, the varying chemical formulations of the
      Plaintiffs' natural gas, and what a market has generally
      been understood to mean in the industry;

   6. She may explain how natural gas is bought and sold in the
      industry;

   7. She may explain how taxes are assessed in the oil and gas
      industry;

   8. She may opine that Phend was required to calculate the
      Class Members' damages based on the volume of gas sold
      rather than the volume of gas at the wellhead; and

   9. She may explain how and why oil and gas ownership interests
      are transferred, the types of transfers common in the
      industry, and how Antero determines which owners will
      receive royalties.

But Terry may not offer opinions on Antero's duty to pay royalties
under the Class Leases, whether the holdings in Wellman and Tawney
apply to the Class Leases' royalty provisions, or whether the
standards established in Wellman and Tawney for permissible
deductions of post-production costs from royalty payments have been
satisfied. Nor may she offer her opinion on the appropriateness of
the Court's Preliminary Order of Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude is, therefore, granted-in-part
and denied-in-part.

The Clerk will transmit copies of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
to the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 21, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yydxp2ah from
Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Altroconsumo Files Class Suit Over Planned Obsolescence
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jewkes, writing for Reuters, reports that Italian consumer
association Altroconsumo said on Jan. 25 it had told Apple AAPL.O
it has launched a class action against the U.S. tech giant for the
practice of planned obsolescence.

In a statement Altroconsumo said it was asking for damages of 60
million euros ($73 million) on behalf of Italian consumers tricked
by the practice which had also been recognised by Italian
authorities. [GN]



APPLE INC: Faces Italian Class Action Suit Over iPhone Battery Life
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Apple Inc. faces an Italian
class-action lawsuit seeking compensation over misleading claims
about the battery life of older iPhones.

Euroconsumers, an international consumer organization, said on Jan.
25 it filed the suit in Italy. The move follows similar cases filed
last month in Belgium and Spain concerning users of various iPhone
6 devices.

Owners "expect sustainable quality products," Els Bruggeman, head
of policy and enforcement at Euroconsumers, said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, that is not what happened with the iPhone 6 series.
Not only were consumers defrauded, and did they have to face
frustration and financial harm, from an environmental point of
view, it is also utterly irresponsible." The group said it's also
planning a class action suit in Portugal "in the coming weeks."

The lawsuits mirror US cases over claims that the company misled
consumers about iPhone battery power and software updates that
slowed the performance of the devices. The California-based company
in November agreed to pay $113 million to settle a case with
multiple U.S. regulators while customers are seeking approval from
a U.S. court for a class-action settlement that could be worth as
much as $500 million. [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Nelson Suit Over Alleged Illegal Internet Gambling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD NELSON, an individual, and CHEREE BIBBS, an individual,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-00553 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 22, 2021) is a class action complaint against Apple Inc.
seeking restitution, damages, an injunction, and other appropriate
relief from Apple's ongoing participation in an alleged illegal
internet gambling enterprise.

The Plaintiff contends that despite knowing that DoubleDown Casino
is illegal, Apple and the other Platforms continue to maintain a
sizable (30%) financial interest by hosting the game, driving
customers to it, and acting as the bank. As such, DoubleDown,
Apple, and the other Platforms are all liable as co-conspirators to
an illegal gambling enterprise. Moreover, DoubleDown Casino is just
one of more than fifty social casino apps (the "Illegal Slots")
that the Platforms illegally host and profit from, the suit says.

According to the complaint, Apple and the other Platforms --
alongside the Illegal Slot companies -- are liable as
co-conspirators to an illegal gambling conspiracy. The Defendant
Apple, for its part, is a direct participant in an informal
association and enterprise of individuals and entities with the
explicit purpose of knowingly devising and operating an online
gambling scheme to exploit consumers and reap billions in profits
(the Social Casino Enterprise).

This ongoing Enterprise necessarily promotes the success of each of
its members: Social casino operators, like DoubleDown, need
Platforms like Apple, Google, and Facebook, to access consumers,
host their games, and process payments. The Platforms, for their
part, need developers like DoubleDown to publish profit-driven and
addictive applications on their platforms to generate massive
revenue streams, the suit added.

The Plaintiffs seek to force Apple to stop participating in, and to
return to consumers the money it has illegally profited from, the
Social Casino Enterprise. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative
Class, bring claims for damages and for injunctive relief under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Over the last decade, the world's leading slot machine makers --
companies like International Game Technology, Scientific Games
Corporation, and Aristocrat Leisure -- have teamed up with American
technology companies to develop a new product line: social casinos.


Social casinos are apps, playable from smartphones, tablets, and
internet browsers, that make the "authentic Vegas-style" experience
of slot machine gambling available to consumers anywhere and
anytime.

Plaintiff Donald Nelson is citizen of the State of Wisconsin.
Plaintiff Cheree Bibbs is a citizen of the State of Alabama.

Apple Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells the iPhone, among other
electronic devices, and owns and operates the Apple App Store,
which comes preinstalled on every Apple device.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com
                  bsilverkorn@edelson.com

BANK OF AMERICA: West Virginia Court Refuses to Dismiss Shuff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMES L. SHUFF, LISA K. SHUFF, Plaintiffs v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., individually and doing business as BAC Home
Loans, LP., and COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00184 (S.D.W. Va.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint or, In the Alternative,
to Strike Class Action Allegations

In May 2005, the Shuffs visited a mobile home dealer in Oak Hill to
purchase a new manufactured home. The Shuffs were shown a
doublewide 2005 Fleetwood Inspiration. The salesperson informed the
Shuffs that he could arrange financing through Defendant CHL for
both the home and the lot upon which they desired to place it. The
salesperson gathered the Shuffs' personal information and
application for credit. He then sent the package to CHL for
processing.

CHL had the home appraised prior to its delivery. The appraisal
stated (1) the home would be installed with a block perimeter wall,
(2) no depreciation or obsolescence were observed, and (3) no
functional inadequacies appeared in the plans. The Shuffs allege,
however, that there was never any intention to install a block
perimeter wall, nor could the appraiser make any judgments based on
observations of the home inasmuch as he never observed it in place
on the lot. The Shuffs assert that the appraiser instead used two
doublewides in the area as comparables and inflated their values by
fifty percent. The appraisal valued the home and lot at $107,000,
substantially above the actual market value.

On August 2, 2005, the Shuffs and their two children met a CHL
agent at the Pizza Hut in Hurricane to sign the papers and close.
The closing was rushed, was not conducted in a location suitable
for asking questions, and no attorney was present. The loan was in
the amount of $103,337, secured by a deed of trust in CHL's name,
and dated August 2, 2005. The document was notarized by a notary
from Milton and prepared by CHL's agent, Amy McCoy, in CHL's office
in Scott Depot. The Shuffs allege that the document falsely stated
it was acknowledged in Fayette County.

On July 28, 2010, the loan was modified by CHL's successor
servicer, BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP. BAC increased the secured
indebtedness to $142,636.70. The adjustment resulted in the home
and land being valued at less than 50% of the indebtedness. The
current fair market value of the home is approximately $33,000.

The Shuffs instituted the action on March 16, 2020. They amended
their Complaint on May 11, 2020, asserting a class claim to
temporarily enjoin foreclosures in West Virginia given the COVID-19
pandemic. They also asserted six other individual claims against
the Defendants. The parties later stipulated to the dismissal of
the class claim in Count I; the Shuffs then abandoned Counts IV, V,
VI, and VII.

The two remaining claims challenge the lien on the home. Count II
alleges a fraud claim to avoid the contract, alleging that CHL
misrepresented the value of their home at the 2005 origination.
Count III arises under West Virginia Code Section 31-17-8(m)(8),
challenging the 2010 valuation increase to $142,636.70. Both counts
seek "all appropriate equitable relief."

On June 15, 2020, CHL and BOA moved to dismiss. CHL and BOA contend
that the Shuffs' fraud (Count II) and illegal loan (Count III)
claims should be dismissed as (1) time barred by laches, and (2)
failing to satisfy minimal pleading standards. The Shuffs respond
that their claims are both timely and plausible.

The Defendants contend that a "presumption of laches" applies
inasmuch as both claims were filed well outside the analogous
statute of limitations for the same actions at law, which they
contend is two years. They additionally assert prejudice, claiming
it will be difficult "to obtain reliable testimony from witnesses,
and both the appraiser and the appraiser's records may no longer be
available." They also assert that they "would not have had to spend
the last decade making the Shuffs' taxes and insurance payments
with no prospect of repayment forthcoming" had the action been
timely brought. Nor would they "have had to spend time filing
unnecessary motions for relief in four bankruptcy cases that were
subsequently dismissed."

District Judge Frank W. Volk notes that at this stage, the question
"is whether the face of the complaint clearly indicates that the
Plaintiffs brought the claim with such unreasonable delay that the
Defendants were prejudiced under the doctrine of laches," quoting
Powell v. Bank of America, N.A., 842 F.Supp.2d at 979 (S.D.W. Va.
2012). Strictly construed, the face of the Amended Complaint does
not provide such a showing. Accordingly, the Judge holds, it is
inappropriate to resolve this affirmative defense at this stage of
the proceedings.

The Shuffs allege in Count II that CHL fraudulently represented to
the Shuffs that their property was valued at approximately
$107,000. CHL and BOA contend that this claim fails for lack of
particularity under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. CHL and BOA also contend that the Shuffs' fraud claim is
"fundamentally flawed in every aspect" given that they "fail to
plead some elements of fraud altogether, and for others, do so only
in conclusory boilerplate."

Specifically, they assert that dismissal is warranted inasmuch as
the Shuffs fail to allege (1) the actual value of their property at
the time of the appraisal, (2) how or when the lender
misrepresented the value of their home to them, (3) facts
supporting that the alleged misrepresentation was material, and (4)
any damages resulting from their alleged reliance on the
appraisal.

While CHL and BOA are correct that the Shuffs fail to allege the
actual value of the property at the time of the appraisal, the
Shuffs nonetheless allege that "the actual value of the home and
land was substantially less" than the appraised amount, Judge Volk
observes. Moreover, the Shuffs allege that the current value of
their home is approximately $33,000. Taken as true, the current
valuation provides a plausible basis to infer that CHL fraudulently
misrepresented the value of the Shuffs' property to be $107,000 in
2005.

Additionally, Judge Volk finds, CHL and BOA mistakenly rely upon
Heavener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2013 WL 2444596, at *7 (N.D.W. Va.
June 5, 2013). The decision in Heavener acknowledged the
plaintiff's failure to allege the property's actual market value at
the time of the fraudulent appraisal, but it was not the basis of
dismissal. Indeed, the fraud claim there pled contained an array of
deficiencies. The Shuffs' Amended Complaint bears no resemblance
thereto. Accordingly, the Shuffs have adequately pled a fraud
claim.

CHL and BOA assert that the West Virginia Code Section
31-17-8(m)(8) claim fails on the merits. They assert the Shuffs
failed to allege the fair market value of the property on the date
of the loan modification. They assert the Shuffs "merely allege in
conclusory fashion that the original appraisal valued their home
'substantially above the market value.'"

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Shuffs were provided a
$103,337 loan by CHL in 2005 based upon the $107,000 appraisal of
the property. It is further alleged the loan was modified in 2010,
increasing the indebtedness to $142,636. While the Amended
Complaint does not allege the precise value of the property in
2010, it asserts that the home and land were "valued at less than
50% of the indebtedness" at the time of the modification, Judge
Volk finds. Accordingly, the Shuffs have sufficiently pled adequate
facts to place Defendants on notice of this claim.

Based upon the discussion, the Court denies CHL and BOA's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint or, In the Alternative,
to Strike Class Action Allegations. The Clerk is directed to send a
copy of the written opinion and order to the counsel of record and
any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 21, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxny6xnf from
Leagle.com.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: 1 SANT Ruling in Insurance Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff 1 SANT Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled 1 S.A.N.T., INC. (a/k/a 1 SAINT, INC.)
d/b/a TOWN & COUNTRY and d/b/a GATHERINGS BANQUET & EVENT CENTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC. and NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-00862, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is a civil class action for declaratory relief and
breach of contract arising from the Plaintiff's contract of
insurance with the Defendant. The Plaintiff submitted timely notice
of its claim to Defendant due to COVID-19 business interruption,
but Defendant has allegedly refused to provide the purchased
coverage to its insured.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated January 15, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as 1 SANT Inc. v. Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1109, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 21, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant 1 SANT INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, AKA 1 SAINT Inc., DBA Town & Country,
DBA Gatherings Banquet & Event Center, is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.  
          CARLSON LYNCH
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Defendants-Appellees BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. and NATIONAL FIRE &
MARINE INSURANCE CO. are represented by:

          Robert L. Byer, Esq.
          Julie S. Greenberg, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS
          600 Grant Street, Suite 5010
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 497-1004
          E-mail: rlbyer@duanemorris.com
                  jsgreenberg@duanemorris.com

BIC PICTURE: Support Memorandum of Renewed Class Cert. Bid Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LULA WILLIAMS, et al., v.
BIC PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal; and

   2. granting the plaintiffs' memorandum in support of renewed
      motion for class certification of claims against defendant
      Matt Martorello are filed under seal provided that
      appropriately redacted versions thereof are filed in the
      public record.

The Court has considered the plaintiffs, motion to seal, the
memorandum in support of motion to seal and the notice of filing
under seal, and the time for filing objections having expired and
no timely objection having been filed. The Court adds that the
requirements of Local Civil Rule 5 and the decisions in Ashcraft,
et al. v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000), In re Knight
Publishing Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) and Stone v. Univ. of
Maryland, 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988) are met.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36AkTLx at no extra charge.[CC]

BIG HEART: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNIE ROPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIG HEART PET
BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order setting preliminary
class certification dates as follows:

   1. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff:        February 7, 2022

   2. Class Certification Motion          February 28, 2022
      Filing Deadline:

   3. Class Certification Opposition:     May 1, 2022

   4. Class Certification Reply:          July 18, 2022

   5. Class Certification Hearing:        September 6, 2022

Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of
branded pet products for the U.S. retail market.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36heioQ at no extra charge.[CC]

BIT DIGITAL: Faces Investor Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhelyazko Zhelyazkov, writing for Crypto Potato, reports that Bit
Digital -- a NASDAQ-listed company, is to face a class-action
lawsuit. A recent report by J Capital Research alleged the Bitcoin
mining firm in "fake cryptocurrency business."

Impossible to Operate 22,869 Bitcoin Miners in China
Bitcoin mining company Bit Digital is facing a class-action lawsuit
on allegations of fraud and misleading its clients.

According to an official court document filed in the Southern
District Court of New York on Jan. 21, by plaintiff Anthony
Pauwels, the case seeks to recover damages for Bit Digital
investors. The victims had made stock purchases from the BTC-mining
firm between December 21, 2020, and January 8, 2021.

The court statement dictated that the company had made "false
and/or misleading statements" that it operates 22,869 bitcoin
mining establishments in China.

A January 11, 2021 report by J Capital Research alleged that such
activity is "simply not possible" and that it has "verified with
local governments supposedly hosting the BTBT mining operation that
there are no bitcoin miners there."

The research firm stated that Bit Digital operates "a fake
cryptocurrency business" that is "designed to steal funds from
investors."

Documents on the case also claimed that Bit Digital has failed to
display the true nature of its mining operations.

False Allegations?
On January 19, Bit Digital came out with a press release aiming to
disprove the claims. It stated that the latter was "false
accusations given to the marketplace" and that the company has
filed all necessary documentation with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

Additionally, the statement asserted that the firm had always aimed
to update investors and regulators with correct information on its
mining operations.

In the publication, the company said that in its third-quarter
financial results published on December 18, 2020, it owned a total
of 40,865 mining rigs. Some of those were located in establishments
in Mongolia Province, Yunnan Province, Nebraska, and Texas.

Bit Digital added that its operations in China had been managed by
XMAX Hong Kong -- its wholly-owned subsidiary in Hong Kong, which
has handled all of the bitcoin mining operations in mainland
China.

The company has sixty days to officially respond to the
allegations. [GN]


BLAND LANDSCAPING: Feb. 3 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ROLDAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BLAND LANDSCAPING
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00276-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting his unopposed motion
and extend the deadline for him to file his motion for conditional
and/or class certification, up to, and including, February 3, 2021,
so that he may adequately review all deposition transcripts
including the most recent.

Bland Landscaping is a regional, private equity-backed, Commercial
and Estate Landscape Management and Contracting business
headquartered in Apex, North Carolina.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ojdvKh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew A. Abee, Esq.
          Debbie Whittle Durban, Esq.
          Matthew A. Abee, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
          SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 799-2000
          E-mail: debbie.durban@nelsonmullins.com
                  matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com

BOOTHWYN PHARMACY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF ORLAND PARK, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOTHWYN
PHARMACY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00391 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Boothwyn Pharmacy, LLC distributes online medical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, L 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

               -and-

          Frank F. Owen, Esq.
          FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1091 Ibis Avenue
          Miami Springs, FL 33166
          Telephone: (305) 984-8915
          E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com


BROTHER'S BAKERY: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN DE JESUS PRUDENTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BROTHER'S BAKERY CAFE CORP. d/b/a BROTHER'S
BAKERY CAFE, ANTONIO I. SALINAS, and OSCAR A. SALINAS, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00594 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2021) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay pursuant
to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, unlawfully withheld gratuities, and for failure to
provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL
sections 190 et seq. and the supporting regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
as a dishwasher, porter, cleaner, packing employee, and delivery
employee, at their bakery cafe located in Manhattan, New York. For
his work, during his employment with the Defendants, he was not
paid minimum wages for all hours worked and was not paid overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, the suit
says.

Throughout the relevant time period, Mr. De Jesus performed work
for the Defendants at their bakery/deli cafe located at 2155 Second
Avenue, New York, New York.

Brother's Bakery Cafe Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing
business as "Brother's Bakery Cafe, with its principal place of
business at 2155 Second Avenue, New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.peltongraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

C&D SECURITY: Feb. 12 Extension for Class Cert. Filing Date Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C&D
Security Management, Inc. d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services,
and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal
Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting her motion for
extension of time to move for class certification and formally
extend and re-set her deadline to file her class certification
motion by two and one- half weeks, to a new due date of February
12, 2021.

On January 8, 2021, during the deposition of the Defendant's
corporate representative, additional documents were identified that
had not been produced to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Counsel
represents they are in the process of collecting such documents. To
ensure Plaintiff has sufficient to time to analyze the documents
after production and continue the deposition of the Defendant's
corporate representative if necessary, the Plaintiff requests a
two-week extension, which the Defendant does no oppose, to allow
Plaintiff to prepare her motion for class certification, says the
complaint.

C&D Security provides integrated security solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3poU7wH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-577-4722
          Facsimile: 813-257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
                  Amurthy@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Quackenboss, Esq.
          Brian Saunders, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          E-mail: rquackenboss@huntonak.com
                  bsaunders@huntonak.com

CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, et al., v.
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order granting
the plaintiffs motion for clarification on the deadline to move for
class certification.

The Court said, "The Defendant Campus Advantage does not oppose the
plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs filed their class-action
complaint against Campus Advantage on November 12, 2020. Under the
current Local Rule 4.04(b), the plaintiffs have until 90 days after
filing the complaint to move for class certification unless the
court extends that deadline "for cause shown." Consistent with that
rule, which remains in effect presently, the plaintiffs' current
deadline to move for class certification is February 10, 2021. To
date, no party has shown cause for why the Court should extend the
class-certification deadline. If the plaintiffs or the defendant,
or both, wish to extend the current deadline, that party must file
a separate motion and show cause for why the deadline should be
extended."

Campus Advantage operates as a real estate investment management
firm. The Company provides student housing management, development,
acquisition, and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39go7VW at no extra charge.[CC]

CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over First Nation Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joelle Kovach, writing for The Peterborough Examiner, reports that
Chief Emily Whetung of Curve Lake First Nation says her community
has had "undrinkable water" since before she was born 34 years ago
-- and now she's pursuing the matter in court.

Whetung, a lawyer, is a representative plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit filed in federal court over the lack of safe drinking water
for First Nations across Canada.

For decades Curve Lake has had 10 to 15 boil-water advisories
yearly, according to court documents, and often must have its
drinking water trucked into the community because wells have gone
dry.

One section of Curve Lake was under a boil-water advisory for
nearly two years, the court documents state -- from July 20, 2016
until June 6, 2018.

"The inequality in access to clean drinking water for Indigenous
communities has hit a breaking point," Whetung wrote in a statement
emailed to The Examiner.

While the federal government has tried "to begin fixing it,"
Whetung writes -- she mentions that Curve Lake received $2.2
million in federal funding to design a new water treatment plant
last year -- she wants to "change the conversation" about water.

Curve Lake is launching the suit jointly with Neskantaga First
Nation, a remote fly-in community north of Thunder Bay. Chief
Christopher Moonias is the other representative plaintiff, along
with Whetung.

Neskantaga has had Canada's longest-running boil-water advisory:
it's been ongoing for 25 years, state the court documents, and the
water is unsafe to the touch and causes skin rashes, sores and
permanent scarring.

Other First Nations that have been advised to boil, not use or not
drink their water for periods of more than a year, since 1995, are
eligible until March to join the class.

The plaintiffs are suing the federal government for appropriate
water systems or $2.1 billion in damages. If the claims are not
dismissed or settled, a trial is expected in Ottawa.

The Manitoba Queen's Bench has also decided that a second class
action over lack of safe drinking water can proceed.

In that claim the representative plaintiff is Chief Doreen Spence
of Tataskweyak Cree Nation, a remote community 140 kilometres north
of Thompson, Man. that has been under boil-water advisory since
2017.

As reported earlier this month in The Globe and Mail, both the
Curve Lake/Neskantaga and the Tataskweyak claims allege that the
federal government breached its fiduciary duties, the Constitution
Act and sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ensure
equality, right to life and security of the person and freedom of
religion (since water is included in ceremonies).

Curve Lake First Nation's small-scale water-treatment plant was
built in 1983 and was designed to serve a single subdivision in the
community for 20 years, states the lawsuit, yet it continues to
serves 56 homes on the reserve.

Federal inspectors found the plant in good shape in 2017, the
lawsuit states, though an inspection from the provincial Ministry
of the Environment and Climate Change a few months later found the
plant faulty.

The plant needed repair or replacement under the ministry's
guidelines, states the lawsuit, but since the system's maintenance
falls under federal jurisdiction there was nothing the province
could do.

A further 550 homes aren't served by the small water treatment
plant, the suit states. Instead, they're on private wells that
often run dry or are often contaminated by nearby septic systems.

The suit also says Curve Lake would need a new $50-million water
treatment plant, drawing water from Buckhorn Lake.

In January 2018, Women and Gender Equality Minister Maryam Monsef
-- who is also the MP for Peterborough-Kawartha -- was quoted in
The Examiner promising to ensure safe drinking water for Curve Lake
First Nation within three years.

In July, $2.2 million in federal funding was granted to Curve Lake
for the design of that new $50-million water treatment plant.

But the federal government announced in early December that it
couldn't fulfil its commitment to end water advisories on all First
Nation communities by March 2021 due to delays in upgrading water
systems wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Monsef did not comment for this story; her staff said it would be
inappropriate since the matter is before the courts.

High school students say water is a basic right

Some Grade 12 students at St. Peter Secondary School say they want
the federal government to supply safe drinking water to First
Nations -- and they recently staged a protest to make the point.

Many students sat during the national anthem on the morning of Dec.
15 in protest the lack of safe drinking water for Indigenous
communities.

Pamela Smyth, 17, was one of several organizers. She said the
students were reacting to an announcement by the Liberal government
on Dec. 2 that hey wouldn't lift all boil-water advisory bans on
First Nation reserves by March 2021 as planned, due to delays
wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We found this unacceptable," Smyth said. "Water is a human
right."

Before organizing the action, Smyth and others approached a
classmate from Curve Lake First Nation for her input.

"Because we don't want to speak over Indigenous voices," Smyth
said. "But she assured us we were speaking up for them -- not over
them."

Smyth said the students used social media to promote awareness of
the issue in advance of the protest, and they also wrote 400
letters to Women and Gender Equality Minister Maryam Monsef (the
Peterborough-Kawartha MP), to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and to
Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller.

"We want our voice heard," Smyth said. [GN]


CANADA: First Nations Children Still Awaiting Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Hyslop, writing for The Tyee, report that it's been almost a
year and a half since Angel Gates submitted her application for the
'60s Scoop class action settlement.

The $875-million settlement, announced in August 2018, came after a
class action suit was filed against the Canadian government on
behalf of survivors of the "'60s Scoop."

The '60s Scoop refers to government apprehensions that took tens of
thousands of Indigenous children from their families between 1951
and 1991. The children were made wards of the state or adopted into
non-Indigenous families.

Although many Metis and non-status First Nations children were also
removed from their families, the settlement only covers Inuit and
status First Nations people.

Gates, now 43, was removed from her Haida family when she was nine.
She is one of nearly 35,000 people who have applied for
compensation.

While 14,500 people have been approved to receive initial payments
of $21,000, Gates is among the nearly 9,700 people still waiting to
find out if they are even eligible to be compensated for their
"loss of culture and language."

"I've watched all of my friends, who I told about it and applied
around the same time as me, get theirs," said Gates, who lives in
Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Yet despite repeated emails and calls to Collectiva, the class
action service company tasked with reviewing applications, and to
lawyers at Klein Lawyers, the law firm handling B.C. applicant
questions, no one will tell Gates why she is still waiting.

"It's just keeping people stuck in their stuff, I think it's really
cruel," said Gates, who applied just before the September 2019
deadline because of the trauma of reliving abuse she faced while in
foster care.

"I would start crying again about this stuff. I think about it all
the time now -- I think I had it buried pretty deep."

The settlement website directs survivors struggling with the trauma
of reliving their experiences with the '60s Scoop to call a mental
health hotline. But it is not specific to the '60s Scoop, and Gates
doesn't think it will help her.

In an email to The Tyee, a spokesperson for Argyle PR, the public
relations firm hired by the federal government to communicate with
applicants and the media, blamed both the pandemic and the need to
gather more information from some applicants for the delay.

"It is also important to note that not every claim will follow a
straight path from assessment to approval or denial. Some claims
will be assessed and re-assessed more than one time, as new
information is requested and received," the spokesperson wrote,
adding claims are reviewed in the order they were received.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs
applied for compensation at the same time as Gates. He hasn't heard
anything about his application either.

"I keep going to the mailbox, peeking in there, expecting a big red
ribbon letter from Trudeau," said Phillip.

But he's not surprised.

"I think the Trudeau government is notorious for making grandiose
public announcements about decisions that will provide benefits for
various groups of Canadians, and then there isn't any follow
through," he said. Phillip said he plans to raise the delays with
the UBCIC.

"All we're left with is the grandiose announcement, and any
political mileage he gets out of making those announcements . . . .
Instead of attending to his legal outstanding commitments, he keeps
sinking money into that dead horse Trans Mountain pipeline
project."

Phillip, who referred to himself as "somewhat upwardly mobile," is
not depending on the compensation to stay financially afloat.

But given the pandemic, he says many people are depending on that
cheque to make ends meet.

People like Dean, a member of the Mamalilikulla First Nation on
what is now B.C.'s central coast and a red seal pipefitter who lost
his job shortly after the pandemic began. The Tyee agreed not to
publish his last name for privacy reasons.

A ward of the state from age seven, Dean grew up in non-Indigenous
foster homes. Similar to Gates, he applied for compensation in
September 2019.

Dean planned to use the $21,000 interim settlement payment to pay
off his truck loan. He was ineligible for the Canada Emergency
Response Benefit because his layoff was not directly caused by the
pandemic.

He's had to survive on his savings and employment insurance, until
earlier this month when he started a job pouring concrete, a job
Dean finds especially physically taxing for a 48-year-old.

"It's good for a young man, it's not good for men my age. But in
order for me to make money to survive, this is what I have to do
right now."

Now he needs the settlement money to make up for a salary that's
barely half of what he would be paid as a pipefitter.

But his settlement application has been "under review" since
August. In December, Collectiva said it was still reviewing his
file.

"I check my mailbox each day thinking, 'OK, if the cheque's here,
I'm going to quit my job," he said, adding he's behind on credit
card payments and will soon default on his truck payments.

Dean has a sister and a friend who applied for compensation after
he did. They've both been approved and have received their interim
payments of $21,000.

"I just don't understand why it has to take so long," he said. "I
just hope to hear something one of these days."

Not only are people waiting to find out if they are eligible for
compensation, but Collectiva has suspended all rejections of
applicants during the pandemic because it is the "safe and fair
thing to do," according to a spokesperson's email to The Tyee.

"Social distancing makes it difficult for applicants to get the
face-to-face help and support they might need to get additional
information that supports their applications," the statement read.

"A lot of the information that the administrator needs to assess
applications is stored in provincial archives, and many of those
archives are restricted to access."

But Katherine Legrange, co-founder of 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada,
which runs seven Facebook pages that serve as online peer support
groups for Scoop survivors, says group members have reported being
able to access their own child welfare records during the
pandemic.

"Folks are saying that they're able to get their records with one
request, so, first of all, why is Collectiva not doing that work?
Or the law firms?" she said.

"Secondly, if folks are able to get their own records, I'm not
understanding why it's such a challenge for Collectiva."

Collectiva originally was to assess all applications by May 31. But
that deadline was suspended in April 2020, and a new deadline has
yet to be set.

Lagrange wrote to the law firms involved in December asking for a
new deadline, but her request was denied.

The Tyee reached out to Klein Lawyers and Indigenous and Northern
Affairs Canada for comment, but both redirected us to Argyle PR.

Legrange believes they are afraid of disqualifying people eligible
for compensation if they set a new deadline. "I think they're
afraid that if they disqualify folks, that opens them up to legal
action," she said.

But survivors waiting for their payments can't wait much longer,
she said. Several applicants have passed away while waiting for
notice of their applications, including a report of at least one
person dying of suicide.

"I really want to stress the need for mental health and wellness
support," Legrange said.

"The money is important for some folks, but it's really more about
being able to wrap this up, so to speak, and move on and heal. I
think we all want to have that closure."  [Tyee] [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB FIGUEROA and MARY
JACKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-00692-JM-BGS (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the proposed Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. defining Class Members as:

      "all Capital One accountholders in the United States who,
      during the Class Period, incurred at least one Out of
      Network ("OON") Balance Inquiry Fee;"

      Excluded from the Settlement Class is Capital One, its
      parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors;
      all accountholders who make a timely election to be
      excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and
      their immediate family members.

   3. defining Class period as follows:

      -- For settlement Class Members whose accounts were
         established in Louisiana: the period from April 6, 2008
         to June 30, 2020";

      -- For settlement Class Members whose accounts were
         established in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey:
         the period from April 6, 2012 to June 30, 2020

      -- For settlement Class Members whose accounts were
         established in Virginia: the period from April 6, 2013
         to June 30, 2020;

     --  For settlement Class Members whose accounts were
         established in Texas: the period from April 6, 2014 to
         June 30, 2020; and

     --  For settlement Class Members whose accounts were
         established in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
         Delaware: the period from April 6, 2015 to June 30,
         2020;

   3. directing the Settlement Administrator to issue individual
      settlement payments to participating Class members
      according to the terms and timeline stated in the
      Settlement Agreement;

   4. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs
      and class representative payments:

      -- The court GRANTS Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the
         amount of $3,900,000 and $15,686.18 in costs from the
         Settlement Fund:

      -- The Settlement Administrator shall pay Class Counsel
         from 10 the Settlement Fund within 10 days of Final
         Approval of the Settlement.

   5. granting a class representative award of $10,000 to each
      named Plaintiffs, Jacob Figueroa and Mary Jackson, to be
      paid from the Settlement Fund:

      -- The Settlement Administrator shall pay Plaintiffs from
         the Settlement Fund within 10 days of the Final
         Approval of the Settlement;

   6. approving settlement administrator costs not to
      exceed $900,000 absent further order of the court.

      -- Payment shall be made from the Settlement Fund to
         BrownGreer pursuant to the timeline stated in the
         Settlement;

   7. retaining continuing jurisdiction over this Settlement
      solely for the purposes of enforcing the agreement,
      addressing settlement administration matters and
      addressing such post-judgment matters as may be
      appropriate under court rules and applicable law; and

   8. directing the clerk to close the case.

The Court says that the order applies to all claims or causes of
action settled under the Settlement Agreement and binds all Class
Members who did not affirmatively opt-out of the Settlement
Agreement by submitting a timely and valid Request for Exclusion.
This order does not bind persons who filed timely and valid
Requests for Exclusion. The Plaintiffs and all Class Members who
did not timely submit a valid Request for Exclusion are: (1) deemed
to have released and discharged Defendant from any and all Released
Claims accruing during the Class Period; and (2) barred and
permanently enjoined from prosecuting any and all Released Claims
against the Released Parties.

This dispute centers around the fees Defendant Capital One, charges
its customers for using OON automatic teller machines. When a
Capital One accountholder withdraws funds from an OON ATM they are
typically assessed a $2 or $3 fee by the ATM owner along with a $2
charge by Capital One. Capital One also charges its accountholders
a third fee if a customer checks their balance while in the process
of making a cash withdrawal at OON ATMs.

The Plaintiffs allege that these fees for OON balance inquiries, or
"third" fees, were wrongfully charged and were in violation of
Capital One's standardized account agreement, Fee Schedule and
Electronic Funds Transfers Agreement and Disclosure. Typically,
Capital One charged its customers $2.00 for each OON balance
inquiry about which they complain, says the complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36iXdLm at no extra charge.[CC]

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Browne's Counsel Awarded $120K in Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted in part the Plaintiff's
application for an award of fees and costs in connection with the
parties' settlement in the matter entitled LESROY E. BROWNE, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-6005 (JAD)
(D.N.J.).

The Court rules that that $119,576.85 represents a reasonable award
of fees and costs. The Plaintiff's counsel has sought a total of
$140,512 in fees and costs.

The Plaintiff originally commenced the litigation on August 4,
2015. He alleged that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending out debt collection letters "in
envelopes that made visible from outside of the envelopes the
barcodes/quick response codes containing account numbers associated
with the debt." On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint, expanding his pleading to assert the same
alleged violation on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated New Jersey residents.

The Court conducted an initial conference on February 22, 2016, and
held several telephone conferences thereafter. On November 30,
2016, the Plaintiff's counsel advised that the parties had reached
a tentative, class-wide settlement, and that the Plaintiff required
certain "confirmatory discovery" from the Defendant in order to
finalize that settlement. The parties then spent the next several
years working through their issues, with the Court's assistance,
and consented to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction on May 30,
2018. On July 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of
the parties' settlement.

The Court granted that application by Order dated September 12,
2019, and certified the following class:

     All consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom
     Defendant sent a collection letter in the same or similar
     form as Exhibit A; which letter (a) was dated from August 4,
     2014 through and including August 4, 2015, (b) was seeking
     to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Cavalry SPV I,
     LLC, which originated from Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and
     (c) was sent in a windowed envelope such that the
     barcode/quick response code containing the Cavalry Account
     Number associated with the debt was visible from outside the
     envelope.

The Court also set deadlines for class notice and various
submissions, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for January 7,
2020. On December 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking
final approval of the parties' settlement, as well as an award of
attorneys' fees. By letter dated January 6, 2020, the Defendant
advised the Court that while it supported both the class settlement
and the incentive award to be paid to the Plaintiff, it opposed
class counsel's fee request.

Following the January 7, 2020 final fairness hearing, the Court
entered an Order granting final approval of the parties' class
action settlement. In the Order, it explicitly reserved its
decision on the Plaintiff's application for fees and costs, and
included that issue in its retention of jurisdiction. After entry
of the Court's January 7, 2020 Order, the parties' dispute over the
counsel fees is the only issue remaining in the case.

On January 28, 2020, the Defendant filed its opposition to the
Plaintiff's fee application. The Plaintiff filed a reply submission
on March 5, 2020. The Court conducted oral argument via Zoom video
conference on May 14, 2020, and the parties thereafter filed
various supplemental submissions.

In their Class Action Settlement Agreement, the parties expressly
agreed that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party as contemplated
by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3). The Defendant agrees to pay
reasonable attorney's fees and costs in an amount awarded by the
Court pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The
Plaintiff's counsel's entitlement to an award of fees is,
therefore, not in question. The parties' dispute concerns whether
the amount of counsel's proposed award is reasonable under the
law.

The Plaintiff's counsel has supported their application with both
their billing records and a certification describing, among other
things, each billing attorney's experience and involvement in the
case, as well as the relevant, prevailing market rates. In their
original application, the Plaintiff's counsel sought a total of
$79,842.80 in fees and expenses for work performed from June 15,
2015, through December 24, 2019. When filing their reply
submission, the Plaintiff's counsel sought another $61,176 in fees
and costs for work performed between December 24, 2019 and March 5,
2020. The Plaintiff's counsel, therefore, seeks a total of $140,512
in fees and costs.

The Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's motion, arguing that the
Plaintiff's attorneys seek an unreasonably large fee award. While
the Defendant's submission attacks the Plaintiff's fee application
on multiple grounds, it focuses on two primary points: (1) the
Plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates are unreasonably high; and (2)
the counsel spent an excessive amount of time working on this
case.

The Court will first address the reasonability of the Plaintiff's
counsel's hourly fees. It finds that the proposed rates for
attorneys Yongmoon Kim, Alan Poliner, Catherine Rhy and Eva Pitts
are reasonable. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff's
proposed hourly rate for counsel's paralegals is also reasonable.
It must, however, place one significant limitation on Attorney
Kim's rate.

As the Defendant points out, while Attorney Kim represented that
his rate increased from $455 per hour to $495 per hour as of
October 1, 2019, it appears that the Plaintiff seeks to apply the
$495 rate to all of his work on this case, including that performed
before October 1, 2019. While the Court finds that both the $455
and $495 hourly rates are reasonable for someone of Mr. Kim's
experience level, equity demands that the Court apply the $455 rate
to all work Mr. Kim performed through and including September 30,
2019, and the $495 rate to the work he performed thereafter.

The Court next turns to Attorney Jason D'Agnenica's proposed rate
of $705 per hour. While that rate is, perhaps, somewhat out-of-step
with those of his colleagues in the case, that does not necessarily
render it unreasonable. Indeed, one Judge in the District recently
approved a fee award premised, in part, on Mr. D'Agnenica billing
at the higher rate of $730 per hour. Considering his role in the
case, however -- preparing draft documents for attorney Yongmoon
Kim's review (including, in no small part, adapting work product
developed in previous litigation) -- the Court finds that Mr.
D'Agnenica's hourly rate is unreasonably high. The Court finds that
an hourly rate of $550, while still higher than that of most of his
co-counsel in this matter, would be reasonable under the
circumstances.

The Court must next examine whether the hours the counsel spent
completing the various tasks in the case were reasonable. The
Defendant's argument on this point is threefold. First, it contends
that the Plaintiff's counsel spent an unreasonably long time
adapting existing work product for use in this case. Second, it
argues that the Court should withhold fees for certain
"unsuccessful" litigation activities. Third, the Defendant suggests
that the Court should award the Plaintiff's counsel a reduced rate
for time spent on travel.

The Court does not agree with the Defendant's suggestion that the
Plaintiff's counsel has deceived that Court regarding the number of
hours they worked on these applications. To the extent certain of
counsel's activities took longer than the Court might have
anticipated, the Court finds that those situations reflect
inefficiency, rather than dishonesty.

Contrary to the Defendant's suggestion, the Plaintiff's counsel's
role in preparing the applications in question was not limited to
filling out simple forms, Judge Dickson holds. Certain portions of
the documents, such as those related to factual background and
procedural history, are obviously new. Other portions, including
(unsurprisingly), the legal argument sections of the Plaintiff's
briefing, are taken largely from previous submissions. That does
not mean that counsel can simply copy and paste legal arguments
from one brief to another, without careful consideration, Judge
Dickson notes. Even when adapting existing work product, counsel
must apply their legal skills to ensure: (1) that the legal points
and citations included in the briefing remain accurate; and (2)
that the legal conclusions included in the previous briefing
continue to apply given the facts of the particular case. That, in
turn, requires counsel to be fully conversant with those relevant
facts.

The Court notes that, while the Defendant obviously knew that the
Plaintiff would seek an award of attorneys' fees (language
acknowledging the counsel's entitlement to a reasonable fee was
embedded in the parties' settlement agreement), it appears that the
Defendant was content to let the Plaintiff's counsel do all of the
work on the applications for both preliminary and final approval.
While this certainly would not entitle the Plaintiff's counsel to
recover more than a reasonable fee, it does cause the outraged tone
of the Defendant's briefing to ring somewhat hollow.

The Court next considers the Defendant's argument that it should
award the Plaintiff's counsel Yongmoon Kim only half of his typical
rate for time spent traveling. The Court disagrees. It says the
case did not involve extensive travel, let alone the sort of
long-distance travel that would be conducive to performing other
work while in transit (e.g., via plane, train, etc.). Indeed, the
Defendant challenges the counsel's charges for travel to a single
conference -- a total of 1.6 hours, round-trip. Judge Dickson
opines that any time that the Plaintiff's counsel spent traveling
to and from the courthouse for that Court-mandated conference was
time that he could not spend on other activities. He should be
compensated for that time. The Court declines to impose a reduced
"travel rate."

Hence, the Plaintiff's application for an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees is granted in part. The Court finds that
$119,576.85 represents a reasonable award of fees and costs in the
matter and will direct the Defendant to pay that amount pursuant to
15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3). An appropriate form of Order
accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 21, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyx7rk58 from Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Strikes Modification of Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rough v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01340 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Morrison C. England entered an order that the Court's own motion
granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Modification of
Scheduling Order is stricken as error and the Ex Parte Application
is denied as moot pursuant to the filing of the Motion for Class
Certification.

The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation involving
Diversity -- Employment Discrimination.

Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation which
operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[CC]

DISCOVER BANK: Feldman Sues Over Conspiracy to Convert Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Feldman, doing business as ALIGA ONLINE on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated v. DISCOVER BANK, a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV02528 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2021), is brought against
the Defendants alleging that Defendants conspired to convert and
did convert the Plaintiff's funds held in the E*trade business
account for $974,760.00.

During 2015, the Plaintiff opened an E*trade brokerage and business
checking account ending with 1139 ("E*trade business account"). The
opening of the account involved a deposit agreement wherein
Defendant was to provide regular and normal business banking
services including accepting deposits, ACH Merchant Processing and
paying checks written by Plaintiff through its business account.
The E*trade business account was used by Plaintiff for investments
and business checking, along with ACH Merchant Processing.

On November 27, 2020, the Defendant allegedly has improperly caused
to be frozen, trespassed to and subsequently converted the
Plaintiff's funds held at E*trade business account including
investments in the approximate amount of $974,760.00 all to the
Plaintiff's damage. The Defendant's unfounded claims upon the
Plaintiff's funds, E*trade placed a hard hold on the E*trade
business account alleging that there were checks being returned
unpaid. As a result, the Plaintiff's E*trade business account had
all deposits, withdrawals and payments blocked as of November 27,
2020.

According to E*trade there were multiple checks deposited and later
returned unpaid. The Plaintiff disputes any checks were returned
unpaid. If there were checks returned unpaid, the Plaintiff
believes that the issues arose with the ACH Merchant Processing
deposits. If there were checks returned unpaid, the Plaintiff
believes the situation arose because the third party payment
processing company processed transactions in error with mixed up
routing and account numbers. The balance of the E*trade business
account on November 27, 2020 was approximately greater than
$974,760.00 hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's funds."

The Plaintiff disputes any checks were returned unpaid and on or
about December 01, 2020, the Plaintiff provided significant
documentation to support each transaction to E*trade with regard to
each customer transaction subject to the hold and with regard to
each check a single debit authorization executed by each customer,
each customer's voided check and eVerify confirmations showing
Pass-1 (1111) for each customer and transaction. It is common
knowledge that a code 1111 involving green payment processing
verification codes means that "The check has passed all
verification."

On January 05, 2021 E*trade sold the Plaintiff's investments and
coupled with the balance of the checking account returned the
Plaintiff's funds to DISCOVER BANK. E*trade informed the
Plaintiff's counsel per email that Discover completed the recall of
the transfers in to the E*trade account and that the funds are held
at Discover. Apparently, Discover Bank had made claims against
Plaintiff's funds. E*trade directed further inquiries regarding
Plaintiff's funds to Discover Bank.

The Plaintiff has been damaged by the 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, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was a resident of the State of California.

DISCOVER BANK, a Delaware corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, and doing
business in Los Angeles County, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vahe Hovanessian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN
          100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536
          Glendale, CA 91203-2642
          Phone: (818) 240-1333
          Fax: (818) 240-1369
          Email: vahe@vhlaw.com


DONALD TRUMP: Court Junks Gallardo Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARRY DAULD GALLARDO, v.
DONALD J. TRUMP et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00054-UNA (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge TANYA S. CHUTKAN entered an order

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
      pauperis;

   2. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   3. dismissing the complaint and this case substantially for the
reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued in
      Gallardo v. Trump, Case No. 20-cv- 325 (UNA) (D.D.C. Mar. 20,
2020).

Donald John Trump is an American politician who was the 45th
president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pw8z6s at no extra charge.[CC]

DYCK O'NEAL: Cheeks FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAKIA CHEEKS,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-02148-GJH (D.
Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certify the Class
defined as follows:

   "all consumers within the State of Maryland that have
   received a collection letter from the Defendant concerning
   personal mortgage debts that states "Because of interest,
   late charge and other charges that may vary from day to day,
   the amount due on the day you pay may be greater than the
   balance due as stated in this letter," within one year prior
   to filing of this complaint through final judgment."

This action arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in its attempt to
collect a debt from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on July 23, 2019 alleging
that Defendant violated the provisions of the FDCPA banning false,
deceptive, or misleading collection conduct.

The Defendant DO is a debt collector that regularly collects debts
incurred by Maryland consumers. During the course of its collection
efforts, the Defendant sent a letter to over 160 Maryland consumers
whose debts were passed the statute of limitations, without
advising of the status of the debt yet leaving the impression that
Defendant could in fact sue the consumer, says the Plaintiff.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39lEuR7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

EASY HEALTHCARE: Premom App Users Sue Over Sharing of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
EASY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00349 (N.D. Ill.,
Jan. 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by sharing
Premom app user's personal information or geolocation data to
third-party entity.

The Plaintiff brings this class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons who
downloaded Defendant's "Premom" application to their smart phones,
tablets, and laptop computers -- portable electronic devices
("PEDs") -- that utilize Google's Android operating software system
from the date of Premom's inception in 2017 to the present.

The Plaintiff contends that without their knowledge or consent, and
in direct contradiction of Defendant's Terms of Service and Privacy
Policies, once Premom was downloaded to these PEDs, the Defendant
shared personal information and location data regarding her and
other proposed class members via its Premom application software
with at least three known Chinese third-party data collection
entities. By its conduct, the Defendant allegedly violated her and
proposed class members' rights by (i) breaching Premom's Terms of
Service and Privacy Policies; (ii) unjustly enriching itself; (iii)
committing fraud; and (iv) violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud &
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class were damaged as a direct
result of this conduct, the suit says.

Plaintiff Jane Doe is an adult female of sound mind over eighteen
years in age who currently resides in the state of Virginia. On or
about February 2020, the Plaintiff downloaded the Defendant's
Premom application on her One-Plus PED that operates the Android
operating software system.

Easy Healthcare is one of the largest on-line providers of home and
workplace healthcare products selling various devices such as
thermometers, oximeters, pregnancy tests, drug tests, etc. Its
website states, "Easy Healthcare is dedicated to providing
user-friendly healthcare products. Its notable brands include
Easy@Home for home use healthcare and Areta for professional use."
The Defendant also sells under the product names "Premom" and
"Sweetie Song."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          4600 Madison, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
                  dan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726 3400
          Facsimile: (312) 782 4519
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

ENERGY RECOVERY: Court Junks Visser Class Suit without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK VISSER, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ENERGY RECOVERY,
INC., JOSHUA BALLARD, JOEL GAY, CHRIS M. GANNON, and ROBERT YU LANG
MAO, Case No. 1:20-cv-05647-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered
an order dismissing the action and each asserted claim for relief
without prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees under any
federal or state law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

The Court said, "After conducting further investigation, Lead
Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association has determined not
to file an Amended Complaint and to dismiss the action without
prejudice. No motion for class certification has been filed, and no
class has been certified. The parties agree that each party shall
bear its own costs and attorneys' fees."

Energy Recovery manufactures energy recovery devices for oil and
gas, chemical and water industries globally.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pon8ZI at no extra charge.[CC]

FIELD MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Installers, Howell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD L. HOWELL III, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FIELD MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC; AM
COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.; and AM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00190 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 22, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint to challenge the policies and practices of the
Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the
Constitution and statutes of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other members of the FLSA
Collective and Ohio Class work for the Defendants as installers. He
asserts that the Defendants utilize a fissured employment scheme to
employ them and misclassify them as so-called "independent
contractors" to avoid their obligations under the FLSA and Ohio
law. He also adds that through this misclassification, the
Defendants knowingly, willfully, and deliberately failed to
compensate them overtime compensation at at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Plaintiff Richard L. Howell III was jointly employed by Defendants
Field Management Group LLC and AM Communications from approximately
July 2020 to November 2020 as an installer. He currently works for
AM Communications through a different intermediary subcontractor.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of installing cable
lines and equipment for video, telephone and internet. The
Defendants utilize installers, including the Plaintiff and other
members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class, to make these
installations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark W. Biggerman, Esq.
          29325 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 305
          Pepper Pike, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 831-4935
          Facsimile: (216) 831-9526
          E-mail: mark@mblegal.com

FSNY RESTAURANT: Flowers Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUPERT FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FSNY RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 600976/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 25, 2021) seeks
to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated
tips, and other damages.

Plaintiff Flowers was employed by the Defendant as server.

FSNY Restaurant Associates LLC owns and operates a restaurant known
as Cut by Wolfgang Puck in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


GARRETT MOTION: Court Consolidates Three Class Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the three class action lawsuits against Garrett Motion Inc., et
al., the Hon. Judge John P. Cronan entered an order:

   1. consolidating the Husson, Gabelli, and Froehlich actions;
      and

   2. granting The Gabelli Asset Fund and related entities'
      motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and granting their
      motion for approval of lead counsel.

The Court says that consolidation is appropriate because the three
actions involve common questions of law and fact. All three
complaints allege that statements from Garrett officers and
directors made between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020 were
false or misleading in violation of the same federal securities
laws, particularly with respect to Garrett's agreement to indemnify
Honeywell for asbestos-related liabilities. The Court finds that
any prejudice that would result from consolidating these actions is
outweighed by the benefits of judicial economy. Additionally, at
least three of the four parties that moved for appointment as lead
plaintiff are in favor of consolidation, and no party has objected.
Although Defendants have not appeared yet, the Gabelli Entities
represented to the Court that "[c]ounsel for the Defendants have
also advised [the Gabelli Entities'] counsel that they consent to
the consolidation of the actions. Thus, the Court grants the
Gabelli Entities' motion to consolidate these actions, pursuant to
Rule 42(a).

The Plaintiffs allege they purchased or obtained shares of Garrett
Motion Inc., a company formed in October 2018 as a spin-off of
Honeywell International Inc. The complaints allege that Garrett,
and several of the company's representatives, made false or
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
agreement to indemnify Honeywell for asbestos-related liabilities.
This agreement allegedly made it impossible for Garrett to sustain
its business and thus doomed the company from the start. Each
complaint alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "JOSEPH FROEHLICH, individually and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated, v. OLIVIER RABILLER, ALLESANDRO GILI,
    PETER BRACKE, SEAN DEASON, and SU PING LU, Case No. 1:20-cv-
    09279-JPC (S.D.N.Y.);

    STEVEN HUSSON, individually and on behalf of all thers
    similarly situated, v. GARRETT MOTION INC., OLIVIER
    RABILLER, ALLESANDRO GILI, PETER BRACKE, SEAN DEASON, and SU
    PING LU, Case No. 20-CV-7992-JPC (S.D.N.Y.); and

    THE GABELLI ASSET FUND, THE GABELLI DIVIDEND & INCOME TRUST,
    THE GABELLI VALUE 25 FUND INC., THE GABELLI EQUITY TRUST
    INC., SM INVESTORS LP and SM INVESTORS II LP, on behalf of
    themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SU PING LU,
    OLIVIER RABILLER, ALESSANDRO GILI, PETER BRACKE, SEAN
    DEASON, CRAIG BALIS, THIERRY MABRU, RUSSELL JAMES, CARLOS M.
    CARDOSO, MAURA J. CLARK, COURTNEY M. ENGHAUSER, SUSAN L.
    MAIN, CARSTEN REINHARDT, and SCOTT A. TOZIER, Case No. 20-
    CV-8296-JPC (S.D.N.Y.).

Garrett Motion operates as an automobile technology provider. The
Company offers turbocharging, electric boosting, and automotive
software solutions.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39qOY1y at no
extra charge.[CC]

GOLDBERG & MILLER: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Paralegals, Munoz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE MUNOZ on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
GOLDBERG, MILLER & RUBIN, P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00297 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 21, 2021) is a collective/class
action for damages and other legal and equitable relief arising
from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has maintained a
corporate policy under which it misclassifies its paralegals,
including Plaintiff, as exempt employees and compensates them the
same amount each week regardless of the number of hours they work.
The Defendant's paralegals routinely work over 40 hours per week,
often without overtime payments, the Plaintiff added.

Ms. Munoz is an individual residing in West Caldwell, New Jersey.
She was employed by the Defendant as a paralegal in Fairfield, New
Jersey from May 2019 through November 2020.

The Defendant is a Philadelphia-based civil defense firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
          WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48067 PH:
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Deadline for Class Certification Bid Set for May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leonid Falberg, as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan, v. The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan Retirement Committee,
and John Does 1-20, Case No. 1:19-cv-09910-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's merits expert reports shall be served no
      later than August 30, 2021.

   2. The Defendants' merits expert reports shall be served no
      later than October 11, 2021.

   3. The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert reports shall be served no
      later than November 11, 2021.

   4.. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than
      December 17, 2021.

   5. Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      and any supporting expert declarations: May 1, 2021.

   6. Deadline for dispositive motions: February 15, 2022.

   7. The next case management conference is scheduled for
      December 22, 2021 at 11 a.m.

Goldman Sachs is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in New York City. It
offers services in investment management, securities, asset
management, prime brokerage, and securities underwriting.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cm7CcX at no extra charge.[CC]

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Stockholders Class Certified in St. Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify a class and for
appointment of class representative and lead counsel in the lawsuit
titled THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff v.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, JAMES H ROBERTS, JIGISHA DESAI,
and LAUREL J. KRZEMINSKI, Defendants, Case No. C 19-04744 WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

The action stems from accusations that Granite Construction
Incorporated misled investors by making false or misleading public
statements between April 2018 and October 2019, which artificially
inflated the value of its stock. Granite bids on and completes
large infrastructure projects for public and private clients. The
Police Retirement System of St. Louis serves as the court-appointed
lead plaintiff in the putative class action.

The amended complaint asserts claims against Granite, as well as
individuals James Roberts, its Chief Executive Officer; Jigisha
Desai, its Chief Financial Officer; and Laurel Krzeminski, its
former Chief Financial Officer. The claims concern four
infrastructure contracts that Granite won between 2012 and 2014:
(1) a $2.3 billion contract on interstate highway in Florida (I-4
Ultimate Project); (2) a $3.14 billion contract for work on the
Tappan Zee Bridge in New York (Tappan Zee Project); (3) a $1.1
billion contract for a bridge in Pennsylvania (PennDOT Project);
and (4) a $1.2 billion project to rebuild a substantial stretch of
highway in Texas (Texas Project).

The complaint alleges that fixed-price contracts governed each
project, meaning that Granite agreed to complete the work "for a
fixed price"; Granite therefore had "extremely limited options to
obtain additional compensation" if extra expenses arose. Moreover,
Granite undertook each project as a joint venture with other
construction companies. Thus, its "financial interest in the
projects (including its share of profits and losses) was tied to
its ownership stake in each." Granite took a 30% stake in the I-4
Ultimate Project, a 23.3% stake in the Tappan Zee Project, a 40%
stake in the PennDOT Project, and a 35% stake in the Texas
Project.

Granite employed allegedly fraudulent accounting techniques in
preparing financial reports for the four projects. The complaint
alleges that each of the projects experienced significant cost
overruns, which the Defendants either understated or hid in
Granite's prepared financial reports. The cost overruns from the
four projects allegedly totaled about $1.4 billion.

Given Granite's financial stake in each joint venture, the
complaint alleges the company should have been responsible for at
least $14.4 million from the I-4 Project, $209.7 million from the
Tappan Zee Project, $105.6 million from the PennDOT Project, and
$8.75 million from the Texas Project, totaling $338.45 million in
overruns. Had Granite reported its overruns honestly in financial
statements, the complaint argues, its recognized profits and losses
would have been roughly consistent with the joint ventures' profits
and losses (on a pro rata basis). This did not happen. Instead,
throughout 2018, and in the first quarter of 2019, Granite reported
more profits than the joint venture as a whole, which sometimes
recorded losses. For instance, in the first quarter of 2018, the
joint venture "sustained a massive $141 million loss," whereas
Granite "recorded a $2.6 million gain."

In mid-2019, the complaint contends, Granite's practice of
concealing losses came home to roost: it reported losses in the
second and third quarters of 2019 that, as a percentage of its
interest, far exceeded that of the joint venture. During those two
quarters, Granite announced charges of $242 million, driven by the
four projects, which reduced profits and caused its stock price to
drop over 40%. The complaint alleges that these charges could not
have been attributed to unanticipated costs emerging in 2019, but
rather resulted from losses incurred throughout the class period
that had been "improperly delayed."

The Lead Plaintiff claims to have acquired stock in Granite at an
inflated price before the sharp decline in 2019. The complaint
accuses Granite of violations of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, attributes to all Defendants violations of SEC Rule
10b-5, and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act against Individual Defendants Roberts, Desai, and
Krzeminski. The Defendants earlier moved to dismiss, arguing the
following: (1) the Plaintiff failed to allege an actionable
misrepresentation; (2) the Plaintiff failed to plead scienter; (3)
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor provides
a defense; and (4) the Plaintiff failed to allege control person
liability.

In July 2020 (following the commencement of the action), Granite
stated that it would re-report its class-period financials and
admitted in a Form 8-K that the 2018 Form 10-K and the 10-Q reports
for the first three quarters of 2019 "should no longer be relied
upon due to misstatements contained in such financial statements."
In November 2020, Granite reported that an Audit Committee
investigation "is substantially complete," and that Granite is
"evaluating the impact of the investigation on its prior period
financial statements and implementing appropriate remediation
actions." In the same month, Granite filed a Form 8-K, which
announced an agreement with its lenders to file audited financial
statements (for 2019's Form 10-K and for its unaudited financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2020) by the end of
February 2021.

The Lead Plaintiff now moves to certify the class consisting of:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     Granite common stock during the period of April 30, 2018,
     through October 24, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period) and
     were damaged thereby.

Excluded from the proposed class are (i) the Defendants and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof, (ii) present and former
officers and directors of Granite and its subsidiaries or
affiliates, and their immediate family members (as defined in Item
404 of SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section 229.404, Instructions
(1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)); (iii) the Defendants' liability
insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof;
(iv) any entity in which any Defendant has or has had a controlling
interest; (v) Granite's employee retirement and benefits plan(s);
and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents,
successors, or assigns of any person or entity described in the
preceding five categories.

The Court finds that St. Louis has satisfied the elements of Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the motion to certify the class is granted. St. Louis
will serve as Class Representative and Plaintiff, and Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld LLP as Lead Counsel. Within 14 Calendar Days of the
date of entry of the order, all parties will submit jointly an
agreed-upon form of notice, which must incorporate the information
set forth regarding the parallel actions. St. Louis along with the
Defendants must also submit a joint proposal for dissemination of
the notice, and the timeline for opting out of the action. The Lead
Plaintiff must bear the costs of the notice, which will include
mailing by first-class mail.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 21, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5kd6969 from Leagle.com.


GREAT LAKES: Misallocated Payments, Student Loan Borrowers Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIENNA LYONS, DANIELLE LABELLE, & SAUNDRA O'DONNELL v. GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC., NELNET, INC., NELNET DIVERSIFIED
SOLUTIONS LLC; and NELNET SERVICING LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01047-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., Jan. 22, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought on behalf of student loan borrowers for the
fraudulent, illegal, and negligent actions and inactions of the
Defendants with respect to their misallocation of payments made by
the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs contend that when they and any other borrower of
federal student loans serviced by Great Lakes and/or Nelnet made
any payment from at least March 13, 2020 to the present, instead of
following federal law, and instead of honoring the explicit promise
on its Website to allocate payments to the loans with the highest
interest rates, Great Lakes and/or Nelnet has misallocated and
continues to misallocate these payments proportionally across loans
without consideration of interest rates.

On August 8, 2020, President Donald Trump signed a Memorandum on
Continued Student Loan Payment Relief During the COVID-19 Pandemic
and ordered "continuing the temporary cessation of payments and the
waiver of all interest on student loans held by the Department of
Education until December 31, 2020." On December 4, 2020, Secretary
of Education Betsy DeVos announced the extension of the federal
student loan administrative forbearance period, the pause in
interest accrual, and the suspension of collections activity
through January 31, 2021.

On the Federal Student Aid Website, there is a page titled
"Coronavirus and Forbearance Info for Student, Borrowers, and
Parents". On the webpage, it is indicated that during the
administrative forbearance, the full amount of any payments made
will be applied to principal once all the interest that accrued
prior to March 13 is paid. On August 30, 2020, an e-mail was sent
out by Great Lakes to all borrowers advising them that "[i]f you
can continue paying your student loans while your loans are at 0%
interest rate, your payments go farther toward reducing the
principal balance of your loan amount once any outstanding interest
has been paid."

Plaintiff Sienna Lyons is an adult citizen of the State of New
Jersey domiciled in the County of Atlantic at 5509 Monmouth Avenue,
Ventnor City, New Jersey. Plaintiff Danielle LaBella is an adult
citizen of the State of New Jersey domiciled in the County of Ocean
at 375 Dogwood Drive, Brick, New Jersey. Plaintiff Saundra
O’Donnell is an adult citizen of the State of New Jersey
domiciled in the County of Camden at 16 Josie Lane, Atco, New
Jersey.

Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. is a Wisconsin
corporation with its principal place of business at 2401
International Lane, Madison, Wisconsin. Great Lakes Educational
Loan Services, Inc. is the wholly owned servicing subsidiary of
Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation. Great Lakes Educational
Loan Services, Inc. services millions of federal student loans on
behalf of the United States Department of Education. In addition to
servicing Plaintiffs' federal student loans in New Jersey, Great
Lakes services other federal student loans in New Jersey and
nationwide.

Defendant Nelnet is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place
of business at 121 South 13th Street, Suite 201, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Nelnet owns over 50 subsidiaries that administer and collect
student loans throughout the United States and Canada, including
the Defendants Nelnet Servicing LLC and Nelnet Diversified
Solutions LLC. Nelnet and its subsidiaries service federal student
loans in New Jersey and nationwide. The Defendant Nelnet Servicing
LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Defendant Nelnet
Diversified Solutions, LLC, which is itself a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Cedar, Esq.
          Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CEDAR, LLC
          8 Kings Highway West, Suite B
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 470-9777
          Facsimile: (888) 311 4899 fax
          E-mail: dcedar@williamscedar.com
                  gwilliams@williamscedar.com

               - and -

          Noah Axler, Esq.
          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534-7400
          Facsimile: (267) 534-7407
          E-mail: naxler@axgolaw.com
                  mgoldich@axgolaw.com

GRILL CONCEPTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. GRILL CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a THE GRILL ON THE ALLEY, a
California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00237-AGT (N.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the alleged conduct and seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendants' corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Company's Website,
https://www.thegrill.com/, will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.

Grill Concepts Inc. owns and manages restaurant in California whose
Website provides access to their steakhouse. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GRUBHUB INC: TCPA Class Action Suit Pending in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Barker Marshall, Esq., Stephanie Joyce, Esq., and Susan
Metcalfe, Esq., of Potomac Law Group PLLC, in an article for
Lexology, report that welcome to the Tech & Telecom Weekly, an
e-newsletter keeping you apprised of the latest developments in the
telecommunications and high-tech industries.

FCC Policy

The next FCC Open Meeting, the first under Acting Chair Jessica
Rosenworcel, is scheduled for February 17, 2020, at 10:30am ET. No
Tentative Agenda has yet been released.

Compliance Alerts

Lifeline providers are required to file their Annual Lifeline ETC
Certification Form (2020 FCC Form 555) by January 31, 2021, through
the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) portal. This
form reports the results of a provider's annual rolling
recertification process. National Verifier service providers must
complete Form 555. Additional information can be found here or by
contacting Katherine Barker Marshall.

Legislative Affairs

Several members of Congress sent a letter to former FCC Chmn. Pai,
prior to his departure, urging the agency to vet the winners of the
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Auction thoroughly. "We urge
the FCC to validate that each provider in fact has the technical,
financial, managerial, operational skills, capabilities, and
resources to deliver the services that they have pledged for every
American they plan to serve regardless of the technology they use."
The members seek to ensure good service for rural communities and
"to minimize any opportunities for fraud or abuse."

In the Courts

Companies that engaged in robocalling between 2015 and 2020 might
have a free pass for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) due to a Supreme Court ruling in July 2020
that TCPA was rendered unconstitutional by an exemption for
robocalls related to federally backed debts. Grubhub is making that
argument in its latest motion to dismiss a putative class action,
Donna Marshall v. Grubhub Inc., pending in the Northern District of
Illinois. In her complaint, Marshall alleges Grubhub called her
cell phone dozens, "possibly even hundreds" of times, effectively
preventing her from using her phone. Grubhub argues that it cannot
be liable for alleged TCPA violations committed during the period
in which TCPA was deemed unconstitutional.

Rural Broadband

The FCC has released its Third Report and Order in the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection docket in order to enhance the accuracy
of broadband mapping data. The order includes requirements for
reporting speed and latency for fixed technologies and specifies
which fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service providers
must report their data. This order also establishes the process for
the ongoing collection of Form 477, which is due March 1, 2021.
(FCC 21-20; WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10) [GN]


HAPPIEST MINDS: Class Certification Filing Due June 10
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMI SULZBERG v. HAPPIEST
MINDS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., Case No. 5:19-cv-05618-SVK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order amending
case schedule as follows:

   Scheduled Event          Existing Deadline    New Deadline

   Close of Fact             Jan. 19, 2021      Feb. 18, 2021
   Discovery (except
   discovery regarding
   individual damages):

   Expert Disclosures        Feb. 16, 2021      Mar. 18, 2021

   Rebuttal Expert           Mar. 23, 2021      Apr. 22, 2021
   Disclosures:

   Close of Expert           Apr. 13, 2021      May 13, 2021
   Discovery:     

   Class Certification       Motion due         Motion due
   Motion:                   May 11, 2021       June 10, 2021

                             Opposition due     Opposition due
                             June 8, 2021       July 8, 2021

                             Reply due          Reply due
                             June 29, 2021      July 29, 2021

Final Pretrial Conference:   Sep. 23, 2021      Oct. 22, 2021

The parties have scheduled a mediation with the Court's Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program. Mediation must be completed by
March 15, 2021. A status conference will take place on May 11, 2021
at 9:30 a.m., with a joint status report due on May 4, 2021.


Happiest Minds is a digital transformation, infrastructure,
security, and product engineering services company. The company was
founded by Ashok Soota in 2011. It is headquartered In Bangalore,
India and has its operations in the United States, United Kingdom,
Canada, Singapore, and Australia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39kC05D at no extra charge.[CC]

HOLDEN OUTERWEAR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HOLDEN OUTERWEAR INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00548-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendant 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 people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.holdenouterwear.com. and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

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.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant is a clothing company, and owns and operates the
Website, www.holdenouterwear.com, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the
Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United
States, including New York State.

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

HOME DEPOT: Deadline for Class Status Bid Continued to June 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN
and ARACELI BARRAGAN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Further Continue the Summary Judgment and Class
Certification Motion Deadlines:

   -- The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment is
      continued to May 3, 2021.

   -- The deadline for filing motions for class certification is
      continued to June 28, 2021.

Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t0ZvZd at no extra charge.[CC]

HORMEL FOODS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00541
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendant 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 people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, shop.columbuscraftmeats.com, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

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.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant is a food processing company, and owns and operates
the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.

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

HORNADY MFG.: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HORNADY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00566-AT (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant 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 people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.hornady.com, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant is an ammunition manufacturing company that owns and
operates the Website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant ensures
the delivery of throughout the United States, including New York
State.

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

JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Directed to File Class Cert. by Oct. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY v. JAMES
LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge
Scott D. Johnson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Case Schedule:

However, some of the dates requested by Plaintiff fall on weekends.
In those instances, the Court set requested Saturday deadlines for
the preceding Friday and Sunday deadlines for the following Monday.
The Court's Scheduling Order is, therefore, modified as follows:

   1. The deadline to join other parties or to amend the
      pleadings is April 15, 2021.

   2. Disclosure of identities and resumes of experts for class
      certification:

      -- Plaintiff(s): May 14, 2021

      -- Defendant(s): June 15, 2021

   3. Discovery pertaining to the issue of conditional class
      certification: June 25, 2021;

   4. Expert reports for class certification must be submitted
      to opposing parties as follows:

      -- Plaintiff(s): July 1, 2021

      -- Defendant(s): August 2, 2021;

   5. The Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to
      Prospective Class Members: October 15, 2021. Opposition
      due by Defendant by November 15, 2021. Reply due by
      Plaintiff by November 30, 2021.

   6. Discovery from experts for class certification must be
      completed by September 15, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/36ckgaFat no extra charge.[CC]

KENYA POWER: Averts Class Action Over Inflated Electricity Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Daily reports that the High Court has dismissed a fresh
attempt to revive a class action suit against Kenya Power over
alleged inflation of electricity bills, which was settled two years
ago.

Justice James Makau dismissed the application by Gitson Energy Ltd
saying the company was not a party in the suit, which was settled
by consent in October 2018.

The judge also dismissed a second application seeking to
cross-examine lawyer Apollo Mboya on the contents of an affidavit
he filed in court last year.

The Judge said the company was never a party to the case nor the
consent, which was entered by parties in 2018, noting that the
consent had a contractual effect and can only be set aside on
application by parties that signed it and not third parties.

"It, therefore, follows that mere and circumstantial allegations of
fraud, collusion by a stranger to the proceedings cannot amount to
a valid ground for setting aside the consent," the Judge said while
dismissing the case.

The company and its directors James Gitau, Jerotich Seii, Robert
Alai and Alvis Abenga alleged that there was fraud in the consent
and the court should review it and allow them to prosecute the
case.

But the judge said the company failed to demonstrate any new matter
that was not within its knowledge at the time the order was made.

The Treasury together with Kenya Power, Kenya Electricity
Transmission Company and the Ministry of Energy had opposed the
case saying it was an attempt to reopen a case that has already
been settled.

A similar case was dismissed last year by Justice Weldon Korir
saying claims of fraud were hearsay.

In the initial cases, Mr Mboya and the Electricity Consumers
Society of Kenya (ECSK) wanted to stop KP from recovering Sh10.1
billion for costs not reflected on 2017 bills.

He moved to court after some 900,000 customers were slapped with
unusually high power bills or received fewer units for their normal
monthly spend.

The suit also sought to stop Kenya Power from recovering the costs
and a refund of Sh2 billion that had already been recovered.

Kenya Power, however, denied the claims and said it was
implementing new billing software. But as the case was pending, Mr
Mboya signed consent with the power utility company, settling the
case. [GN]


LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Chain Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Victor J. Chain, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled VICTOR J. CHAIN, JR.,
PETER HAYWARD, GILBERT LEWIS, ANTHONY L. PLATONI and OWEN TAYLOR on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NORTH
EAST FREIGHTWAYS, INC. d/b/a LAND AIR EXPRESS, LAX, LLC and
LAND-AIR EXPRESS OF NEW ENGLAND, LTD., Case No. 16-cv-3371, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 28,
2020, the Hon. Judge Judith C. McCarthy entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' federal and New York federal
      Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN
      Acts) claims; and

   2. mooting the Defendants' motion to de-certify Plaintiffs'
      proposed class.

Judge McCarthy concludes and recommends to the Honorable Vincent L.
Briccetti that the default judgment entered against Land-Air on
August 22, 2016, be vacated and the action be dismissed against
it.

On May 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced the action against Land-
Air seeking damages pursuant to the federal WARN Act, the New York
WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN Act. On August 22, 2016, the
Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti entered a default judgment against
Land-Air for failing to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the said Court's
Order by Judge McCarthy.

The appellate case is captioned as Chain v. Land-Air Express of New
England, Ltd., Case No. 21-131, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, January 21, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert
Lewis, Anthony L. Platoni, and Owen Taylor, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brett Reed Gallaway, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com

Defendants-Appellees North East Freightways, Inc. and LAX, LLC are
represented by:

          Michael Stanley, Esq.
          SHEEHAN PHINNEY
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (781) 589-3238  
          E-mail: mstanley@sheehan.com

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over Misreported Advertising Metrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Birmingham, writing for Which-50, reports that LinkedIn in
the US is facing a class action from its advertisers related to the
revelation in November last year that it misreported advertising
metrics for ad views and video plays for at least two years.

Among the accusations the company faces is that for years, the
prices it charged advertisers were too high as they were based on
inflated metrics tied to clicks.

Wohl and Fruchter, lawyers acting for Synergy RX PBM LLC, a US
health company -- along with what it says are "other
similarly-situated advertisers" -- issued a note announcing the
action against LinkedIn Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

"Broadly, the complaint alleges that LinkedIn deceived advertisers
by disseminating inaccurate and inflated impressions, video views,
clicks and other metrics to Plaintiff and other Class members,
which caused advertisers to believe their advertisements were
performing better than they actually were, and to therefore pay
more for ads, and buy more ads, than they otherwise would have,
absent the deception. The complaint further alleges that LinkedIn
concealed from advertisers that its auditing processes and systems
were deficient.

"The complaint seeks monetary compensation for losses, an
injunction, and other relief."

In a written response a Linkedin spokesperson referred Which-50 to
the company's initial comment from November last year, "We've seen
the filing. Our post is the best source for comment – we are
currently working with all customers who were impacted to provide
full credit to their accounts."

At the time Linkedin wrote, "We are committed to the transparency
and integrity of our ads products. This commitment guides us as we
improve our offerings and systems to help ensure we maintain a
trusted platform.

"This also means that when something goes wrong, we address it. In
August, our engineering team discovered and then subsequently fixed
two measurement issues in our ads products that may have
overreported some Sponsored Content campaign metrics for impression
and video views. Together these issues potentially impacted more
than 418,000 customers over a two-plus year period. More than 90%
of customers saw an impact of less than US $25, and we are
currently working with all customers who were impacted to provide
full credit to their accounts."

The Complaint
The accompanying copy of the complaint says that on November 12,
2020, LinkedIn revealed it had discovered measurement errors in
August 2020 and that the impact of these errors was inflated
metrics tied to impressions and video views for at least two
years.

Wohl and Fruchter argue that this potentially impacted over 418,000
advertisers during that time frame.

"For example, LinkedIn recorded video views for video ads that
continued to play off-screen, which would have inflated video view
rates (as a LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed). In other instances,
LinkedIn recorded impressions when members simply rotated their
phones."

The fact that these metrics appear to have been wrong for so long
has led to an accusation that LinkedIn's internal auditing
processes and systems have been deficient for years.

"LinkedIn knew this and admitted as much in its November 2020
announcement when it disclosed that, as a result of discovering the
inflated metrics, it would begin 'investing in improvements to our
processes and systems,' and retain the Media Rating Council (MRC)
-- a media industry watchdog -- to 'audit our metrics.' LinkedIn
could and should have taken these steps years ago. Had it done so,
the inflated metrics only first discovered in August 2020 would
have been promptly detected and fixed before causing harm to
advertisers."

But, in the words of the plaintiffs, "it did not do so because
inflated metrics boosted LinkedIn's revenue."

The other issue at the heart of the action concerns transparency of
the corrective action which LinkedIn has undertaken.

According to the complaint, "In its announcement, LinkedIn advised
that it had issued 'credits' to advertisers 'potentially impacted'
by the inflated metrics. But it has never disclosed how it
calculated these 'credits,' nor how it determined which advertisers
were 'impacted.' Instead, LinkedIn has taken the position that it
is free to unilaterally decide without any accountability which
advertisers to compensate, and what sums to pay them (apparently
based solely on PR considerations)."

Wohl and Fruchter argue that LinkedIn must fully compensate all
impacted advertisers for all the harm caused by those inflated
metrics.

They also allege the problem may be deeper than LinkedIn has
admitted.

"Moreover, it appears that LinkedIn's measurement errors extend
well beyond inflated metrics tied to impressions and video views.
According to credible experts and other public sources, LinkedIn's
platform is plagued by fraudulent activity, including large volumes
of invalid clicks."

Finally, they argue, "the fact that LinkedIn failed to acknowledge
the invalid clicks and other fraudulent activity on its platform
discovered by third parties means that Plaintiff and other
advertisers continue to face an actual threat of future harm of
being further exposed to inflated metrics on LinkedIn that can only
be addressed by injunctive relief." [GN]


LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Synergy RX Sues Over Inflated Metrics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Synergy RX PBM LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:21-cv-00513
(N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2021), is brought to ensure LinkedIn fully
compensates for all harm caused by inflated metrics on LinkedIn's
platform, and that LinkedIn implements adequate auditing processes
and systems to promptly detect and fix future errors that would
inflate metrics, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, fraudulent misrepresentation
(or in the alternative, negligent misrepresentation), breach of the
implied duty to perform with reasonable care, and at a minimum, an
accounting, on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated
LinkedIn advertisers.

As one of its primary sources of revenue, LinkedIn charges
advertisers for displaying ads to LinkedIn members. Advertisers pay
for these ads based on three metrics: each time an ad is displayed
("impressions"), each time a video ad is watched for a minimum
duration ("video views"), or each time an ad is clicked ("clicks").
LinkedIn sells its ads via real-time online auctions in which
advertisers compete to show their ads to LinkedIn members. The
prices advertisers are willing to pay for LinkedIn ads depends on
ad performance; that is, the rate at which LinkedIn members see and
interact with the ads displayed to them. To enable advertisers to
measure ad performance -- and make informed decisions concerning ad
spending -- LinkedIn provides an interface called Campaign Manager
that displays impressions, video views, and clicks per ad, as well
as numerous derived metrics that incorporate those three base
metrics as inputs.

LinkedIn has long represented to advertisers that they can rely on
the metrics in Campaign Manager to accurately analyze the
performance of their ad campaigns. As noted, based on such
performance, advertisers determine their ad spending. Advertisers
do not have access to the systems necessary to audit and verify the
data underlying the metrics displayed in Campaign Manager; only
LinkedIn has such access. Accordingly, advertisers rely on
LinkedIn's representations concerning the accuracy of the metrics
in Campaign Manager, and rely on LinkedIn to implement systems to
detect any errors that might inflate those metrics.

On November 12, 2020, LinkedIn announced that measurement errors
discovered in August 2020 inflated metrics tied to impressions and
video views for more than two years, "potentially impacting" over
418,000 advertisers during that timeframe. The inflated metrics
that LinkedIn disclosed went undetected for so long because
LinkedIn's internal auditing processes and systems have been
deficient for years. Allegedly, LinkedIn could and should have
taken these steps years ago. Had it done so, the inflated metrics
only first discovered in August 2020 would have been promptly
detected and fixed before causing harm to advertisers. But it did
not do so because inflated metrics boosted LinkedIn's revenue.

According to the complaint, LinkedIn advised that it had issued
"credits" to advertisers "potentially impacted" by the inflated
metrics. But it has never disclosed how it calculated these
"credits," or how it determined which advertisers were "impacted."
Instead, LinkedIn has taken the position that it is free to
unilaterally decide without any accountability which advertisers to
compensate, and what sums to pay them (apparently based solely on
PR considerations). Having effectively admitted that deficient
auditing systems inflated key metrics for hundreds of thousands of
advertisers for more than two years, LinkedIn is obligated to fully
compensate all impacted advertisers for all the harm caused by
those inflated metrics.

In particular, since -- as LinkedIn confirmed -- invalid
impressions and video views inflated the metrics displayed in
Campaign Manager for over two years, then during that time-frame,
ads appeared to perform better than they actually did. And since
better ad performance leads advertisers to buy more ads, and
increase the prices they pay for those ads, then -- for more than
two years -- advertisers paid higher prices for ads than they
otherwise would have paid, and bought more ads than they otherwise
would have bought, absent the inflated metrics. There is no
indication that LinkedIn is compensating advertisers at all for
such harm (even though it substantially benefited from the higher
revenue generated from the inflated pricing).

Moreover, it appears that LinkedIn's measurement errors extend well
beyond inflated metrics tied to impressions and video views.
According to credible expert and other public sources, LinkedIn's
platform is plagued by fraudulent activity, including large volumes
of invalid clicks. Thus, for years, advertisers have also been
buying more ads, and paying higher prices for ads, based on
inflated metrics tied to clicks. Advertisers must also be
compensated for this harm. Finally, the fact that LinkedIn has
failed to acknowledge the invalid clicks and other fraudulent
activity on its platform discovered by third parties means that
Plaintiff and other advertisers continue to face an actual threat
of future harm of being further exposed to inflated metrics on
LinkedIn that can only be addressed by injunctive relief, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an LLC organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York.

LinkedIn promotes itself as the world's largest online network of
business professionals with over 700 million members worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie (SBN 130013)
          Ari Y. Basser (SBN 272618)
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 432-8492
          Fax: (310) 861-8591
          Email: jlurie@pomlaw.com
                 abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Phone: (845) 290-6818
          Fax: (718) 504-3773
          Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com


LIZHI INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Lizhi Inc. ("Lizhi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIZI). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Lizhi and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On or around January 17, 2020, Lizhi conducted its initial public
offering ("IPO"), selling more than $4.1 million American
depositary shares ("ADSs") priced at $11.00 per ADS. On March 12,
2020, Lizhi filed a report on Form 6-K with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), admitting that the Company had already
been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, stating, in relevant part,
that the "COVID-19 outbreak has caused, and may continue to cause,
companies in China, including [Lizhi], to implement temporary
adjustment of work schemes allowing employees to work from home"
and that "[t]he extent to which COVID-19 impacts our results will
depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and
cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge
concerning the severity of COVID-19 and the actions to contain or
treat its impact, among others." Two months later, on April 20,
2020, in its Annual Report filed with the SEC, Lizhi further
admitted that even before the IPO, indeed as early as "late 2019,"
the COVID-19 pandemic was already negatively impacting its
business.

Since the IPO, Lizhi's ADSs have traded as low as $1.96 per ADS,
representing a decline of more than 82% from the offering price.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


LUMONDI INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LUMONDI, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00547 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
21, 2020) alleges that the Defendant 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 people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.luminox.com, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant is a luxury watch manufacturing company, and owns and
operates the Website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.

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

MARY ANN'S BAKING: Vargas Labor Suit Filed in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Ann's Baking
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Silvia Madrigal Vargas, on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Mary Ann's
Baking Co., Inc., a California Corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00292191-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January
11, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Mary Ann's Baking Co., Inc. provides bakery products serving
customers in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Suite 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com

MERCEDES MEDICAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Animal Medical Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF ORLAND PARK, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES
MEDICAL, LLC d/b/a MERCEDES SCIENTIFIC; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00384 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2021) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Mercedes Medical, LLC distributes online medical products. The
Company supplies apparel and gloves, chemicals, personal and
respiratory care, infection control, and surgical and wound care
items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

               -and-

          Frank F. Owen, Esq.
          FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1091 Ibis Avenue
          Miami Springs, FL 33166
          Telephone: (305) 984-8915
          E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Adkins Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE ADKINS and,
DOUGLAS SHORT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
5:17-cv-04107 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an
order:

   1. certifying the class of:

      "all persons with West Virginia Addresses, who did not
      file bankruptcy on or after July 4, 2017, to whom Midland
      sent a debt collection letter on or after July 4, 2017
      seeking to collect debt that originated from creditors
      Barclays Bank Delaware; Capital One; Chase; Citibank; GE
      Capital Retail Bank; HSBC; or WebBank, which letter was
      sent five years after charge off or five years plus sixty
      days after last payment, whichever is later, and which
      letter failed to provide the following disclosure: "The
      law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of
      the age of your debt, [Midland] cannot sue you for it;"

   2. setting a telephonic status conference set for January 25,
      2021, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the remaining case events;
      and

   3. directing the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written
      opinion and order to counsel of record and to any
      unrepresented party.

The Court said, "MCM asserts that the redefinition of the class
voids the previous summary judgment. This is incorrect. MCM
correctly notes that the summary judgment order entered by the
predecessor Judge was indeed predicated on the assumption that each
class members' debt was time-barred. However, the proposed class is
necessarily a narrowed subset of the original certified class, as
discussed above. Inasmuch as the summary judgment ruling applies to
the original certified class, it applies with equal force to any
subset of that class. MCM also contends that due process should
preclude certification. However, the Court has, following notice
and an opportunity to be heard, fully adjudicated the arguments
offered by MCM. Due process has in no way been abridged."

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Jan. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a0nbnU
at no extra charge.[CC]

MISSOURI HIGHER: Dykes Sues Over Student Loan Servicing Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY DYKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00083-RWS (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2021) is
an action against the Defendant for failure to service the
Plaintiff's student loans under federal law.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant placed
him on Income Driven Repayment IDR 2011-2016 plan annual renewal.
On or about 2017, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff begin
making $850 payments towards his $80,000 federal student loan debt
serviced by the Defendant based on an increase in his annual
employment income.

Due to prior cumulative financial obligations, the Plaintiff could
only afford roughly $150 monthly payment which the Defendant
rejected.

The Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendant's actions in failing to
offer an Alternative Repayment Plan including to the extent of
increased interest assessed during the forbearance period and an
eventual default because forbearance time is limited and the
payments are unaffordable.

Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority or MOHELA, is one of the
largest holders and servicers of student loans nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1400 S. Charles St.
          Baltimore MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

               -and-

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351-0200
          Facsimile: (215) 827-5403


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McNamee Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES D. MCNAMEE, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01948-ALM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
      Judgment; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      Motion for Summary Judgment

      -- The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be
         granted in part, to the extent that any claim for the
         December 31, 2012 Letter is time-barred and that the
         Insurance Letters are not within the ambit of the Fair
         Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and denied in
         part.

In his motion, the Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on the
following issues:

   1. The Defendant Violated the Law as to Plaintiff: The
      Defendant's December 31, 2012 letter, the Mortgage Loan
      Statements, and the Force-Placed Insurance Letters were
      governed by and violated the FDCPA as to the Plaintiff;

      -- The Plaintiff's Entitlement to Damages: Plaintiff is
         entitled to actual damages, costs, and reasonable
         attorney fees to be determined in subsequent
         proceedings and is summarily entitled to statutory
         damages not to exceed $1,000.00;

      -- The Defendant Violated the Law as to Class 1: The
         Defendant's Mortgage Loan Statements were governed by
         and violated the FDCPA as to Class 1;

      -- Class 1's Entitlement to Damages: Each member of Class
         1 is entitled to actual damages, costs, and reasonable
         attorney fees to be determined in subsequent
         proceedings and is summarily entitled to share pro rata
         statutory damages of $500,000.00;

      -- The Defendant Violated the Law as to Class 2: The
         Defendant's Force-Placed Insurance Letters were
         governed by and violated the FDCPA as to Class 2;

      -- The Class 2's Entitlement to Damages: Each member of
         Class 2 is entitled to actual damages, costs, and
         reasonable attorney fees to be determined in subsequent
         proceedings and is summarily entitled to share pro rata
         statutory damages of $500,000.00;

      -- Discharge Injunction Issues: Plaintiff sought specific
         findings and conclusions related to the discharge
         injunction.

The Defendant Nationstar also moved for summary judgment on the
following grounds: The Defendant argues that Plaintiff is precluded
from bringing his claims under the FDCPA because he elected to file
a contempt proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, that any FDCPA
claim pertaining to the December 31, 2012 letter is time-barred,
and that Plaintiff's claims under the FDCPA fail because the
Mortgage Loan Statements and Force-Placed Insurance Letters were
not attempts to collect a debt and because none of the
communications was deceptive, confusing, or abusive.

Plaintiff McNamee brought a class action complaint against the
Defendant Nationstar on October 17, 2014, alleging violations of
the FDCPA. On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and Defendant filed its response in opposition on
October 2, 2017. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on July 28, 2020. The Defendant filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment.

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

NEDBANK GROUP: Customers File Class Suit Over Unjust Sale of Homes
------------------------------------------------------------------
IOL reports that the country's major banks are heading for a
showdown with hundreds of aggrieved customers who have filed an
application in the Gauteng High Court seeking certification of a
R60 billion class action, claiming their homes were unjustly sold
in execution for as little as 10% of their market value.

More than 200 bank customers, including Innocent Gwisai, Ernest
Mashaba, John Mojake, Gladys Mviko, Elizabeth Majoro, Magda
Odendaal, Anne Peachey and Johannes Theunis Booysen as well as the
Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation, which has for years fought
for the rights of home owners, have filed papers requesting that
the court certify them as a class to sue the banks for damages,
alleging that their properties were in some cases sold for as
little as R100.

The respondents in the matter include Nedbank; Absa; First Rand
Bank; Changing Tides 17; Investec Limited; the National Credit
Regulator, the SA Human Rights Commission, the Rules Board and the
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, although the
applicants are only seeking relief from the banks.

However, the banks have opposed the application and denied any
wrongdoing, saying that they understand the impact foreclosure has
on their customers and their families.

In court papers, Booysen said that there were "literally tens of
thousands of potential litigants in the matter whose rights have
been violated since 1994".

"This is a large class of people and many of the person in this
class are poor," Booysen said.

Booysen said the class members had a common cause of action in that
the banks had sold their properties "for substantially (more than
10%) less than it was worth" while the properties of members of
some of the subclasses outlined in court papers had been sold other
than "as a last resort".

Booysen said in some cases properties had been sold in execution
when there was an offer to purchase pending at the time of the sale
which the bank or sheriff had been made aware of before the sale,
and in others properties had been sold when there were no arrears
owed at the time of the judgment or sale.

He said properties had also been sold although the home owner had
become able to pay the bond and arrears over the remaining time of
the bond, if the interest was capitalised and in other cases there
was sufficient equity in the property of more than 30% of the
market value which meant the bank could have waited longer before
selling the home.

Booysen added that properties had also been sold in execution when
there was a rescission or appeal pending against a judgment on
which the sale in execution was based.

"It is further averred that the bank has added charges and fees to
the amount outstanding on bonds of the class members that are not
authorised by the contract nor taxed nor agreed, and the bank has
thus breached the contract, particularly when they appear in a
certificate of balance," Booysen said.

Booysen said the trial court may find that the banks' actions of
selling in execution in some or all circumstances is "indeed a
delict in our law". He said applicants could supplement the papers
with at least 100 pages of affidavits regarding how banks allegedly
sold properties when it was not "a last resort".

"The defendant banks were aware that they were destroying the lives
of people by eliminating their life savings and sometimes creating
huge debts in addition and yet did not disclose this information to
the courts or try to improve the sherrif's system or work with the
Minister of Justice to improve the sale in execution system," he
said.

"They were aware that some properties were selling for R100 and
most for huge discounts on their value. They did not do this once
or twice, or even hundreds or thousands of times but hundreds of
thousands of times even since the Constitution brought a new value
system to South Africa. The defendant banks acted with callous
indifference to their clients and their new rights and to the
values expressed in the Bill of Rights," he said.

Booysen argued that if the banks were not found liable in terms of
the current law of delict or otherwise, "the trial would have an
obligation to extend the common law in terms of constitutional
rights . . . housing, property, dignity and life in order to find
the bank so liable."

However, Nedbank said in a statement that it "denies any wrongdoing
as alleged and is opposing the application".

"It is worth noting that a similar action was previously instituted
and dismissed by the Constitutional Court in 2017. Nedbank would
like to confirm that the reserve price for sales in execution,
being the minimum price at which the property can be auctioned for,
is currently determined by the courts," she said.

"This has been the position since December 2017. Nedbank
understands the impact of foreclosure and sales in execution on
customers and their families. We regard sales in execution as a
last resort. Our processes have and will always comply with
applicable laws."

A spokesperson for Standard Bank said the bank had opposed the
application.

"Given that same is lis pendens, we cannot comment at this stage,"
he said.

The other banks had not responded to a request for comment while
Investec could not be reached at the time of publication. [GN]


NEEDHAM & CO: Senomyx Merger Deal Lacks Info, Goldschmidt Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD GOLDSCHMIDT, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Individuals v. JOHN POYHONEN, KENT SNYDER,
STEPHEN A. BLOCK, TOM ERDMANN, MARY ANN GRAY, DANIEL E. STEBBINS,
CHRISTOPHER J. TWOMEY, DAVE HUMPHREY, SHARON WICKER, and NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2021-0054 (Del. Ch., Jan. 21, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Company's Board of Directors (the "Board"), certain of its
executive officers (with the Board members, the "Individual
Defendants"), and Needham & Company, LLC ("Needham," and with the
Individual Defendants, "Defendants") alleging that the Board allow
Firmenich leverage its influence over the Company to acquire
Senomyx at an inadequate price.

The Plaintiff contends that the Individual Defendants, aided and
abetted by financial advisor Needham, breached their fiduciary
duties by acceding to self-interest, engaging in bad faith, and
agreeing to sell Senomyx for $73.5 million (or $1.50 per share)
despite internal financial analyses valuing the Company at over
$200 million.

The ultimate $1.50 per share Acquisition price vastly undervalued
Senomyx, thus damaging the Plaintiff and the putative Class of
former Senomyx stockholders. Just shortly before the Acquisition,
Senomyx's financial advisors performed analyses that valued the
Company at more than double what the Board accepted from Firmenich.
Moreover, using either the unadjusted protections or a reasonable
discount rate would have yielded values far more than the $1.50 per
share Acquisition price, the suit says.

The Plaintiff alleges that to induce stockholders to tender their
shares, the Individual Defendants further breached their fiduciary
duties by causing Senomyx to file a Schedule 14D-9 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which misrepresented and
omitted material information by mispresenting and omitting material
information concerning Senomyx's intrinsic value, its financial
projections, the sales process, and conflicts of interest, the
Individual Defendants deprived Senomyx stockholders of their
inviolable right to make an informed decision on whether to tender
their shares and whether to seek appraisal.

Senomyx was a San Diego-based flavor & fragrance company that was
on its way to immense success leading up to the Acquisition.
Despite its small size, the Company owned hundreds of licenses and
patents for potential new products and collaborated with the
world's largest food companies, including giants like PepsiCo,
Inc., Ajinomoto Co., Inc., and the ultimate buyer, Firmenich. These
collaboration partners often provided funding for Senomyx to
develop new products and licensed the rights, on either an
exclusive or non-exclusive basis, to use the Company's products in
their own end-products. Companies partnered with Senomyx because of
its proven ability to create and commercialize unique and valuable
products.

The Plaintiff seeks damages from the Individual Defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties and Needham's aiding and
abetting such breaches.

The Plaintiff owned shares of Senomyx common stock at all relevant
times. At the time of the Acquisition, the Plaintiff held more than
12,000 shares of Senomyx common stock, far more than most of the
Board held at the time of the Acquisition.

Needham is a Delaware limited liability company that provides
investment banking services to growth companies. Needham is
headquartered in New York City with offices in Boston, Chicago,
Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Menlo Park, California. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          Garam Choe, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019

NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Home Shelter Online Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Newman, writing for The New York Times, reports that school
days at the Diallo sisters' apartment in the Bronx can be hectic.

Adama, the oldest, attends high school from the black couch in the
corner of their apartment in a family homeless shelter. Her
10-year-old sister, Hawaou, sits nearby at the dining table, firing
back answers to her math teacher's questions. Her youngest sister,
Aissatou, 7, sprawled on a bed in the other room, giggles her way
through her second-grade lessons.

"It's a lot of noises," said Adama, 14.

Still, the family's remote-learning setup works. The operator of
their shelter got the place wired for Wi-Fi in the spring, shortly
after the pandemic shut down schools, so that students from the
building's 79 families could attend school online.

At Aaron Morris's apartment at a shelter in East Flatbush,
Brooklyn, it's a different story. Aaron, 15, is still getting
kicked offline many times a day, and it has affected his grades --
and his moods.

"It upsets me to the point I just want to quit and not go to school
at all," he said earlier this month.

Providing reliable internet access to the city's 111,000 children
in homeless shelters and unstable housing has been one of the most
stubborn obstacles to getting online schooling right, and for many
students there's no relief in sight. The city belatedly started
putting Wi-Fi in 200 family shelters in November and says it won't
finish until the end of summer, after a second pandemic school year
has come and gone.

In November, when a lawsuit demanded that the city speed up and
complete the Wi-Fi project by early January, the city protested
that it was being asked to "perform the impossible," listing 14
bureaucratic hurdles to be cleared at each shelter before
installation could even begin.

But operators who collectively run more than a dozen of the city's
200 family shelters have proved it is not impossible at all.

Recognizing the urgency of the situation -- no connection means no
school -- they took it upon themselves to get their buildings wired
months ago and got it done within weeks -- most for a fraction of
what the city is paying the cable giants Spectrum and Optimum to do
the job over nearly a year.

The city is installing cable and a Wi-Fi router in every shelter
apartment, while most shelters that did it themselves had
contractors install access points in hallways that they say provide
fine service.

"Given the fiscal crisis the city finds itself in, this is just
silly," Catherine Trapani, executive director of Homeless Services
United, a coalition of shelter operators, said in mid-January.
"There's a cheaper, faster way -- what is the reason you wouldn't
try to do it?"

Robin Levine, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of
Information Technology and Telecommunications, said in a statement
that installing a Wi-Fi setup in each apartment was "the only way
to ensure families will have a permanent, reliable way to access
the internet."

The city's solution "accounts for long-term support needs" and is
overall "better, stronger and cheaper," Ms. Levine wrote.

The city declined to say how many students in homeless shelters
still lack reliable internet but has said in court filings that a
survey starting in late October found nearly 3,000 shelter families
with school-age children reported problems with city-issued iPads.

As frustrating and cumbersome as remote schooling has been for
students and families all over, the process of getting New York's
poorest students connected has been a case study in complication.
When Mayor Bill de Blasio shut down schools on March 15, his
Department of Education began distributing internet-equipped iPads
with unlimited T-Mobile data plans to every child who needed one.
But inside many shelters, T-Mobile's signal was weak or
nonexistent.

At Bronxworks, which operates three shelters -- including the one
on Nelson Avenue where the Diallo sisters live with their mother,
Fatoumata Kamano, a home health aide -- officials saw disaster
unfolding. Even before the coronavirus, the constant disruptions of
homelessness meant that more than half of the students at the
Bronxworks shelters were chronically absent from school.

"We immediately realized that we needed to get Wi-Fi in our
buildings," said Scott Auwarter, the assistant executive director
of Bronxworks.

Bronxworks contacted a cable company but determined it would take
too long and charge too much. So Bronxworks had its security-camera
contractor piggyback Wi-Fi for residents onto the existing network.
By mid-May, the vendor had installed one hallway hot spot for every
three apartments. It cost about $300, plus about $2 per month for
service, per apartment.

"Our approach was more of the Starbucks coffee approach," Mr.
Auwarter said: "It's just cheaper, easier, faster, nobody can
tamper with it, and it's been maintenance-free."

The city's effort, meanwhile, was floundering. The school year
ended with many homeless students having missed most or all of the
final three months.

Over the summer, another shelter provider, HELP USA, which houses
over 600 families in seven shelters in the city, raced to get its
buildings wired. "We had one site that took like two months to
install -- there was a lot of conduit that had to be laid and holes
drilled in walls," said Stephen Mott, HELP USA's chief of staff.

Still, he said, the project was completed in August, for about $400
per apartment, plus about $3 per month for service. Ms. Trapani of
Homeless Services United said she knew of two other operators who
wired their buildings.

After the new school year began in September, the city switched
more than a thousand students' iPads from T-Mobile to Verizon, but
many still had problems.

In October, after the Legal Aid Society threatened a class-action
suit on behalf of Aaron Morris and others, accusing the city of
denying homeless students their right to basic education, Mr. de
Blasio said the city would install Wi-Fi in every shelter.

It has budgeted around $13 million to pay Charter and Altice, the
parent companies of Spectrum and Optimum, to wire 10,500 shelter
apartments -- more than $1,200 per unit -- plus $20 per month for
service.

That is more than triple what Bronxworks and HELP USA are paying.

One of the first shelters the city connected was Aaron's, the
Albemarle Family Residence.

But Aaron said the Wi-Fi unit "hasn't helped at all." He has simply
traded his cell-signal problems for Wi-Fi problems. Most days, he
said, he gets disconnected from his classes at the High School for
Youth and Community Development multiple times.

"Even if I know the answer to a question, I can't share it," he
said. He said the glitches cause him to submit homework late. "My
grade can be a 90 and it drops down to a 75," he said.

In a motion opposing the class action, the city said it had already
hired 50 technicians to troubleshoot I.T. problems for shelter
families, opened a dedicated help desk for shelter students and
surveyed each family's connectivity needs. It noted that many
shelters lacked the infrastructure needed to run cable throughout
the building and will require custom construction. It said the
project would take two years if not for the city's "aggressive
efforts" to finish by September.

Last month, the federal judge in the case rejected the city's
arguments that it was doing enough to provide homeless students
access to education and ruled that the suit could proceed to trial.
On Jan. 24, the city moved to dismiss the suit.

A spokesman for Charter said on Jan. 21 that the company was nearly
half done with its installations and expected to finish "well
before summer." A spokeswoman for Altice referred questions on when
it expected to complete its work back to the city.

Susan Horwitz, head of the Legal Aid Society's Education Law
Project, said there were many ways the city could speed up the
project, including learning from shelter operators like HELP USA
that installed Wi-Fi in buildings that lacked infrastructure,
hiring more installers and scaling back from wiring each
apartment.

"It's such obvious stuff," she said. "I just keep shaking my head
and saying, 'Really, that's what they're doing?'" [GN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hagens Berman Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
investors to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class
action is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Dec. 21, 2017 - Nov. 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 2, 2021

Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NAK

Contact An Attorney Now:NAK@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

The lawsuit alleges Northern Dynasty and senior executives misled
investors about the viability of the company's proposed Pebble
Project, a large mining project in Alaska.

In past quarters, Northern Dynasty repeatedly touted its progress
in obtaining the necessary permitting for the Pebble Project. The
company and senior management also repeatedly assured investors
that the Pebble Project design included a substantially reduced
development footprint and meaningful new environmental safeguards
and, as a result, would likely receive necessary permits from
federal, state and local regulatory agencies.

Investors began to learn the truth through a series of partial
disclosures beginning on Aug. 24, 2020, when the U.S. Army
announced the Pebble Project would significantly degrade the
environment, result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic
system or human environment, and as proposed "cannot be permitted."
This news sent the price of Northern Dynasty shares crashing
lower.

On Sept. 21, 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency released
recordings of conversations between Northern Dynasty senior
executives and EIA investigators revealing the company's plans to
expand the Pebble Project mine operations from 20 years to 180 -
200 years and to expand it geographically.

Finally, on Nov. 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty announced the U.S. Army
Corps. of Engineers rejected its Pebble Project permit application
under the Clean Water Act, finding the project "is not in the
public interest." This news drove the price of Northern Dynasty
lower again.

"We're focused on, among other things, investor losses and proving
that Northern Dynasty and its senior management intentionally
misled investors and manipulated the permitting process to achieve
personal compensation for having done so," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Northern Dynasty investor, click here to discuss your
legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Northern Dynasty should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new 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
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email NAK@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]


OAKLEY PUB: Durbin Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ALIVIA DURBIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OAKLEY PUB & GRILL, LLC and JON MARC BERNIER, Case No.
1:21-cv-00052-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 21, 2021) seeks to recover
minimum wages that the Defendants jointly owe to the Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members and have failed to pay, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

This is an action brought by the Plaintiff Durbin individually and
on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees who
jointly worked for the Defendants, at any time from May 20, 2017
through the final disposition of this matter, to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 203, 206, 207 and 216(b) of
the FLSA.

Plaintiff Durbin worked for the Defendants jointly in the State of
Ohio as both a server and bartender and performed work out of its
facilities in Hamilton County, Ohio.

Oakley Pub & Grill, LLC is a restaurant serving American food with
creative twists. Defendant Jon Marc Bernier is the owner of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
          WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ADAMS, MICHAEL SHAW, and GERALD KASMERE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PALM BEACH
COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-80127-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 22,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bag drop
attendants.

PALM BEACH COUNTY is a municipality of the State of Florida, which
operates 3 golf courses located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W 70 th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


PAYPAL INC: Fernandez Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH FERNANDEZ; and KAREN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAYPAL, INC.,
PAYPAL CREDIT, SYNCHRONY BANK, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00661-PSG-RAO (C.D. Cal., Jan. 25,
2021) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

PayPal, Inc. provides financial transaction processing services.
The Company offers electronic payment processing services such as
mobile payments and online invoicing. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
          7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-0400
          Facsimile: (866) 288-9194
          E-mail: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 26 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or "the Company") (NYSE:PEN) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 3,
2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Penumbra's Jet 7 Xtra Flex suffered from
known design flaws that made the product unsafe. The Company did
not properly address the risk of serious injury or death caused by
the use of Jet 7 Xtra Flex despite such incidents having already
occurred. Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its
safety issues. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Penumbra,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


PHARMACARE US: Corbett Sues Over Mislabeled Elderberry Supplements
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTIQUENO CORBETT, DAMARIS LUCIANO, and ROB DOBBS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-GPC-AGS
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
sale and marketing of its Elderberry Products.

According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant
warrants that all of the Elderberry supplements contain its
proprietary elderberry extract and are legal for consumers to
purchase for their personal use and not for resale. However, under
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (the "DSHEA"), the
Defendant's Products are illegal to sell.

To further achieve a competitive advantage in the highly lucrative
market, the Defendant asserts on its packaging, on its labels, and
in its marketing materials that the Elderberry Products are
"Scientifically tested," that its proprietary extract has been used
in published studies, and that its extract is "the most extensively
researched Black Elderberry product in the world." These deceptive
and misleading statements are intended to and do falsely suggest to
reasonable consumers that scientific research has conclusively
established the effectiveness of Defendant's Elderberry Products,
the suit says.

Allegedly, the Defendant's prominent and systematic mislabeling of
the Products and its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern
of unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the public
and, if unstopped, could lead to substantial societal harm.

Pharmacare, Inc. was founded in 2011. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prescription drugs,
proprietary drugs, and non-prescription medicines. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               -and-

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: rachel@grecolemanlaw.com

               -and-

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               -and-

          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          Erin Ruben, Esq.
          Sarah Spangenburg, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: martha@whitfieldbryson.com
                  erin@whitfieldbryson.com
                  sarah@whitfieldbryson.com


PLAYBOY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bornholt Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN BORNHOLT and VIVIANN ACUNA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PLAYBOY CLUB, LLC,
THE PLAYERS CLUB, LLC, SAINT ADAMS MAJESTY, and RONNIE ELIZONDO,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 25, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers.

THE PLAYBOY CLUB operates as an adult-oriented entertainment
facility featuring nude or semi-nude female entertainers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          Ghazzaleh Rezazadeh, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com
                  ghazzaleh@hughesellzey.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Dismisses Tanaskovic Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SASA TANASKOVIC, Plaintiff v. REALOGY
HOLDINGS CORP. et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-15053 (SRC)
(D.N.J.), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the
Plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, having
considered the papers filed by the parties, proceeds to rule on the
Motion without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lead Plaintiff Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust brings the putative class action on behalf of itself, and
others similarly situated, against Defendant Realogy Holdings
Corp., and Individual Defendants Smith, Schneider, Hull, and
Gustavson, who either currently hold or held at a relevant time a
high-level executive position at Realogy.

The Plaintiff alleges that between February 24, 2017, and May 22,
2019, inclusive), it purchased Realogy shares, and that, during
this time, the Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It further asserts that, as a
result of these statements, it paid artificially inflated prices
for its shares and was, thus, damaged when the alleged truth was
revealed.

Realogy is a provider of residential real estate services in the
United States and is the largest residential real estate brokerage
firm in the country. Realogy has multiple segments, but its company
owned real estate brokerage services segment is known as NRT.
Realogy derives a substantial portion of its revenue from its NRT
segment, and from commissions earned on home sale transactions in
particular.

Under relevant law, all payments made to real estate agents must
first pass through brokers, like Realogy. The commission received
by the broker is known as the Average Broker Commission Rate
("ABCR"). Once the brokerage firm receives its gross commission
income, those funds are then used to compensate the real estate
agents through what is known as a commission split. The higher the
commission split, the higher the percentage of the commission that
is given to the agent.

Starting in late 2016, Realogy abandoned its traditional
compensation model in favor of a new recruitment initiative. In an
effort to keep up with competing brokerage firms with higher
commission splits, this new initiative primarily focused on
recruiting and retaining top agents by increasing commission split
amounts.

In their Motion to dismiss, the Defendants assert that the
Plaintiff has failed to establish three of the six necessary
elements -- an actionable misstatement or omission, scienter, and
loss causation. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
allege any actionable misstatements or omissions. Therefore,
because the failure of this element by itself warrants dismissal of
the Rule 10b-5 claim, it will not reach the sufficiency of the
other elements challenged by the Defendants in the Motion.

In claiming that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated the first
element needed to establish a claim in this context -- a material
misrepresentation or omission -- the Defendants assert two related
points. First, they contend that the Plaintiff fails to specify any
material misstatements or omissions. Second, they also assert that
many of the misstatements or omissions challenged by the Plaintiff
are not actionable under certain relevant exceptions.

The Plaintiff has asserted four distinct categories of alleged
misstatements or omissions -- those related to (1) the commission
split rates, (2) the technological offerings, (3) the Company's
acquisition strategy, and (4) the ABCR.

District Judge Stanley R. Chesler notes that although the Plaintiff
alleges four categories of misstatements or omissions, this first
category is the main focus of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
The category focuses on statements made relating to Realogy's
commission split initiative, which was formed in the hopes of
recruiting and retaining top agents. The Plaintiff's key point here
is that Defendants heavily emphasized the benefits of this
initiative but unfairly downplayed its negative impact. In
particular, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendants consistently
gave investors the false impression that the Company's ongoing
increases to commission splits would have only a near-term negative
effect on the Company's profitability and EBITDA and would
ultimately lead to sustainable growth.

While the Plaintiff sets aside many pages in its Amended Complaint
to statements made in connection with the commission split
initiative, the relevant statements can be more summarily broken
down into three sub-groups. First, the Plaintiff avers that, on
many occasions, the Defendants gave investors the false impression
that commission splits would not increase further, yet the
Defendants did ultimately continue to increase the split amounts.
Second, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants gave investors the
false impression that any negative results would be only shortterm,
with substantial moderation by 2018 and through 2019. Third, the
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants falsely made it seem as if
it would eventually be possible to reach a split amount that could
both effectively recruit and retain top agents, while also leading
to sustainable economic growth and increased profitability at the
Company.

To support its contention that the Defendants incorrectly made it
seem as if the commission splits would not continue increasing, the
Plaintiff primarily points to the fact that Defendant Hull stated
in early 2017 that the Company's commission split guidance for 2017
of between 69.5% and 70% was "right-sized" and "competitive." It
also references Defendant Smith's statement a few months later that
the split guidance was "appropriate and correct."

Judge Chesler, however, finds that the Plaintiff has taken both of
these statements out of context. He holds that these statements
were tempered by other language showing that they were not as
certain as the Plaintiff paints them to have been. He also notes
that the Plaintiff attempts to rely on the idea that the Defendants
"should have known" better, without offering any factual support as
to why exactly the Defendants should have known certain facts. Yet,
as the Third Circuit explained in Cal. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v.
Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 142 (3d Cir. 2004), that type of
reasoning alone can never satisfy the requisite pleading standard.

With respect to the second group of statements regarding the
commission split initiative, the Plaintiff avers that the
Defendants gave investors the false impression that any negative
results from this initiative would only be short-term, with
substantial moderation by 2018 and through 2019. Judge Chesler
holds that even in the case, where the Plaintiff can show that the
Defendants' statements were incorrect, that alone is insufficient
to allege fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), as the Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendants were
aware that their predictions were inaccurate at the time they were
made. Indeed, the Plaintiff has not pointed to any factual support
that demonstrates that the Defendants knew or should have known
that the split rates would continue to increase through 2017 before
moderating in 2018.

As to the third group of statements relating to the split
increases, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misled
investors to believe that the Company would eventually be able to
reach a split amount that could effectively recruit and retain top
agents, while also allowing for increased profitability. In support
of this claim, the Plaintiff points to many instances where the
Defendants stated that the Company was focused on generating
"sustainable organic growth," and that the split increases were
expected to have a "positive impact on revenue and EBITDA levels"
over the longer term.

Judge Chesler finds that the Plaintiff's explanations as to why
these statements by the Defendants were misleading are bereft of
any factual support. Judge Chesler avers that the Plaintiff has
presented even less factual support than the plaintiffs did in
Chubb. While the PSLRA does not require that the Plaintiff point to
specific confidential sources or an internal report, it must
nonetheless "supply sufficient facts to support its allegations."
However, the Plaintiff has offered no such factual support and
merely relies on stock declines and conclusory allegations that the
Defendants should have known better.

Yet, Judge Chesler insists, those points cannot support an
allegation of falsehood, as that would allow the Plaintiff to plead
fraud by hindsight. As such, because it fails to plead with
particularity why any of the Defendants' statements about the
commission split program were misleading and instead relies on
conclusory allegations, the Plaintiff does not meet the pleading
standard as to these statements, and, thus, the commission split
claim must fail under the PSLRA.

As part of Realogy's agent recruitment and retention initiative, in
addition to increasing the split rates, the Company also focused on
producing technology and data-driven products for its agents. The
Plaintiff's point then is that the Defendants often emphasized the
value that the Company's new technological offerings would bring to
the Company, while failing to disclose that these new products and
offerings were supposedly outdated, thus, making it difficult for
Realogy to effectively catch up with its competitors on this
front.

In the case too, however, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails
to allege with the requisite particularity facts sufficient to
demonstrate that the statements about the technology offerings were
false or misleading, Judge Chesler finds. Rather, the Plaintiff
again relies simply on conclusory allegations, such as the
"Defendants' statements that Realogy's new data-driven initiative
will 'enhance our value proposition' by 'quickly producing' new
products, concealed that the Company's technology and data were
antiquated, and therefore, insufficient to counteract agent
attrition." The Judge insists that the Plaintiff does not point to
any facts that could allow one to even infer that the technology
and data were antiquated.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to properly allege that
Realogy's technology was in fact outdated, and even assuming for
argument's sake that the technology was antiquated, the Plaintiff
has also failed to show that the Defendants had any reason to know
of this at the time of their challenged statements. Thus, as was
the case with the statements regarding the commission splits, the
Plaintiff has failed to show how or why any statements relating to
the technology initiative were false or misleading, causing this
claim to fail under the PSLRA's pleading standard.

On the third category of misstatements it alleged, the Plaintiff
contends that, despite the Defendants' comments about the benefits
of the Company's original tuck-in acquisition strategy, this
strategy actually caused inefficiencies and negative financial
effects at Realogy and that the Defendants misled investors by
failing to disclose these alleged negative results.

Judge Chesler opines that looking at the full statement in context
demonstrates that this comment was not an admission that the
tuck-in acquisition strategy had caused any inefficiencies.
Further, even assuming for the moment that the tuck-in acquisitions
did cause such negative results, the Plaintiff also has not shown
that the Defendants were aware of this supposed information at the
time of their challenged statements. As such, because the Plaintiff
has failed to show how or why any statements relating to the
Company's acquisition strategy were false or misleading, the claim
is also improper under the PSLRA's pleading standard.

The Plaintiff's fourth and final claim is that Defendants regularly
commented on the stability of the ABCR but concealed that they were
actually engaging in anticompetitive behavior in an attempt to
maintain the ABCR at an artificially inflated level, which opened
Realogy up to increased risk of legal liability and regulatory
scrutiny.

While the Plaintiff need not prove at the pleading stage that the
Defendants actually acted this way, it nevertheless must plead
facts supporting this conclusion with particularity, according to
Judge Chesler. Yet, the Plaintiff simply relies on these other
lawsuits and the Department of Justice investigation without
pleading with any specificity "the who, what, when, where and how"
of the Defendants' purported collusive behavior, citing OFI Asset
Mgmt., 834 F.3d at 490 (quoting Avaya, 564 F.3d at 253).

It is insufficient and, therefore, the Plaintiff's claim about the
ABCR also fails under the PSLRA's pleading standard, Judge Chesler
opines, among other things. As such, all of the Plaintiff's claims
fail to meet the particularity standard and, thus, ought to be
dismissed.

For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion and will dismiss the entirety of the Amended
Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Moreover,
because there is no indication that the Plaintiff could allege
facts curing the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint, leave to
further amend will not be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 21, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxdpmymh from Leagle.com.


ROMA UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Foster Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROMA UNITED, LLC, MICHAEL HENSLEY, and BRANT
BARNES, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00064-LPR (E.D. Ark., Jan. 15,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Foster was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.

Roma United, LLC owns and operates Papa John's Pizza franchises.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SAKE HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Brewer Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAKE HIBACHI SUSHI & BAR, INC., HIBACHI &
SUSHI JAPANESE, INC., WEN QIN LU, and AMY CHEN, Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00151-L (N.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2020) is an action against
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the Class members
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Brewer was employed by the Defendant as server.

Sake HIBACHI SUSHI & BAR, INC. operates a full-service restaurant
in Mansfield, Texas, that provides Japanese cuisine and specializes
in sushi and hibachi grill services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

               -and-

          Jerry Murad, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD
          P.O. Box 470067
          Fort Worth, TX 76147
          Telephone: (817) 335-569
          Facsimile: (817) 870-1162
          E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com


TELENAV INC: Ryan Sues Over False and Misleading Proxy Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Ryan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TELENAV, INC., DOUGLAS MILLER, HP JIN, SAMUEL CHEN, WES CUMMINS,
and RANDY L. ORTIZ, Case No. 5:21-cv-00506 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21,
2021), is brought against Telenav, Inc. and the members of
Telenav's 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
Telenav will be acquired by V99, Inc., a newly formed entity led by
Telenav's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, HP Jin, through
V99's wholly owned subsidiary Telenav99, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the
"Proposed Transaction") with regard to the false and misleading
Proxy Statement.

On November 3, 2020, Telenav issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November
2, 2020 (as amended on December 17, 2020) to sell Telenav to V99.
Under the terms of the merger, each holder of Telenav common stock
will receive $4.80 in cash for each share of Telenav common stock
they own. The transaction is valued at approximately $241 million.

According to the complaint, on January 8, 2021, Telenav filed a
Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Telenav stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Company
management's financial projections and the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided to the Special Committee of the Board's
financial advisor, B. Riley Securities, Inc. and (ii) B. Riley's
potential conflicts of interest. Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the
Exchange Act.

In short, unless remedied, Telenav's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Telenav.

Telenav is a leading provider of automotive software and services
providing both in-vehicle and cloud-based solutions. [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


TRICIDA INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Jan. 24 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCDA)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT TCDA:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12380&from=1

Class Period: September 4, 2019 - October 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii)
accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BTBT:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12380&from=1

Class Period: December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; and (2) 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.

9F Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT JFU:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/9f-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12380&from=1

Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased JFU securities: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019
initial public offering; and/or (2) between August 14, 2019 and
September 29, 2020.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the purported value and benefits of the Company's financial
institution partners and its tri-party cooperation business model
did not in fact exist and/or were materially overstated, given that
9F and Property and Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") had been
engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of
service fees under their cooperation agreement; (2) the
collectability of service fees owed to 9F by PICC under the
cooperation agreement was in doubt and at serious risk of
non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC would no
longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection to
investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's platform, business model, reputation
and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


ULTRA MUSIC: Class Suit Seeks Refunds Over COVID-Canceled Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBSMiami reports that Electronic music fans will surely be
disappointed to know that for the second year in a row the popular
Ultra Music Festival for 2021 will not take place due to the
coronavirus pandemic.

The news was first reported by Billboard on Jan. 22. Last year, the
organizers of the festival were sued by two men who claimed they
were denied refunds after the music festival was canceled because
of the coronavirus crisis.

Samuel Hernandez, of Miami, and Richard Montoure, of Washington
state, filed the lawsuit in Miami federal court. They were also
seeking class-action status to obtain full refunds, with interest,
for thousands of ticketholders from around the world.

In 2020, Ultra had been scheduled for the weekend of March 20 at
Bayfront Park in downtown Miami, but strict social distancing
guidelines imposed by state and local governments earlier that
month to combat the spread of the coronavirus banned all large
gatherings, including festivals and concerts.

Rather than offering refunds for the 2020 festival, organizers
offered to honor the tickets for the 2021 or 2022 events, even
though the events haven't been confirmed.

The lawsuit claimed that Ultra was keeping the money rather than
offering refunds and that is unjust and inequitable. [GN]


WASTE CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Full Day Rate, Garza Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY GARZA, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, v. WASTE CONNECTIONS OF
FLORIDA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00054-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2021), is a class action
lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the day-rate
method of paying wages and overtime compensation by not paying him
and Collective Action Members a full day rate when they work less
than 8 hours in a day. The Defendant violated the FLSA and must pay
overtime wages at time and one-half for all overtime hours worked
by him and Collective Action Member, the Plaintiff adds.

Mr. Garza is an individual and a resident of Florida who currently
resides in Collier County. He has been employed by the Defendant as
a driver. Mr. Garza performed work for the Defendant in Collier
County, Florida.

The Defendant operates waste removal services throughout the State
of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
          YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
          9990 Coconut Road
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (239) 985-9691
          Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
          E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com

WILLIAM MARS: Seballos Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA SEBALLOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 4:21-cv-000777
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 11, 2021) is a class action arising from the
Defendant's decision not to issue appropriate refunds for the
Spring 2020 semester after canceling in-person classes, changing
all classes to online only learning, and closing all facilities in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Seballos, who was an undergraduate student during the said
semester, alleges that the Defendant refused to offer any refunds,
provide any discounts, or apply any credit to her and the Class
members' accounts when Defendant failed to provide the in-person
and on-campus services.

William Marsh Rice University is a private research university
located in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Edwards, Esq.
          Michael Singley, Esq.
          David James, Esq.
          THE EDWARDS LAW GROUP
          The Haehnel Building
          1101 E. 11th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 623-7727
          Facsimile: (512) 623-7729  

               - and -

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

WORLDPAC INC: Honeycutt Seeks Unpaid OT for Drivers Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HONEYCUTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WORLDPAC, INC., a Michigan Corporation and NATIONAL
DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, A Missouri Corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-10148-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich., Jan. 21, 2021) is a collective
action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) by the
Plaintiff, arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked as drivers
for the Defendants out of distribution centers within the past
three years. Specifically, the Plaintiffs worked out of the
Defendants' Southfield, Michigan distribution center.

As drivers, the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees were victims of Defendants' common policy of failing to
pay Drivers for overtime hours, as required under the FLSA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and unpaid wages and
overtime, liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other
remedies to which he and the other employees may be entitled.

The Defendant has employed the Plaintiff as a driver since February
4, 2019 to present.

Defendant Worldpac "imports original equipment and automotive
replacement parts directly from the most respected manufactures in
the industry." The Defendant refers to itself as "North America's
leading importer and distributor of Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) replacement parts for import and domestic cars and light
trucks."

Defendant NDS is a package delivery corporation, which delivers
packages in Michigan and other states. Companies, such as Worldpac,
utilizes NDS to deliver their products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Dave Greco, Esq.
          Greg Jones, Esq.
          GASIOREK MORGAN
          30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          E-mail: dgreco@gmgmklaw.com
                  gjones@gmgmklaw.com

YOUTUBE: Responds to Copyright Infringement Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Maxwell, writing for Torrent Freak, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by musician Maria Schneider and Pirate
Monitor against YouTube claims that the video platform restricts
access to takedown tools and fails to act against repeat
infringers. However, in a case management statement, YouTube points
out that the plaintiffs have failed to allege even a single
instance of infringement.

Sad YouTubeBack in 2016, Grammy award-winning musician Maria
Schneider launched a scathing attack on YouTube, accusing the
platform of "criminal rackeetering".

According to Schneider, YouTube has "thoroughly twisted, contorted,
and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA 'safe harbor'
to create a massive income redistribution scheme."

Last summer it became clear that Schneider's opinions had not
changed when her name appeared as a plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit filed against YouTube.

As previously reported, Schneider is joined by a company called
Pirate Monitor in the suit and together they accuse YouTube of
being massively deficient in its copyright enforcement measures,
including by denying smaller artists access to its takedown tools
(Content ID), failing to terminate repeat infringers, while
profiting from piracy.

YouTube Accuses Plaintiff of Fraud
Last September, YouTube fought back by alleging that agents of
Pirate Monitor opened bogus YouTube accounts to upload its own
videos and then filed takedown notices against the same content
claiming that its rights had been infringed.

According to YouTube, this was a ploy to gain access to Content ID
after the company was previously denied access for having no track
record of properly using the DMCA takedown process. This new and
fraudulent approach only supported its earlier decision to deny
access to the Content ID tool, YouTube said.

In November, the plaintiffs fought back, stating that YouTube had
failed to provide any evidence to back up its allegations. But a
month later, YouTube told the court that the same IP address used
to upload allegedly-infringing content was also used to file DMCA
notices to take it down.

Plaintiffs and Defendants Are Digging In
A case management statement reveals that little progress has been
made in respect of bringing the parties closer together.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, repeat their
claims that "millions" of copyright works have been distributed via
YouTube in breach of copyright while alleging that they have no
"viable means" of enforcing their rights other than via manual
searches and takedown notices.

Furthermore, since YouTube only implements its repeat infringer
policies for non-Content ID identifications, the plaintiffs argue
that the video platform cannot claim safe harbor protection under
the DMCA. For its part, Youtube says this is an attempt to
relitigate its earlier copyright battle with Viacom, which found
that YouTube is entitled to safe harbor protections.

"No law supports Plaintiffs' assertion that denying them access to
[Content ID] somehow makes YouTube liable for copyright
infringement," the video platform adds, noting that Schneider
already has access anyway.

"Plaintiff Schneider already has access to Content ID through her
publishing agent, who has used Content ID for years on Schneider's
behalf," YouTube adds.

But there are more fundamental issues too.

Zero Copyright Infringement Alleged in Complaint
According to YouTube, Schneider has named just three copyrighted
"works in suit" and Pirate Monitor has identified three too.
However, neither has identified any infringement.

"[T]he Complaint failed to allege a single instance of infringement
for even one of the six copyrighted works. That alone renders the
claims deficient. Beyond that, Pirate Monitor recently admitted --
five months into the case -- that it does not have standing to
assert infringement of one of the three works it asserted in the
Complaint."

YouTube says that Schneider did list around 50 new works that
weren't mentioned in the complaint during interrogatory responses
but failed to allege ownership or registration. But there are other
problems too.

"Schneider has failed to identify a single alleged infringement for
approximately half of the new works, and the instances of alleged
infringement she did identify all fall outside the three-year
statute of limitations. Further, it now appears clear that
Schneider's publishing agent licensed YouTube to use all of
Schneider's musical works, which would independently defeat any
infringement claim," YouTube adds.

Class Action Unsuited to Copyright Disputes
Given the complexity of copyright infringement cases, YouTube says
that the plaintiff's suit will not be maintainable as a class
action. Referencing an earlier failed attempt by the Premier
League, YouTube describes the current litigation as a "Frankenstein
monster posing as a class action."

Evidence Preservation
According to Schneider and Pirate Monitor, YouTube isn't taking its
evidence preservation responsibilities seriously having rejected
some of their demands. The plaintiffs say that YouTube is refusing
to preserve videos that are deleted by users, even if they infringe
their rights, demanding that the plaintiffs need to identify each
one first.

"Defendants have also repeatedly taken the position that they will
not preserve any evidence relating to the putative class in this
case," they add, a reference to entities that are not yet part of
the class action - which could be almost any rightsholder.

Somewhat predictably given the scope of the plaintiffs' demands,
YouTube insists that it is preserving evidence but can only do so
when the plaintiffs identify those works, noting that it does not
have to guess at what that content should be. Also, when
considering that almost any copyright holder could join the class
action at a later point, effectively asking YouTube not to delete
anything is a step too far.

"[P]laintiffs have made the extraordinary and unreasonable demand
that YouTube preserve all 'material and content' uploaded to
YouTube, notwithstanding users' ordinary rights to delete their own
data, simply because Plaintiffs have brought this case as a
putative class action," YouTube writes.

"They have cited no authority requiring anything like that, which
would inflict huge costs and burdens on YouTube -- essentially
redesigning YouTube's entire data retention system in violation of
user privacy rights and at a cost of hundreds of hours of
engineering time and millions of dollars -- that are
disproportionate to the legitimate needs of a case in which there
are only two named plaintiffs asserting, at most, a small number of
copyrighted works, and who have very low prospects of ever
certifying a class."

The case has been scheduled for trial starting November 28, 2022,
but whether it will ever get there remains a question. The only
certainty at the moment is that the parties couldn't be any further
apart in their positions and neither is showing any signs of giving
an inch. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Evaluation Finds Asbestos An Unreasonable Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency released Part 1 of its Final Risk
Evaluation for Asbestos, reaffirming preliminary findings from
March that were roundly criticized for underestimating the dangers
of exposure to this toxic mineral.

Six ongoing use categories of asbestos were evaluated by the EPA,
which found 16 conditions of use that presented unreasonable risk
to human health through either occupational exposures or consumer
uses.

Part 1 of the evaluation, released in late December 2020, involved
the chrysotile type of asbestos.  Chrysotile is the only type of
asbestos being imported, processed or distributed for use in the
U.S. today.

The Part 2 preliminary evaluation, which will become public in
mid-2021, will include five other types of asbestos, along with
legacy asbestos and associated disposals of chrysotile asbestos.

"EPA found unreasonable risks to consumers and bystanders from all
consumer uses of chrysotile asbestos," EPA's report stated,
Asbestos.com notes.

It also found unreasonable risks to workers and those "nearby but
not in direct contact with chrysotile asbestos."

Part 2 of Risk Evaluation Will Bring More Scrutiny

The EPA's risk evaluation stemmed from the 2016 amendment of the
Toxic Substances Control Act, which identified asbestos as one of
the first 10 chemicals to be examined.

After the Part 2 final evaluation, the EPA may propose increased
regulations to further limit the processing, manufacturing or use
of asbestos or asbestos products.  As part of the TSCA, the EPA
must address any unreasonable risk that is found.

In this latest report, the EPA found unreasonable risk in these
occupational conditions:

  * Processing and industrial use of asbestos diaphragms in the
chloralkali industry

  * Processing and industrial use of asbestos-containing sheet
gaskets in chemical production

  * Industrial use of asbestos-containing brake blocks in the oil
industry

  * Commercial use of aftermarket automotive asbestos-containing
brakes/linings

  * Commercial use of other asbestos-containing friction products

  * Commercial use of other asbestos-containing gaskets.

It found unreasonable risk in consumer uses of automotive
asbestos-containing brakes and brake linings and in
asbestos-containing gaskets.

The EPA found no unreasonable risk in the actual importation of
chrysotile asbestos or the distribution of asbestos-containing
products.  It found no unreasonable risk in the use of
asbestos-containing brakes or sheet gaskets in a specialized NASA
transport plane.

It also found no risks to the environment from any condition of use
and verified that U.S. automotive manufacturers are not installing
asbestos brakes on new cars for domestic distribution.

Asbestos Imports Are Limited

Asbestos, which already is heavily regulated, has not been mined in
the U.S. since 2002.  According to the U.S. Geological Survey
Mineral Report, a record low of 100 metric tons of raw asbestos was
imported in 2019, a fraction of the record high of 803,000 metric
tons imported in 1973.

In recent years, the chloralkali industry has consumed all the raw
asbestos being imported, using it for semipermeable diaphragms to
make chlorine.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was once used
ubiquitously in hundreds of products.  It was valued for its heat
resistance and tensile strength.

It's toxicity, though, can lead to serious health issues, including
lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Manufacturing of asbestos products such as insulation, vinyl floor
tiles, commercial paper and many other building materials is now
prohibited.

The product list of imports today includes brake blocks, sheet
gaskets, aftermarket automotive brakes and other gaskets and
friction products.

Criticism of EPA Is Widespread

While the EPA knows how much raw asbestos and what asbestos
products are being imported, the exact import volumes of asbestos
products are not fully known.

That unknown is part of the criticism often levied against the EPA
from various critics.

Only days before the final risk evaluation was released, U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ordered the EPA to
improve its data collection on the amount of asbestos products
coming into the country.

His ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought against the EPA by a
group of nonprofit organizations trying to close asbestos reporting
loopholes, which include voluntary submissions and no mandated
reporting.

In September, the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, a
peer-review mechanism for the EPA, found considerable flaws in the
Risk Evaluation for Asbestos draft, believing it was too limited in
scope.

The Science Advisory Committee is a mix of scientists, medical
doctors and Ph.D.s, many of whom testify on behalf of plaintiffs in
asbestos litigation.

Some of the criticisms being levied – such as the impact of
legacy asbestos, asbestos disposal issues and non-chrysotile
asbestos – will be handled in Part 2 of the final risk
evaluation.

Others, such as including the potential of ovarian cancer from
asbestos-contaminated talc, will not be addressed.

One of the biggest threats to the public today is legacy asbestos
in homes and other buildings, which remains after decades of
unbridled use throughout the construction industry.

"The agency [EPA] has issued a piecemeal and dangerously incomplete
evaluation that overlooks numerous sources of asbestos exposure and
risk," said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, the country's leading anti-asbestos
advocate.  "Americans can't wait for the EPA to do its job.  We
need an asbestos ban."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $51.0MM Liabilities at Sept. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vontier Corporation recorded gross liabilities associated with
known and future expected asbestos claims of US$51.0 million as of
September 25, 2020, according to the Company's Form S-1 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 28, 2020.

The Company states, "In connection with the recognition of
liabilities for asbestos related matters, the Company records
insurance recoveries that are deemed probable and estimable.  In
assessing the probability of insurance recovery, we make judgments
concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and
consistent with our historical dealings, our knowledge of any
pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers, and litigation and
court rulings potentially impacting coverage.  While the
substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of
our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in
the analysis of probable recoveries.  Projecting future events is
subject to various uncertainties, including litigation and court
rulings potentially impacting coverage, that could cause insurance
recoveries on asbestos related liabilities to be higher or lower
than those projected and recorded.  Given the inherent uncertainty
in making future projections, the Company reevaluates projections
concerning the Company's probable insurance recoveries considering
any changes to the projected liabilities, the Company's recovery
experience or other relevant factors that may impact future
insurance recoveries.

"We recorded gross liabilities associated with known and future
expected asbestos claims of US$51.0 million and US$54.4 million as
of September 25, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.  Known
and future expected asbestos claims of US$7.5 million and US$5.6
million are included in Accrued expenses and other current
liabilities on the Combined Condensed Balance Sheets as of
September 25, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.  Known and
future expected asbestos claims of US$43.5 million and US$48.8
million are included in Other long-term liabilities on the Combined
Condensed Balance Sheets as of September 25, 2020 and December 31,
2019, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OwFJR2




                            *********

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 ***