/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210203.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 3, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 19

                            Headlines

9F INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
ABC PHONES: Court Okays Stipulation in Solorio Wage and Hour Suit
ADVOCARE INT'L: Ranieri Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors
AGAPE HEALTH: Park Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees Under FLSA
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid for Partial Judgment in Oliver Partly Granted

ASPEN HOME: Ct. Directs Eder to File Class Status Bid by April 19
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28
BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline for Class Status Briefing Set for Feb. 22
BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Balks at Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders

BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Use of Debit Cards
BEACH PIZZA: Small Asks Court to Stay Class Certification Deadline
BENA REST: Faces Morales Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
BIG HEART: Class Certification Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28
BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Status Bid Due by April 22

BIT DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BLUE SKY: Law Firms Probe Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline
BRENTWOOD CARE: Daughter of COVID-19 Victim Files Class-Action
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Dipuma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

CANADA: Faces Prison COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action Lawsuit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Seeks Extension of Class Certification Dates
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Pay $39MM in Tax Class-Action
CHILDREN'S GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COMMUNITY LOANS: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 21

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class-action Lawsuit on Systemic Racism
COVIA HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CRST INT'L: Cervantes Suit Gets Driver Class Conditional Status
DESTIN FIRE: Jensen FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Sexual Abuse Suit in Penn.

EQT CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 for BIPA Class Settlement
FEDERAL PACIFIC: Blair Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Weidman Wins Protective Order in Suit Over Brake Defect

FORSTER & GARBUS: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiofalo FDCPA Suit
FRESH FARMS: March 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
GC SERVICES: Feb. 4 Extension to Class Status Bid Opposition Sought
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: Kyo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
GOLDMAN SACHS: Criticizes Halliburton Fraud Class Action Ruling

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 15 Deadline
HOME DEPOT: Bid to Continue Class Certification Deadlines Nixed
HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Settlement Has Final Nod

ICHIBAN GROUP: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 4
KANYE WEST: Faces Class-Action Lawsuits Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro TCPA Suit Moved From Mich. to W.D. Texas
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 1
LIZHI INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action

LIZHI INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
LIZHI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Remanded Over Settlement Talks
MANDARICH LAW: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
MANDARICH LAW: Sorondo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California

MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Suit Alleges
MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Foods Contain Toxic Aflatoxin, Williams Says
MINNESOTA: Court Adopts in Part R&R Issued in Roybal v. Schnell
MOUNTAIRE CORP: April 12 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit

NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. of Homeless People in Fisher Suit Denied
PHH MORTGAGE: Attorney General Blasts Mortgage Class Settlement
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Collection
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Suit Moved From California to Michigan
REALOGY HOLDINGS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit

RESCARE INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for Nov. 15
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Suit
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon RAF Text Message Suit Gets Class Status
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Wieg Suit Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Zybura Suit Says

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ziegler Sues Over Open-Market Manipulation
ROY GRINNELL: Tellez-Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Class Action Remains Pending
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SOAR COLLECTIVE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action

SONA NANOTECH: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Florida
TEXAS: Eaunman Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Misclassification Suit Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify RNs Class in Crawley Suit
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 24 Deadline
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline
WALMART INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action

WORLDPAC INC: FLSA Collective Status of Delivery Drivers Sought
[*] Australian Insurers Face COVID-19 Payout Class Actions
[*] Blank Rome Issues Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report

                            *********

9F INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against 9F Inc. ("9F" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: JFU) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired 9F securities (i)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with 9F's August 14, 2019 initial
public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii) between
August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jfu.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that the materials supporting the Offering,
and defendants throughout the Class Period, made 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 the 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/jfu or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in 9F you
have until March 22, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


ABC PHONES: Court Okays Stipulation in Solorio Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California approved a stipulation
entered into by the parties in the lawsuit captioned PRISCILLA
SOLORIO and MARIANO DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-CV-01051-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Solorio and Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and Defendant ABC Phones, by and through their
respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:

   1. Plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting wage and
      hour claims with respect to Store Managers at Defendant's
      retail locations;

   2. Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss
      Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the "Motion") on
      November 25, 2020;

   3. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion on
      January 13, 2021, and Defendant filed its reply on
      January 20, 2021;

   4. Plaintiffs have prepared the Objections to Reply Evidence
      and/or Surreply to Defendant's Motion to Compel
      Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action
      (the "Objection/Surreply") to object to and address issues
      raised in Defendant's reply and related filings;

   5. Plaintiffs provided the Objection/Surreply to Defendant's
      counsel, and based on the circumstances and without
      conceding the validity of any of the issues raises therein,
      Defendant has agreed to stipulate to its filing; and

   6. The Local Rules and the Federal Rules do not provide the
      right to file a surreply or objections to reply evidence,
      but a district court may allow a surreply to be filed
      "where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists."
      Hartline v. Nat'l Univ., No. 2:14-CV-0635 KJM AC PS, 2015
      U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8127, at *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015).

Accordingly, the counsel for the Parties agree that good cause
exists and leave for the Plaintiffs to file the Objection/Surreply
should be granted, and request that the Court issues an order that
the Objection/Surreply is deemed filed.

Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown,
the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' Objections to Reply Evidence
and/or Surreply to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration,
Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action, filed at ECF 11-1, is
deemed filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxv4ztjv from Leagle.com.

Carolyn H. Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- David C.
Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- Scott L. Gordon --
sgordon@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
LLP, in Emeryville, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class.

Robert L. Shipley -- rshipley@shipleylaw.com -- Brandon S. Gray --
bgray@shipleylaw.com -- ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC, Attorneys for
Defendant.


ADVOCARE INT'L: Ranieri Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RANIERI and MEGAN
CORNELIUS, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, v. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P., Case No.
3:17-cv-00691-S (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the Class for purposes of settlement:

      "all Distributors who paid fees, purchased a "distributor
      kit," and/or purchased products from AdvoCare between
      March 9, 2013, and May 17, 2016, who lost money from their
      participation in the AdvoCare alleged scheme, and whose
      distributorships were suspended without reinstatement or
      terminated by May 17, 2016. Distributors who made no
      purchases from AdvoCare after May 17, 2016, and paid no
      dues after May 17, 2016, will be considered terminated as
      of May 17, 2016. Distributors will be considered to have
      lost money if the sum of the fees they paid AdvoCare, the
      money they paid AdvoCare for sales aids, and the money
      they paid AdvoCare for product (net of refunded amounts),
      reduced by 65% of the amount paid for product, is greater
      than the money they received from AdvoCare (other than for
      product refunds);"

      Excluded from the Class are Distributors who were not, at
      the time they were Distributors, residents of the United
      States or its territories or U.S. military stationed
      overseas. The Class definition excludes Distributors who
      continued as Distributors after May 17, 2016 or made any
      other indication of consent to AdvoCare's Distributor
      Agreement amended after that date;

   2. appointing their counsel to serve as Class Counsel and
      appointing themselves to serve as class representative;

   3. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;

   4. approving the Notice Plan described in the Settlement
      Agreement; and

   5. scheduling a Fairness Hearing.

   The Settlement Agreement:

   -- The Settlement Agreement requires the creation of a
      Settlement Fund in total amount of $10,500,000 to
      compensate Class Members who submit claims.

   -- Class Members' cash awards will be based on the same
      calculation as the determination for class membership,
      with three adjustments.

   -- Any money remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after
      payment of cash awards to Class Members, any Fee Award to
      Class Counsel, any Service Award to Plaintiff, and
      administration expenses will revert to AdvoCare.

On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs Cornelius and Lisa Ranieri filed
this case, bringing claims on their own behalves and seeking to
bring claims on behalf of all Distributors who lost money during
the class period through their participation in AdvoCare (meaning,
all Distributors who paid AdvoCare more money than AdvoCare paid
them). The case then proceeded to arbitration for a determination
of arbitrability, multiple rounds of motion to dismiss briefing,
class certification discovery, and three mediations.

From its founding until May 2019, AdvoCare was a multi-level
marketer of nutritional supplements and nutritional products.
AdvoCare's business model ostensibly allowed its "Distributors"
(the persons who participated in AdvoCare's compensation and sales
program) to purchase AdvoCare products at wholesale prices and sell
them at higher retail prices.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O1whJX
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Benjamin King, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1601 Elm St., Suite 4250
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-420-8900
          E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com

               - and -

          R. Adam Swick, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Bldg. C, Suite 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: 512-647-6100
          E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com

AGAPE HEALTH: Park Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Soonkum PARK, Yoon Hee OH, Heesang KIM, Bo Young LEE, AND Yoon Jung
YIM v. Agape Health Management Inc., and Sun Ok LEE, Case No.
1:21-cv-00097 (E.D. Va., Jan. 25, 2021) alleges that the Defendants
intentionally and willfully violated the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Defendants, contend
that the Defendants failed to pay them for overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Defendant Agape at all relevant times was in the business of adult
day care services, and adult home care services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
          RYU & RYU, PLC
          301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
          Vienna VA 22180

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid for Partial Judgment in Oliver Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN
O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA VALDES, DAVID
MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER and MICHAEL THOMAS REID on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED
SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-00566 (NGG)
(SJB) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York granted in part and denied in part Amex's motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings as to certain of the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought against Defendants
American Express Company and American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. (together, "Amex"). The Plaintiffs,
consumers who made purchases using non-Amex electronic forms of
payment, challenge the non-discrimination provisions contained in
Amex's contracts with merchants, who accept its credit cards
("Anti-Steering Rules"). On April 30, 2020, the Court granted
Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims,
and granted in part and denied in part Amex's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' state antitrust and consumer protection claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Anti-Steering Rules decrease
competition in the fees charged to merchants by Amex, Visa,
Mastercard, and Discover, and result in higher fees charged to
merchants by the non-Amex companies. Those higher fees, in turn,
encourage merchants to pass on the costs by charging higher prices
to consumers.

In its April M&O, the Court first dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Applying the factors
articulated in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal.
State Council of Carpenters ("AGC"), 459 U.S. 519, 535 (1983) ("AGC
factors"), the Court held that the Plaintiffs were not "efficient
enforcers of the antitrust law" and, therefore, lacked standing to
pursue their federal antitrust claims. Second, turning to the
Plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims, the Court held that
California, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York all apply the AGC
factors to determine standing under their state antitrust laws;
accordingly, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of those states. Third,
the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims under the laws of California, Florida, and New
Mexico. Finally, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under New York law.

Following the April M&O, the Plaintiffs' remaining claims arise
under the antitrust laws of 24 states and the consumer protection
laws of eight states. Amex now moves for judgment on the pleadings
with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under the state antitrust
laws of 16 jurisdictions: Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, and the District
of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs concede the Motion as to their claims under the
antitrust laws of Iowa and Nebraska, but oppose Amex's motion as to
their antitrust claims under the laws of the other 14
jurisdictions. Amex also moves for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection
laws of five jurisdictions: Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio,
and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs concede the motion as
to their claims under the consumer protection laws of Ohio and the
District of Columbia, but they oppose Amex's motion as to their
consumer protection laws of the other three states.

Under the Court's prior M&O, the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert
claims under the antitrust laws of any states that apply the AGC
factors. The parties dispute whether the laws of the following 10
jurisdictions apply the AGC factors: Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah,
Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Amex argues that the
Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of Illinois, Michigan,
and the District of Columbia also fail, even if the Court finds
that those jurisdictions do not apply the AGC factors. Finally,
Amex argues that the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of
Arizona, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Tennessee likewise fail for
independent reasons.

Amex also initially moved for judgment as a matter of law as to the
Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the laws of Montana,
Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. The
Plaintiffs concede the Motion as to their consumer protection
claims under Ohio and District of Columbia. Amex concedes the
Plaintiffs may proceed at this stage with their consumer protection
claims under the laws of Montana and Ohio. Accordingly, the
parties' only disputes as to whether the Plaintiffs may proceed
with their consumer protection claims concern the laws of Illinois
and Massachusetts.

For reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum & Order, the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part
and denied in part. Specifically:

   -- The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' claims under
      the antitrust statutes of Arizona, Illinois, Maryland,
      Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North
      Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
      Wisconsin. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs'
      claims under the antitrust statutes of Maine, Utah, and the
      District of Columbia; and

   -- The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' claims under
      the consumer protection statutes of the District of
      Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio. The motion is denied as
      to the Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection
      statutes of Illinois, Montana, and Ohio.

The Parties are directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate
Judge Bulsara regarding next steps in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Jan. 25,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyajd8kt from
Leagle.com.


ASPEN HOME: Ct. Directs Eder to File Class Status Bid by April 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY EDER v. ASPEN HOME
IMPROVEMENTS INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01306-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to
      Complete Discovery;

   2. directing the Plaintiff to complete class certification
      discovery by March 31, 2021; and

   3. directing the Plaintiff to file a motion for class
      certification, if warranted, on or before April 19, 2021.

Courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to best manage the
cases before them. In exercising this discretion, a court may
extend the time concerning when an act must be done within a
specific time if the request is made before the original time or
its extension expires.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff filed this motion before the time
allotted for discovery expired. Further, as the Defendant has
defaulted, there is currently no trial date or other applicable
deadlines in this matter. As the Court previously noted, "it would
be unjust to prevent Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the
elements for certification of a class without the benefit of
discovery, due to [the defendant's] failure to participate in the
case." Therefore, the Court finds good cause to permit the
Plaintiff additional time to conduct class discovery and file a
motion for class certification, if warranted."

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Ac. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls
to market and advertise its business in
violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff seeks damages under the TCPA
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Aspen Home Improvements, Inc is a window installation contractor
serving the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area since 1990.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Bk7xL at no extra charge.[CC]

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-astrazenecaplc-class-action-lawsuit.html)
on Jan. 27 disclosed that it filed a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of
AstraZeneca plc (NASDAQ:AZN) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New
York and is captioned Monroe County Employees' Retirement System v.
AstraZeneca plc, No. 21-cv-00722.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased AstraZeneca ADSs during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the AstraZeneca class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice to litigate the AstraZeneca class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from January 27, 2021. If you wish
to discuss the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-astrazenecaplc-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The AstraZeneca class action lawsuit charges AstraZeneca and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AstraZeneca is one of the largest
biopharmaceutical companies in the world and was one of the early
front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April
2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to develop a
potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later
dubbed AZD1222. The complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented facts regarding the Company's ongoing AZD1222
clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the
trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on
by the Company but not disclosed to investors.

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the
results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222.
The announcement immediately began to raise questions among
analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the
interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate
locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained
reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial
provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose,
while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively,
AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially
more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full
dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.

In the days that followed, additional revelations were made
regarding problems with AstraZeneca's AZD1222 clinical trials. For
example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a
manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the
half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55
- despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to
COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their
second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated
that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in
its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient
for approval for commercial sale in the United States.

As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed
problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222,
the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on
November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response
to adverse news on abnormally high volume.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE HONG, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
individually and as successor-in-interest, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01667-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez
entered Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) scheduling order regarding
class certification motion as follows:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion     February 28, 2022
   for class certification:
   (noted on the fourth Friday after
   filing and service of the motion
   pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash.
   LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties
   agree to different times for
   filing the response and reply
   memoranda).

   Opposition to Motion to                    April 11, 2022
   Certify Class:

   Reply in Support of Motion                 May 4, 2022
   to Certify Class:

   Hearing on Motion to Certify               To be set by the
   Class:                                     Court after
                                              briefing completed

The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall inform the
court immediately should Plaintiff(s) at any time decide not to
seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order
are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the court, not
by agreement of the parties. The court will alter these dates only
upon good cause shown. The failure to complete discovery within the
time allowed will not ordinarily constitute good cause, says the
Court.
Bank of America operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and
current account, investment and financial services, online banking,
and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues
credit card and business loans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36zDCXz at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline for Class Status Briefing Set for Feb. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk
Failla entered an order granting extension of time and page limits
for class certification briefing as follows:

   a. The deadlines for Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and supporting expert reports are extended
      from February 4, 2021, to February 22, 2021;

   b. The deadline for Defendants to depose Plaintiffs' class
      certification experts is extended from April 19, 2021, to
      May 7, 2021;

   c. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to class
      certification and supporting expert reports is extended
      from May 24, 2021, to June 15, 2021;

   d. The deadline for Plaintiffs to depose the Defendants'
      class certification experts is extended from July 29,
      2021, to August 20, 2021;

   e. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support
      of their motion for class certification is extended from
      August 30, 2021, to September 21, 2021.

   f. The Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their
      motion for class certification will not exceed 50 pages.

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in
New York City, Dallas, Toronto, London and Hong Kong.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aqOub9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs Iowa Public Employees' Retirement
System, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, Orange
County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees'
Retirement Association, and Torus Capital, LLC, are:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Christopher Bateman, Esq.
          David O. Fisher, Esq.
          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Julie Goldsmith, Esq.
          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
          Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                  cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dfisher@cohenmilstein.com
                  kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
                  rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmmcuaig@cohenmilstein.com
                  rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs Iowa Public Employees' Retirement
System, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, Orange
County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees'
Retirement Association, and Torus Capital, LLC, are:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          Deborah K. Brown, Esq.
          Daniel P. Mach, Esq.
          David LeRay, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  sascharand@quinnemnuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  deborahbrown@quinnemanuel.com
                  danielmach@quinnemanuel.com
                  davidleray@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com

The Counsel for Torus Capital, LLC, are:

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 0118
          Telephone: (212) 201-2845
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

The attorneys for Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc., and Merrill Lynch
Professional Clearing Corp., are:

          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Richard F. Schwed, Esq.
          Michael P. Mitchell, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com
                  rschwed@shearman.com
                  michael.mitchell@shearman.com

The attorneys for the Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund, Inc.,
and Credit Suisse Prime Securities Services (USA) LLC, are:

          David G. Januszewski, Esq.
          Herbert S. Washer, Esq.
          Elai Katz, Esq.
          Jason M. Hall, Esq.
          Sheila C. Ramesh, Esq.
          Margaret A. Barone, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          32 Old Slip
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3000
          E-mail: djanuszewski@cahill.com
                  hwasher@cahill.com
                  ekatz@cahill.com
                  jhall@cahill.com
                  sramesh@cahill.com
                  mbarone@cahill.com

The attorneys for the Defendants EquiLend LLC, EquiLend Europe
Limited, and EquiLend Holdings LLC, are:

          David I. Gelfand, Esq.
          Alexis Collins, Esq.
          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          2112 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 974-1690
          E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com
                  alcollins@cgsh.com
                  cboccuzzi@cgsh.com

The attorneys for the Defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, are

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          George E. Mastoris, Esq.
          Staci Yablon, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-7941
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com
                  gmastoris@winston.com
                  syablon@winston.com

               - and -

          Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com

BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Balks at Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY MCCLURE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00572-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2021), is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of California residents whose unemployment
benefits have been stolen, interfered with and diminished due to
the Defendant's alleged wrongdoing in administration of California
unemployment insurance benefits.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Bank of America has
repeatedly failed to stop criminals from breaching Bank of
America's defective and outdated systems and controls, thus
allowing the criminals to steal millions of dollars of California
Employment Development Department (EDD) from needy and unemployed
individuals. While the unemployed persons who are one step away
from being homeless are denied the benefits awarded them by the
State, Bank of America continues to collect its large profits and
revenues from its exclusive contract with California, the Plaintiff
added.

The Plaintiff further contends that California is one of only three
U.S. states that does not offer a direct deposit option for
unemployment benefits. Instead, it has awarded an exclusive
contract to Defendant Bank of America to administer certain
unemployment insurance and other benefits issued by the  California
EDD. For unemployed Californians struggling to survive, these EDD
benefits provide critical resources to buy food and provide
shelter.

Ms. McClure is a person residing in California. She is a Visual
Merchandiser at Nordstrom who found herself out of work during the
Covid-19 pandemic. She applied for and received EDD unemployment
benefits; soon thereafter, she received a Bank of America EDD Visa
debit card with a magnetic stripe (no EMV chip) to access her
benefits. The Plaintiff experienced fraudulent charges on or around
December 1, 2020, after her card was skimmed at a gas station.

The Defendant Bank of America is one of the largest banking
associations in the United States. It is incorporated in the state
of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Anne B. Beste, Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  abeste@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Use of Debit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1–20, inclusive, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00699-SK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to abide by the terms of its contract
with the State of California, by knowingly depriving unemployed
Californians of the benefits for which they qualified and which
were necessary to make ends meet, and failure to use generally
accepted and widely-used security measures related to debit cards.

The California Employment Development Department (hereinafter
"EDD"), which provides a variety of support services to
Californians who lost their jobs, had their hours reduced, or had
their businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19, contracted with
the Defendant to administer the payment of unemployment insurance
benefits through debit cards funded by the EDD. Allegedly, in
administering such benefits, the Defendant knowingly failed to use
generally accepted and widely-used security measures related to
debit cards, and instead used outdated, obsolete and fraud-prone
technology, which resulted in the unauthorized access and
fraudulent use of the debit cards by third parties.

According to the complaint, by electing to issue debit cards with
magnetic stripes, a largely discredited and obsolete method of
securing personal and financial information, instead of the
industry-standard chip technology, the Defendant knew that Class
members would be vulnerable to the theft of their personal and
financial information and the fraudulent use of the debit cards by
third persons.

Predictably, such theft and fraud occurred to the financial
detriment of the Class members. To make matters worse, after
unauthorized third parties illegally accessed the debit cards
issued to EDD recipients and withdrew monies from their accounts,
the Defendant allegedly failed to act reasonably to promptly
address and remedy the situation, abide by the terms of its
contract with the State of California, and fulfill promises made to
EDD recipients. The Defendant made decisions which it knew would
result in further harm to the Class, given that EDD benefits -- by
their very nature -- were and are intended to provide monies to
meet basic needs of living, the suit added.

For the Plaintiff, the Defendant not only failed to abide by the
terms of its contract with the State of California, it knowingly
deprived unemployed Californians of the benefits for which they
qualified and which were necessary to make ends meet. In sum, the
Defendant entered into a contract with the State of California to
administer the payment of EDD benefits to EDD recipients,
negligently chose to use obsolete and non-secure technology for the
delivery of the benefits through the use of magnetic stripe debit
cards despite knowing that a significant percentage of the cards
would be subject to theft and unauthorized use by third parties,
failed to properly staff customer service and investigative
resources to address claims of theft and unauthorized use, and then
callously reacted, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a California citizen and resident of Stockton,
California, who worked in construction doing project management and
estimating prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bank of America, N.A., is one of the largest banking associations
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Fraysse, Esq.
          Maisie C. Sokolove, Esq.
          Amanda M. Plowman, Esq.
          KNOX RICKSEN LLP
          2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 433-2500
          Facsimile: (925) 433-2505


BEACH PIZZA: Small Asks Court to Stay Class Certification Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Small, On behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. Beach Pizza, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. staying the Local Rule 4.04(b) class certification
      deadline;

   2. allowing the Plaintiff to conduct class certification
      discovery; and

   3. permitting the Plaintiff and Defense counsel to conduct a
      Rule 26(f) conference and propose a discovery plan and
      timeline to the Court; or

   4. extending the class certification deadline until 90 days
      after the filing of the post-settlement conference Case
      Management Report.

Beach Pizza was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcMTJZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the putative class are:

          Nathan Spencer, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Riley Edward Kane, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  nspencer@billerkimble.com
                  rkane@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Gary R. Kessler, Esq.
          GARY R. KESSLER P.C.
          31 Mistflower Lane
          Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
          Telephone: (404) 909-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 909-8120
          E-mail: gkessler@martensonlaw.com

BENA REST: Faces Morales Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO MORALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BENA REST CORP. (D/B/A INDIAN TAJ), JASPAL SINGH (AKA
JESSE), and BALVINDER SINGH (AKA BOBBY), Case No.
1:21-cv-00396-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021) seeks appropriate
minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, the Plaintiff added.

Mr. Morales is a former employee of the Defendants. He was employed
as a delivery worker and food preparer at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian Restaurant,
located at 3725 74th Street, Jackson Heights, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BIG HEART: Class Certification Bid 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 amended preliminary class
certification scheduling order 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

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not
be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to
modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines
contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied
by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate, attached
exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief
requested. The failure to comply with this order may result in the
imposition of sanctions, says the Court.

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. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3arlsYR at no extra charge.[CC]

BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Status Bid Due by April 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE S. McFARLAND, v.
BILL LEE KELLY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Colin Stirling Bruce entered a scheduling order:

   -- the Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
      Class is now due April 22, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]


BIT DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Bit Digital Inc. ("Bit Digital" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BTBT) securities between December 21, 2020 and
January 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Bit Digital investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/bit-digital-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report
alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital operates "a fake
crypto currency business" "designed to steal funds from investors."
Though the Company claims "it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners
in China," J Capital alleged that "is simply not possible" and
stated that "[w]e verified with local governments supposedly
hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no bitcoin miners
there."

On this news, Bit Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per share, or
25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bit Digital securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March
22, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


BLUE SKY: Law Firms Probe Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shapiro and Liam Walsh, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that class action law firms say investors have been
devastated by the billion-dollar destruction of Blue Sky that they
have alleged was a result of the company providing a misleading
picture of its financial health.

Lachlan Lamont said law firm Piper Alderman was pushing on with its
investigation into Blue Sky, its directors and auditors and had
signed up more than 250 interested investors.

The firm is one of three class action firms investigating the
alternative asset manager that unravelled as forced disclosures
largely validated short-seller accusations that it overstated the
value of the assets it managed, and overcharged investors for the
privilege.

"It's been an absolute nightmare for some investors," Mr Lamont
told The Australian Financial Review. "They have lost their life
savings."

Blue Sky at one stage had a market capitalisation of more than $1
billion, a number chainsawed to $14 million by the time shares were
placed in a final trading halt in May 2019 as receivers seized the
head company.

Among the equity dusted was $100 million raised from institutions
and professional investors in March 2018, when Blue Sky crowed
about hitting a target of assets under management of up to $4.75
billion by June that year.

Mr Lamont said some of the investors who tipped money in the
raising at more than $11.50 a share had lost hundreds of thousands
of dollars, including some that had invested their entire
self-managed super fund into the company.

The raising occurred just weeks before short-selling research firm
Glaucus published its explosive report into the company that
triggered its rapid decline.

'Incompetent and reluctant'
Mr Lamont said mum and dad investors' trust in the financial system
had been "depleted by a company that we say has misrepresented its
financial health".

One Brisbane retiree who was recovering from surgery was
incredulous. He had invested about $60,000 in Blue Sky shares
through broker Morgans when the company raised $100 million of
funds in March 2018.

"Brokers have a vested interest to raise funds and they use their
own clients to raise funds but we trust them," he said.

The man blamed regulators for failing to act when it became
apparent the company had inflated its asset values.

"People like ASIC and other regulatory entities were just
incompetent and reluctant to do anything."

Mr Lamont said regulators were risk averse and reluctant to spend
their resources if they were not going to effect change.

Piper Alderman is one of three law firms investigating class
actions, along with Gadens and Shine.

Simon Theodore, of Gadens, said his firm was still looking at a
class action and hopeful of filing in court in coming months.

"We have signed up a fair chunk of institutional investors," Mr
Theodore said. Everyday retail investors were also signing up, he
said.

He said allegations surrounded an alleged lack of transparency in
disclosure documents to Blue Sky investors. The action was
important because people will keep losing money as a result of
companies lacking transparency.

Entities needed to be held to account including in cases where the
regulator has indicated it is not taking action, he said.

Blue Sky was a manager of alternative assets such as property,
private equity and venture capital and agricultural assets. It
derived revenues from performance and management fees associated
with those assets.

The rapid growth of its assets made Blue Sky a market darling but
the company's disclosures were opaque, as it refused to provide a
breakdown of its assets.

In late March, a short-seller report by US based Glaucus rocked
confidence in the company. Eventually it was forced to reveal that
almost a third of its assets consisted of undrawn loans associated
with property developments.

The company also relied on upfront fees from new fund raisings to
cover operating costs. By June 2019, distressed fund Oaktree had
called in receivers.

In total, Blue Sky had 89 funds that ranged from property to
private equity, a figure Mr Lamont called incredible.

"It calls into question the level of due diligence they put into
these projects," he said.

"It's no wonder they failed as they were unable to keep the cash
flows in perspective."

Unitholders in those Blue Sky funds also lost money, although some
had made profits or had their money returned.

A 50-year-old Brisbane man said he lost half a million dollars in a
management rights fund that owns a claim on rights of newly
developed apartment blocks.

He said the fund he had invested in was one of the three management
rights funds but he lost the entire investment.

"What irked me is that it wouldn't provide P&Ls [profit and loss
statements]," the investor said.

"I will never invest in a fund of any sort ever again. Just throw
it in bank shares if the economy is going well. There's so much
information out there you can make your own decisions." [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or "the
Company") (NYSE:BSX) 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 April 24,
2019 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here --
https://schallfirm.com/cases/boston-scientific-corporation-2/#case-form
-- to participate.

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. Boston Scientific's LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System suffered from a dysfunctional product delivery system
which the viability of the entire product line at risk. The Company
overstated the continued profitability of the LOTUS system. 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 Boston Scientific, 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]


BRENTWOOD CARE: Daughter of COVID-19 Victim Files Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Keller at theglobeandmail.com reports that the last time
Kathy Kaiser saw her mom in person was May 8 last year - just
before Mother's Day. Ms. Kaiser visited her at the Brentwood Care
Centre in northwest Calgary, where the 87-year-old had moved just
months earlier due to lingering health problems after a heart
attack.

Ms. Kaiser stood outside as her mom, Lore Shymanski, looked down
from a second-floor window, speaking on the phone. It was the
closest they had been able to get to each other in two months. They
were initially cut off by pandemic lockdowns; then, in April, the
facility reported an outbreak.

Ms. Shymanski died of COVID-19 in hospital 12 days after that final
visit.

"When my mom went into that facility, yes, she was 87, and yes, she
had had a heart attack, but she was a vital, vibrant woman," Ms.
Kaiser said in an interview.

"She was able to take care of herself. And she went from that to
being completely incapacitated. It was very frustrating to watch
this really very fast decline."

Ms. Kaiser has now filed a class action against the long-term care
home and its owner, Intercare Corporate Group Inc., alleging the
facility's negligence contributed to an outbreak that eventually
infected 87 residents and staff and killed 18.

The lawsuit, filed recently in the province's Court of Queen's
Bench, is the latest in a series targeting long-term care homes,
which account for the overwhelming majority of COVID-19 deaths in
Alberta and across the country. Ms. Kaiser's class action is
seeking damages of $25-million.

The statement of claim contains allegations that have not been
tested in court. The company said in a brief statement that it had
received the lawsuit but otherwise declined to comment on the case.
The statement said the company would be responding as part of the
court process.

The lawsuit blames low staffing levels, poor training and bad
protocols for allowing the outbreak to take hold and spread. The
suit alleges the Brentwood Care Centre also failed to provide
sufficient personal protective equipment and did not prevent staff
and contractors who were already infected or had been to other care
homes from entering the facility.

The statement of claim also outlines Ms. Kaiser's efforts to stay
informed about her mother's case as she tried to get her moved to
the hospital. The first she heard that anything was amiss at the
facility was when she learned, in early April, that her mother had
been swabbed for a COVID-19 test. More than a week later, the care
home told her a staff member on another floor had tested positive.

"It just scared the hell out of me," she said. "I just felt like
they were sitting ducks at that point. . . . My heart sunk."

Ms. Shymanski had a severe cough and complained about being very
tired while the pair talked on the phone that day, which Ms. Kaiser
told the on-duty nurse about, the statement of claim says. She also
asked if a doctor had seen her mother and if she had been tested
again for COVID-19. A nurse told her Ms. Shymanski was last tested
on May 2 or 3, the document says.

It was difficult to get information because no one was available
for updates on weekends, the document says.

As her mother's health deteriorated, Ms. Kaiser asked repeatedly to
have her sent to the hospital but was told there was no reason to
transfer her, according to the document. Meanwhile, Ms. Shymanski's
cough was worsening, she was slurring her words and sounded
confused.

A nurse called Ms. Kaiser on May 17 and said her mother was not
doing well and might need to be hospitalized. She was transferred
later that day and died three days later.

Ms. Kaiser said she was able to speak to her mother over a video
chat while she was in the hospital.

"That was beautiful," she said. "She couldn't talk and she was
slurring her words, but she was touching our faces on the computer
and crying."

Ms. Kaiser's lawyer, Clint Docken, said other people connected to
the care home have expressed interest in joining the class action.
He said he hopes lawsuits like this one will be a wake-up call for
the industry.

"There are homes, or chains of care homes, that haven't had any
cases, so obviously they're doing something right," Mr. Docken
said. "There were warning signs. . . . The red flags were all
there, and they just weren't heeded."

Long-term care residents account for more than 60 per cent of all
COVID-19 deaths in Alberta, and there have been outbreaks at almost
three-quarters of the province's facilities - by far the highest
rate in Canada - according to the National Institute on Ageing, a
Ryerson University think tank. Nationally, the institute says,
long-term care residents account for 69 per cent of all deaths,
with 43 per cent of facilities reporting outbreaks.

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and
Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the
news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues
facing Canada.  [GN]



BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Dipuma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Dipuma, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone
Retail Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01001, (D. N.J.,
January 21, 2021), seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages,
prejudgement interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Dipuma worked for Bridgestone as a Service Manager/Tire Manager
from in or about February 2008 through in or about August 2019 at
the stores in Brick, West Long Branch, Red Bank, Wall and Toms
River, NJ. He was usually being scheduled for 8.5 to 10-hour shifts
per day; regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek; and
worked through his meal breaks despite punching in and out. He now
claims payment of overtime at one-and-one-half times his regular
rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek.

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. operates more than 50 tire production
facilities throughout the Americas. Bridgestone Retail Operations
is a subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. operating more than
2,000 stores throughout the United States specializing in consumer
replacement tires and complete automotive maintenance and
repairs.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
             mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LL
      C First & Market Building, Suite 650
      100 First Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
      Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


CANADA: Faces Prison COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pauls, writing for CBC News, reports that during the first
wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, Alex Doyle was doing his best to
follow public health orders and keep himself and his young family
free of infection.

But last November, Doyle ended up back in Manitoba's Stony Mountain
Institution north of Winnipeg after violating parole conditions for
a drug trafficking and break and enter conviction.

And that's where he may have inadvertently become a superspreader
in Canada's worst outbreak so far in a federal penitentiary.

Doyle's story, and the experiences of other Stony Mountain inmates
who became infected, is part of the testimony being gathered in a
class-action lawsuit against the Correctional Service of Canada
(CSC) on behalf of federal prisoners across the country.

There have been more than 1,500 cases of COVID-19 in the federal
prison system and more than 5,000 in the correctional system
overall, according to University of Ottawa criminology professor
Justin Piché, who has been tracking COVID-19 cases in Canadian
prisons since the beginning of the pandemic.

"The whole range, everyone was mad at me like it's my fault and it
wasn't my fault," Doyle, 33, said of his experience in a series of
telephone interviews with CBC News.

Doyle arrived at Stony Mountain on Nov. 6. He was segregated in an
isolation cell known by inmates as the hole.

He was tested for COVID-19 nearly a week later and when it came
back negative, he was moved to another area of the prison where he
said one of the inmates had already tested positive for COVID-19.

The first inmate at Stony Mountain tested positive on Nov. 10. Four
days later, public health officials declared an outbreak.

Inmates were locked down. They were allowed only 30 minutes out of
their cells each day -- just enough time for a quick shower and
maybe a call home, if the lineups weren't too long.

On Nov. 20, when his 14-day quarantine was up, Doyle said he was
moved to yet another medium security unit. Despite having a cough,
he wasn't immediately tested for COVID-19, he said. It was a Friday
and Doyle said he was told he would have to wait until Monday.

During that weekend, Doyle said he socialized with other inmates
during the 30 minutes they were allowed outside of their cells.
They were all wearing masks, but in close quarters.

"I thought I was good because [penitentiary staff] cleared me to
come here and, you know, I was talking to my friends and stuff.
That's probably how it got passed around," he said.

Two days later, Doyle said his test came back positive. But by
then, he said, he may have directly infected at least three people,
and they, in turn, infected others.

Les Bisson is one of the men who claimed to have developed symptoms
within days. He started coughing up blood and had problems
breathing, he said. His COVID-19 test on Dec. 2 came back
positive.

"I literally thought I was going to die a month ago. I sat there,
looking at pictures, thinking how I'll never be able to be a father
to my kids again," Bisson, 40, said with a break in his voice. He
is serving eight years for drug trafficking.

"We thought that was just on our range. Now, I know that that's
happened on at least two of the ranges. . . . If it was once, it
would be an accident. But to do something over and over and over
again, you can't say that's an accident."

'I feel like they failed miserably'
At its worst, nearly half of the 744 inmates at Stony Mountain had
COVID-19, making it the largest outbreak at any federally run
correctional facility in Canada.

Piché found all of the infections reported by CSC at Stony in
December were linked to the medium-security section of the
institution, with more than 75 per cent of those prisoners
infected.

In December, an inmate died of COVID-19 complications, one of four
deaths so far in prisons across the country.

CBC News spoke with eight inmates over the past several weeks who
said they believe the outbreak may have been caused by Stony
Mountain relaxing the 14-day quarantine rules for new inmates and
not testing frequently enough.

"I feel like they failed miserably. Our range was green, which
means no COVID, and they moved a COVID-positive inmate to our
range," said 30-year-old Grayson Wesley, who is serving an
eight-year sentence for unlawful confinement.

Wesley said he was infected at the end of November and sent to
hospital because he couldn't breathe. He still has trouble with his
memory and worries about getting sick again, he said.

"There's a new COVID variant out there. If that comes into the
jail, it's going to spread like wildfire," he said.

Mike Bourget also started feeling symptoms shortly after Doyle
arrived on his unit, but said he wasn't tested for three days. When
the results came back, he was positive.

"My symptoms were not that bad, not compared to my fellow inmates
here . . . . It is more of the mental aspect right now," said
Bourget, who is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder.
"My emotions and anxiety is like a roller-coaster."

No officials at Stony Mountain were available for an interview, but
a spokesperson for the CSC said inmates and staff are tested
regularly, even those who are asymptomatic.

"All inmates at Stony Mountain Institution were tested as they left
isolation cells and before they were moved to a different range,"
Kelly Dae Dash wrote in an email to CBC News.

"All inmates that tested positive for COVID-19 were immediately
moved to a separate area of the institution which operated under
single cell movement and was specifically designated for COVID-19
cases."

Throughout the outbreak, inmates have also had wellness checks by
health services staff.

Oldest prison in Canada
Part of the challenge in containing the virus is the age and layout
of the institution. Of the four federal prisons built in the 19th
century, Stony Mountain is the only one still operating.

The minimum and maximum-security units are the newer areas of the
institution. Cells have a door with a tiny window that separates an
inmate from the hallway.

However, in the original and oldest part of the facility, the
medium security units have only bars that open onto a long hallway.
It makes physical distancing difficult and there is constant air
flow between cells.

"These essentially operate as three distinct sites within a shared
penitentiary reserve, which is why the outbreak was able to be
contained to the original, stand-alone Stony Mountain Institution,"
Piche said.

Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Prince Albert is of the same vintage
and layout, and has had similar problems with COVID-19. There have
been 247 cases and one death, although there are currently only
seven active cases.

Inmates in SaskPen's medium security units say they were putting
blankets on the bars of their cells, but the correctional officers
removed them.

"They've ripped down all of our curtains and everything that would
protect us from the airborne virus from the guys out there . . .
sick on the unit," Bronson Gordon, 36, said in a phone call several
weeks ago with prisoner advocate Sherri Maier, who shared a
recording of the conversation with CBC News in Saskatchewan. Gordon
is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder.

He said they asked the guard how long they'd have to live under
such conditions, without access to mental health services or
elders.

"But he was just like, 'All you guys are going to be locked down
23½ hours for a . . . long time, because until you guys have no
COVID-19 on the unit, this unit is going to be run like this,'"
Gordon told Maier.

Gordon was recently sent to a maximum security unit after a
confrontation with a guard. He said conditions there are
significantly better because it's a newer part of the prison and
cells have doors with windows instead of bars.

The CSC said it is looking into Gordon's allegations.

Class-action lawsuit alleges negligence
Inmates at federal institutions including Stony Mountain and
SaskPen are now preparing written statements for a class-action
lawsuit launched initially on behalf of an inmate at Mission
Institution east of Vancouver.

That lawsuit has since expanded to include the whole country except
for Quebec, which operates under a different civil law system. A
certification hearing is scheduled in Vancouver for January 2022.

"Prisoners who are known to have COVID are put with prisoners who
don't have COVID. That's by definition negligent," said Jeffrey
Hartman, one of the lawyers involved in the suit.

Hartman says there is no question the federal government has failed
in its duty to protect inmates despite having adequate time to
prepare for the second wave.

Those systemic failures resulted in loss of life, widespread
illness and unprecedented restrictions of inmates' rights, he
said.

A similar class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of inmates
at Joliette Institution for Women north of Montreal. There are also
two lawsuits launched by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
and the John Howard Society, alleging the federal government
violated prisoners' charter rights by locking them down for so long
as part of COVID-19 restrictions.

None of the allegations in any of the lawsuits has been proven in
court.

Lockdown lifted
Meanwhile, range representatives from Stony Mountain's inmate
welfare committee said they were called to a meeting last week with
senior prison management.

They were told that with no active COVID-19 cases right now, some
of the lockdown restrictions are being lifted.

"The point of the meeting wasn't to apologize," said Mulata
Ibrahim, 35, a unit rep who is serving a seven-year sentence for
drug trafficking. "It was that they're trying to move forward and
saying, 'What can we do now to make it easier for you guys?'"

After the meeting, inmates started receiving food three times a day
instead of just two, and many were able to go outside for the first
time in months, Ibrahim said.

In a statement, the CSC said it has put in place extensive
infection prevention and control measures in its 43 institutions.

They include:

   -- Mandatory mask-wearing for inmates and staff.
   -- Physical distancing measures.
   -- Active health screening of anyone entering institutions.
   -- Increased and enhanced cleaning and disinfection at sites.
   -- Training 250 employees to conduct contact tracing.
   -- Carrying out significant testing among inmates and staff,
including asymptomatic individuals.

The CSC has also completed its first phase of 600 COVID-19
vaccinations, which includes an unknown number of older, medically
vulnerable inmates at Stony Mountain.

The department had no comment on the class-action lawsuits. [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Seeks Extension of Class Certification Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, Individually
And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order for extension of class certification schedule as follows:


            Event                                Deadline

   The Plaintiffs' rebuttal report(s)        March 12, 2021
   concerning class certification
   (including any backup materials):

   Expert depositions concerning             April 6-15, 2021
   class certification:

   The Plaintiffs' class certification       April 30, 2021
   motion and Daubert challenges

   The Defendants' class certification       June 30, 2021
   opposition, Daubert challenges,
   and Daubert opposition:  

   The Plaintiffs' reply brief,              July 19, 2021,  
   opposition to Daubert challenges,
   and reply to Daubert challenges
   of Defendants' expert(s):

   The Defendants' reply to Daubert          August 16, 2021
   challenges of Plaintiffs' experts:

   Class Certification Hearing               On or after
                                             September 20,
                                             2021 at a date and
                                             time convenient to
                                             the Court

The Defendants produced expert disclosures and a report concerning
class certification on December 7, 2020. The Plaintiffs require
additional time to review and respond to the complete set of the
Defendants' expert disclosures due to a family medical emergency
that will prevent the Plaintiffs' expert from completing his
rebuttal report on time, says the request.

Charles Schwab is an American multinational financial services
company founded in San Francisco, California. Headquartered in
Westlake, Texas, Charles Schwab is the 13th largest banking
institution in the United States with over US$3.3 trillion in
client assets.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Mp45jy at no extra
charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel for the
Class, are:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
          Garth Spencer, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  jrotter@glancylaw.com
                  gspencer@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          David J. Stone, Esq.
          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  stone@bespc.com
                  fortunato@bespc.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Scott Posson, are:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

Attorneys for the Defendants, are:

          Gilbert R. Serota, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3170
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: gilbert.serota@arnold.porter.com4

               - and -

          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jon W. Muenz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  jmuenz@sidley

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Pay $39MM in Tax Class-Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications Inc. must pay 118 Missouri municipalities
and St. Louis County a total of $39 million for underpaying
business taxes since 2005, a St. Louis County circuit judge has
ruled.

The judgment issued by Senior Circuit Judge Michael Jamison found
Charter excluded some taxable revenue from surcharges between 2005
and 2020. The case went to trial before a judge in August 2019.

Among the findings, the court held that Charter's
voice-over-internet protocol service establishes it as a telephone
company and thus eligible to pay certain license taxes.

A spokesperson for Charter declined comment.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 and later gained class-action
status.

The judgment says that after attorneys' fees and expenses, St.
Louis County is owed $4.1 million in back taxes. Other top payouts
include $1.6 million to St. Louis, $1.7 million to the city of St.
Charles, $1.2 million to Chesterfield and $2.1 million to O'Fallon,
Missouri.

The city of Winchester, the original plaintiff in the lawsuit, is
to receive about $17,500 after fees and expenses.

About $10 million of the total judgment goes to the plaintiffs'
attorney and legal fees.

John Mulligan, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said, "We're pleased
with the court's ruling."

He said the judgment also establishes that Charter will have to pay
an estimated $2.3 million annually in taxes to the cities in the
class.

The case likely will be appealed. [GN]



CHILDREN'S GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Children's
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00568 (S.D. N.Y., January 21,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Children's Group operates a children's toys and games company that
owns and operates the website, www.hearthsong.com, offering
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services which Children's Group ensures the delivery of throughout
the United States, including New York State. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mars Khaimov, Esq.
      MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
      10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (929) 324-0717
      Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


COMMUNITY LOANS: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bynum v. Community Loans
of America Inc., et al, Case No. (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Pamela Pepper entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Rule 26(a) Disclosures is to be exchanged by Feb. 26,
      2021.

   -- Amended Pleadings is due by May 21, 2021.

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
      due by May 21, 2021.

   -- The Plaintiff's Expert Witness List is due by August 27,
      2021.

   -- The Defendants' Expert Witness List is due by September
      30, 2021.

   -- The motions for class certification and/or decertification
      is due by November 19, 2021.

   -- The discovery is due by Feb. 18, 2022.

   -- The dispositive Motions is due by March 18, 2022.

   -- The parties to file joint status report is due by March
      18, 2022 if they choose not to file dispositive motion.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Community Loans of America Inc. provides management consulting
services.[CC]

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class-action Lawsuit on Systemic Racism
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Anton at CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit
alleging systemic racism within the Correctional Service Canada
(CSC) workplace has been launched on behalf of two Indigenous
officers who have worked for the prison agency.

In the statement of claim filed on Jan. 11 in Vancouver, plaintiffs
Jennifer Sanderson, 44, and Jennifer Constant, 46, allege they and
other racialized colleagues were treated as though they were
"inmates and not like equals" by both management and staff at CSC,
creating an "'us versus them' mentality."

The statement goes on to say that Sanderson and Constant "have
suffered serious infringement of their constitutional rights to
equality, as well as serious physical and psychological damages,
out-of-pocket expenses and loss of income."

In an emailed statement, CSC spokesperson Kyle Lawlor said the
prison agency is aware of the proposed class action lawsuit, but
wouldn't comment further as it's before the courts.

Lawlor noted measures are in place to help prevent and eliminate
racism and discrimination at CSC. He listed the implementation of a
"workplace wellness and employee well-being strategy" last fall,
which aims to make addressing such complaints easier for CSC
workers, as an example.

"CSC does not tolerate these behaviours and is committed to
providing a workplace that is healthy, supportive and free of
harassment and discrimination," he wrote. "Fostering a work
environment that is safe and inclusive for everyone is our top
priority."

'Standing for many others'
Aden Klein, the Vancouver-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs,
said this suit comes after years of pain for his clients and many
others who have been in their position.

"There are countless instances of racism outside the CSC throughout
Canada, but it's still looked at skeptically and not always
believed," he said. "[Sanderson and Constant's] voices are standing
for many others who don't feel comfortable coming forward, as the
traumatization of it would be too severe."

Sanderson, a mother of six and member of the Wahpeton Dakota Nation
in Saskatchewan, claims that in her time working at the
Saskatchewan Penitentiary between 2009 and 2017, she faced several
"pointed racial remarks" and insensitive questions.

Some of those included, "How come you aren't a drunk?" and "Why
don't you wear feathers to work?"

Constant, a member of the Deh Gah Gotie Dene Band of the Northwest
Territories, is currently on leave from her job as an Indigenous
liaison officer at the maximum-security Edmonton Institution.
Before that, she worked as a corrections officer there from 2011 to
2016.

"Her years with the CSC were grueling," the suit alleges. "During
her employment with the CSC, Ms. Constant witnessed, experienced
and endured from CSC management and staff racism, discrimination,
and verbal and abusive behaviours that were malicious, vindictive
and willful."

The suit goes on to state that Constant was passed up for
promotions as "she watched fellow non-racialized colleagues climb
the ranks," including one position that was "meant for Indigenous
CSC staff members."

The next steps
Before the suit can continue, the proposed class (all racialized
employees who worked for or with CSC) would need to be certified by
a judge. Klein said the timeline for the certification is still in
the works, but will likely be delayed due to the pandemic.

If it goes through the courts, Klein said they're hoping to see the
claimants financially compensated and, as a result of the
compensation, a "behaviour modification" by CSC and the federal
government.

"We want to see more adequate representation of racialized
individuals in management and leadership positions," he explained,
"so that if there are lower-level employees that are enduring
racism, they have somebody who they can actually complain to who
will take it seriously." [GN]

COVIA HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio captioned Baron v. Deckard, et al., (Case
No. 1:21-cv-0238) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia" or the
"Company") f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA, FMSA) securities between March
15, 2016 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until February 8, 2021
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your Covia investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/covia-holdings-corporation/.

You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On March 22, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC seeking information
relating to certain value-added proppants marketed and sold by
Fairmount Santrol or Covia within the Energy segment since January
1, 2014."

On this news, Covia's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 6.9%, to
close at $6.05 per share on March 25, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On November 6, 2019, the Company disclosed that "the SEC has
requested additional information and subpoenaed certain current and
former employees to testify."

On this news, Covia's stock price fell $0.07, or approximately
4.3%, to close at $1.56 per share on November 6, 2019.

On June 29, 2020, after the market closed, the Company announced
that it had entered into a comprehensive restructuring agreement
and voluntarily filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code.

On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating that "the
Company is no longer suitable for listing" after the announcement
that it was filing for bankruptcy.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from
a close of $0.48 per share on June 29, 2020 to the open on the OTC
on July 1, 2020 at $0.30 per share.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the Company's proprietary ' value-added'
proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand;
(2) the Company's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary
'value added' proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when
Company insiders raised this issue , the Defendants did not take
meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Covia securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 8,
2021 ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


CRST INT'L: Cervantes Suit Gets Driver Class Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE
CROSS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. And CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case
No. 20-CV-75-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. C.J. Williams Judge
entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
collective, granting in part plaintiffs' motion for issuance of
notice, and denying without prejudice to reassertion plaintiffs'
motion for equitable estoppel.

The Court specifies the following:

   1. The class is conditionally certified as amended. The
      definition of the class must be amended to reflect the
      statute-of-limitations cut-off date adjusted for equitable
      tolling from the date of the filing of the instant motion
      and to exclude persons leasing more than one truck at a
      time to CRST.

      The Plaintiffs propose that the class here should be
      defined as follows:

         "all drivers who entered into independent contractor
         operating agreements ("ICOAs") with CRST Expedited,
         Inc. at any time on [or] after the date the terms set
         forth in the Plaintiff Cervantes' ICOA were added to
         CRST Expedited's ICOAs, which was at least October 10,
         2014, if not earlier.

      The Court amended the class definition as as follows:

         "all drivers who entered into independent contractor
         operating agreements (ICOAs) with CRST Expedited, Inc.
         at any time on or after October 23, 2017, who have not
         leased more than one truck at a time to CRST;"

   2. The Court denies plaintiffs' motion for equitable estoppel
      without prejudice to reassertion but grants plaintiffs'
      motion for equitable tolling as of the date of the filing
      of the instant motion.

   3. The Defendants must provide the plaintiffs with the first
      name, last name, address, and unique identification number
      of all potential plaintiffs in a columnized Excel
      spreadsheet within 10 days of this order. The Defendants
      must also provide plaintiffs with the phone numbers and
      partial social security numbers of Drivers whose mail is
      returned as undeliverable and, if necessary, Drivers who
      have the same name.

   4. The Potential plaintiffs will have 120 days from the date
      notice issues to opt-in to this action.

   5. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send the notice as
      amended above by mail and email and to send a reminder
      postcard to Drivers who do not reply within 21 days. The
      Defendants are ordered to send the proposed message
      through their Qualcomm system at the outset of the opt-in
      period and again after 21 days.

   6. The court caption at the top of the notice may remain with
      the additional language instructing potential plaintiffs
      that they do not need to respond, or the parties may use
      plaintiffs' counsel's firm's letterhead, whichever the
      parties prefer.

The Plaintiffs are current or former truck drivers for CRST, a
motor carrier. CRST classified plaintiffs and other drivers as
independent contractors, not as employees. At the start of their
working relationship, CRST presented the Drivers with a single
packet containing a Finance Lease (the Lease) and ICOA. The Lease
gave the Drivers the option to lease a truck from CRST's
subsidiary. The mandatory ICOA required Drivers to lease their
trucks to CRST for use in hauling CRST's loads. This resulted in
many, but not all, Drivers leasing a truck from CRST's subsidiary
only to lease it back to CRST. The Plaintiffs allege this framework
shifted all operating expenses and risk onto the Drivers and
resulted in Drivers often earning less than the minimum wage or
receiving no payment at all.

CRST International is an American freight company based in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a
privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks
and annual revenues of $1.5 billion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozf86M at no extra charge.[CC]

DESTIN FIRE: Jensen FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN JENSEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DESTIN FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT, Case No. 3:20-cv-05661-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Roger Vinson entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all employees covered by the collective bargaining
      agreement (CBA) and all similarly situated individuals
      employed by the defendant within the three year period
      immediately preceding the filing of this case;

   2. approving the Notice of this case to be provided to all
      past and present employees covered by the CBA and all
      similarly situated firefighters;

   3. directing the Defendant to disclose to the plaintiff the
      names, mailing addresses, cell-phone numbers and email
      addresses of all past and present employees covered by the
      CBA and all similarly situated firefighters employed by
      the defendant within the three year period immediately
      preceding the filing of this action so that the Notice may
      be forwarded to them;

   4. directing the defendant to post a copy of the Notice in
      each of its firehouses in a conspicuous place where
      notices of wage and hour, workers' compensation,
      Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and
      other similar notices are posted; and

   5. any similarly situated employees covered by the CBA and
      similarly situated firefighters shall have 90 days from
      the date the notice is mailed to submit their opt-in forms
      to join this case.

The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to pay him and
other similarly situated employees for working overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Court's amended order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39E0wPq at no
extra charge.[CC]

DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Sexual Abuse Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on
Jan. 26 announced the filing of a federal class action sexual abuse
lawsuit in Pennsylvania on behalf of six individuals and a putative
class of thousands of other children across the U.S. against
Devereux Foundation (a/k/a Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health) and
QualityHealth Staffing, LLC. The complaint details multiple alleged
violations of state and federal law, including assault; battery;
failure to report child abuse; Title IX creation of a sexually
hostile culture/heightened risk of sexual harassment; deliberate
indifference to prior sexual harassment; negligence and failure to
provide safe environment with adequate protection, supervision, and
care; negligent hiring of unsuitable personnel; negligent retention
of unsuitable personnel; negligent supervision; gross negligence;
and negligent misrepresentation.

"The appalling, widespread allegations of the physical, emotional,
and sexual abuse of vulnerable children entrusted to Devereux's
care shine a light on this large-scale institutional child abuse,"
notes Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, who represents the
plaintiffs in the action. "Given its scale, securing immediate
relief to stop any ongoing abuses from continuing is as important
to our team as getting justice for those who have suffered the
abuses at Devereux over the years and even decades."

One of the largest behavioral health organizations in the country,
Devereux has more than 7,500 staff members across 21 facilities in
13 states. Included among Devereux's facilities and programs are
residential treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals, group homes,
supported living communities, schools, special education centers,
and outpatient programs that focus on troubled youth, including
those with autism, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and
specialty mental health needs. QualityHealth Staffing, LLC is a
subsidiary of Devereux that was formed to assist Devereux with
recruiting and retaining individuals to work in the field of
behavioral health.

Rather than fulfilling its promise and solemn responsibility to
protect children among the country's most vulnerable youth, as the
complaint alleges Devereux instead "exposed [vulnerable youth] to
predators and abusers . . . failed to enact safety measures and
other policies to protect the children, failed to adequately
screen, hire, train, and supervise staff, and failed to fulfill its
duties under state and federal law." As a result of Devereux's
alleged misconduct, children in Devereux facilities across the
country have been reportedly sexually abused - often by Devereux
staff.

As reported by the media, some sexual abuse cases against Devereux
have already gone to court, including one that led to a jury
verdict of $60 million for the plaintiff victim. Widespread media
attention has focused on the sexual abuse allegations against
Devereux; in August 2020, the Philadelphia Inquirer released a
devastating report detailing decades of sexual, physical, and
emotional abuse inflicted upon these especially vulnerable children
by Devereux staff members. The report revealed that "at least 41
children as young as 12, and with IQs as low as 50, have been raped
or sexually assaulted by Devereux staff members in the last 25
years."

"Given not just the breadth and severity of the allegations against
Devereux, but also the sheer number of children still residing
under Devereux's control and supervision," notes Sauder Schelkopf
partner Joe Sauder, who also represents the plaintiffs, "we are
committed to moving this case forward and getting protection and
justice for our clients and the larger class as quickly as
possible."

The complaint goes on to allege that after the Inquirer's August
2020 report was published, an additional 13 former Devereux
students came forward about the sexual abuse they experienced.
These children were as young as 8 years old when they were
reportedly sexually abused. Twelve of the children were allegedly
abused in Pennsylvania Devereux facilities, and one was allegedly
abused in a Delaware facility. Seven of those children reportedly
complained to Devereux staff or a social worker while the abuse was
happening, but their complaints were allegedly ignored, and the
abuse continued.

The complaint includes allegations of the rape and sexual abuse of
inpatient clients as well as abuses committed by fellow inpatients
that were ignored and/or suppressed by Devereux staff and
management. Some patients who raised such allegations claim they
were not only disregarded but punished for initiating complaints,
including the withholding of food, physical restraint, isolation,
and even physical abuse. The lawsuit seeks damages as well as
injunctive relief to enjoin Devereux and QualityHealth Staffing
from continuing any alleged conduct that threatens imminent harm to
the proposed class -- vulnerable children drawn from more than a
dozen U.S. states.

"Protecting children from abuse is the highest calling in our
society," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P. Chalos, who also
represents the plaintiffs. "We intend to hold the wrongdoers
accountable and to prevent them from endangering children in the
future."

Contacts:
Joseph G. Sauder
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (888) 711-9975
jgs@sstriallawyers.com

Annika K. Martin
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Tel. (212) 355-9500
akmartin@lchb.com [GN]


EQT CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASBURY, et al., v. EQT
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01005 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
      briefing;

   2. denying without prejudice the motion for class
      certification.

The nature of suit states Real Property - All Other Real Property.

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal
and Local Rules and procedures is problematical, and prejudicial.
The Plaintiffs' deadline for moving for class certification is
reset for Feb. 5. 2021. The Defendants' response now is due by
March 8, 2021. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due by March 22,
2021. The Plaintiffs' Motion to extend the page limit is granted,
but only to the extent that both sides may submit an additional 10
pages for their opening briefs. Finally, the Defendants' Motion to
strike the Plaintiffs' experts is denied as moot, without
prejudice, the Court says.

As to the putative experts, in renewing their motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs must be prepared to offer good-faith,
legally supportable arguments for proceeding in the face of any
failures or deficiencies in complying with applicable Federal
Rules; and, if there are none, to withdraw their reliance on the
experts, the Court added.

EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration and pipeline transport.[CC]


EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
------------------------------------------------------------
Mendi Yoshikawa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, ANDREW P.
SWIGER, and DAVID S. ROSENTHAL, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-G (N.D.
Tex., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased
or otherwise acquired Exxon securities between November 6, 2019 and
January 14, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials, with regard to the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic assumptions
regarding the timelines for well drilling in the Permian Basin;
(ii) the foregoing assumptions served to artificially inflate the
value of the Company's well operations in the Permian Basin; (iii)
the foregoing conduct, when revealed, subjected Exxon to a
heightened risk of regulatory investigation and oversight; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

The complaint further asserts that on January 15, 2021, pre-market,
the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Exxon Draws
SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset Valuation." The article reported
that the SEC probe stemmed from a whistleblower complaint that,
during a 2019 internal assessment, workers were forced to use
unrealistic assumptions about how quickly wells in the Permian
Basin could be drilled to reach a higher valuation, and that at
least one worker who complained about the assumptions was fired. On
this news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%, to
close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Exxon securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Exxon explores for and produces crude oil and natural gas in the
U.S. and abroad.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Phone: (972) 521-6868
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 for BIPA Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Lauterbach, writing for Chicago Crusader, reports that about
1.6 million Illinoisans with a Facebook page who joined a
class-action lawsuit could get about $350 in the coming months as
part of a settlement.

The checks are from a $650 million settlement that alleged the
social media giant violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

One out of every five eligible Facebook users filed a claim before
the Nov. 23 deadline. Christopher Dore, partner at Edelson PC, said
the turnout was high for a typical class action lawsuit.

"There were 1.6 million claims filed, which is really remarkable
for a class-action," he said. "Often in class actions, it's in the
single digits."

The figures were released during a final approval hearing in
California federal. The payouts could still get tangled up further
in court.

"If there are no appeals, we hope that checks would be distributed
in the next two-or-so months after that. If there are appeals, it
becomes a little bit more unpredictable and, unfortunately, could
extend out many more months after that," Dore said.

Those who qualified aren't necessarily Illinoisans but could be
former residents.

To qualify for the class action, you had to be one of the
approximately 7 million Facebook users that had a profile after
June of 2011. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans have
left the state, most commonly heading to Florida, Texas, Tennessee,
Arizona, or neighboring states. They would qualify as long as they
lived in the state for at least six months during that near-decade
window.

Dore said the estimated payout is still in line with their initial
estimate of between $200 and $400 but was slightly lowered after a
last-minute rush of Facebook users seeking class participation just
before the deadline.

The suit was initially filed in 2015 by Edelson, claiming
Facebook's facial recognition feature was taking biometric data
from users without their express permission, a central tenet of
BIPA.

Illinois' law is unique in that it's the only one of its kind that
allows for private action, whereas other states rely on their
attorney general to file suit.

Fines for breaking BIPA start at $1,000 per instance and can be
upgraded to $5,000 if it can be proven that the accused
purposefully broke the statute. [GN]


FEDERAL PACIFIC: Blair Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YVETTE N. BLAIR, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL PACIFIC
CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., AND JOHN DOES 1
TO 10, Defendants, Case No. 20-4100 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.

The putative class action arises under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The Plaintiff, Ms. Blair, received a letter from
Convergent regarding a debt owned by Federal Pacific.

Ms. Blair is subject to an alleged financial obligation arising
from a Verizon account, although she disputes the obligation. The
account allegedly went into default, and Federal Pacific purchased
the debt from Verizon. Defendant Convergent sent Blair a collection
letter. At the time the Letter was sent, a claim based on the debt
would have been barred by the statute of limitations.

In April 2020, Ms. Blair brought the suit against Federal Pacific,
Convergent, and John Does 1 to 10, alleging violations of the
FDCPA, which requires certain notifications and prohibits the use
of false, deceptive or misleading representations or unfair
practices to collect a debt.  She alleges that Defendants violated
Sections 1692 e, f, and g of the FDCPA.

The Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that:
(1) the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege a "debt" as defined
in the Act; (2) the Letter clearly conveys to the least
sophisticated debtor the identity of the original creditor and the
amount of the debt; and (3) the Letter clearly conveys to the least
sophisticated debtor the legal status of the debt, despite the
expiration of the statute of limitations.

The Defendants' first proffered basis for dismissal is that the
complaint does not sufficiently allege that the obligation at issue
is a "debt" under the FDCPA. District Judge Kevin McNulty agrees,
and will grant the motion to dismiss on this basis.

The Complaint alleges that the debt arose from matters "which were
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Judge
McNulty holds that these are legal conclusions, parroting the
statutory language, not factual allegations. The only clue to the
nature of the debt is the listing of "Verizon" as "original
creditor." The Court might speculate as to the household nature of
such a debt, but cannot do so consistent with the standards of Rule
12(b)(6). The Court will, therefore, dismiss the complaint, but
without prejudice to an amendment that describes the underlying
debt.

Ms. Blair's complaint alleges that the Letter was misleading or
unfair, relying on Sections e and f of the FDCPA, including 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e(2), (5) and (10) and Section 1692f(1). She
argues that, given the expiration of the statute of limitations,
the Letter might mislead the reader as to the status of the debt,
in two respects: (1) its offer to "discount" the debt, and (2) its
offer to "satisfy" the account.

According to the Opinion, the front of the Letter prominently boxes
or highlights three "ways to pay" and three "opportunities," which
consist of payment plans. The former are in the body of the Letter,
and the latter in the detachable payment coupon. These are all
options for payment; a fourth option, however, might be doing
nothing while suffering no legal repercussions at all.

As to the disclosure of that fourth option, a factor favorable to
the Defendants is the Letter's notification, on the second page,
that because of the age of the debt, neither Federal Pacific nor
Convergent can sue on it or report it to a credit reporting agency.
That paragraph also vaguely warns that, "in many circumstances,"
making "certain payments" on the debt or promising to pay it might
revive the creditor's right to sue. The issue then becomes whether
that disclosure, placed in the legal language on the back of the
Letter, is prominent enough or clear enough to negate any
misleading effect that might be found.

Judge McNulty writes that he does not resolve these issues in
advance of any amended complaint. Rather, he states them as issues
that should be considered in connection with preparation of any
amended complaint, as well as any motion challenging it. These
issues may eventually require resolution -- whether legally, via
motion to dismiss, or factually, via summary judgment or trial.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted based on
the failure to allege factually that this is a household debt. That
dismissal is entered without prejudice to the filing of a proposed
amended complaint within 30 days. In light of the discussion, a
formal motion to amend will not be required.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4xh9o95 from Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Weidman Wins Protective Order in Suit Over Brake Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-12719 (E.D. Mich.), the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an
Opinion and Order resolving several motions and requests, including
granting of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Protective Order.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers and lessees of 2013 through 2018 Ford
F-150 trucks. They allege that the Defendant was aware of, and
failed to disclose, a dangerous defect in the front brake master
cylinder of the Plaintiffs' F-150 trucks.

In their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege the brake master cylinder in the Class Vehicles
contain a defective sealing mechanism that is inadequate to prevent
brake fluid from leaking out and into the brake booster and other
components such as the reservoir. The defect results in an
extremely hazardous situation in which a Class Vehicle's brakes
will fail to properly function. In addition to alleging that the
Defendant knew and failed to disclose the master cylinder defect,
the Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendant's recall was
ineffective, both because it failed to cover all Class Vehicles, as
well as because the proposed repair does not resolve the issue.

In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The claims that remain are the
Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims. In April 2020, the Defendant sought
the Plaintiffs' agreement in regard to the entry of a protective
order for the production of documents containing Ford's
confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. The parties
lodge various attacks against each other regarding the delay in
reaching an agreement regarding entry of a protective order.

The Court's October 27, 2020 Case Management Order set February 26,
2021, as the discovery cutoff and January 4, 2021, as the deadline
for expert reports. On September 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs served
their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on
Defendant. The Plaintiffs served 61 Requests to Produce, which
included 37 subparts, as well as served 8 Interrogatories. On
October 26, 2020, the Defendant served its Responses and Objections
to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have yet to produce any
documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests to Produce Nos.
2-6, 8-10, 12-15, 20-39, 42-43,2 46-48, and 56-59, which seek
reports, analyses, electronic communications and warranty data. The
Plaintiffs further complain that the Defendant has failed to fully
respond to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Request No. 2. The
Defendant counters that it timely responded to each and every
discovery request, along with asserting objections as to why the
Plaintiffs' requests were otherwise overly broad, unduly
burdensome, or sought irrelevant information. The Defendant argues
that it has not produced the documents responsive to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests at issue herein because of the
failure of the parties to reach an agreement concerning the
proposed protective order's language.

On December 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the
expert deadline cutoff for a period of 90 days due to the
Defendant's outstanding discovery production. On January 4, 2021,
the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to extend in part and
extended the expert report deadline to January 18, 2021. Because
the Defendant has failed to fully respond to the Plaintiffs'
discovery requests, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting a short extension to the expert report
deadline on January 7, 2021.

The parties agree that entry of a protective order is appropriate
in order to protect the production of confidential and trade secret
information. However, the parties have reached an impasse
concerning three issues. Specifically, the parties cannot agree on
the categories of individuals, who may access Ford's confidential
information, the right of Ford to unilaterally redact information
it deems "completely irrelevant Highly Confidential Information
unrelated to the claims, defenses, or allegations at issue in this
case," and finally, the process by which the parties may file
confidential information with the Court.

The Plaintiff seeks to include in the definition of qualified
persons, who may access confidential discovery material in subparts
(g) and (h) of the proposed protective order's paragraph number 7
as: (g) Custodians, authors and recipients of the documents, and
(h) When reasonably necessary, a deponent or testifying witness,
former employee of a Party, or other potential deponent or witness
who is already familiar with or reasonably expected to know the
information reflected in the Discovery Material, as demonstrated by
the fact that: (i) he or she was identified in the course of
discovery as having previously received or having knowledge of (a)
the designated material, (b) information contained in it, or, (c)
in the case of material concerning a meeting, telephone call, or
other communication, as having participated in such meeting, call,
or communication; or (ii) the Discovery Material makes specific
reference to the conduct or statement of the deponent or testifying
witness.

The parties' next dispute concerns the redaction of information
deemed irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The
Plaintiffs' proposed language is consistent with the Court's
decision in Gamboa v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-cv-10106, supra.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' proposed paragraph 14 states in
relevant part: "Defendant may redact Highly Confidential
information if it is irrelevant under these three criteria: (1) the
information is not related in any way to Ford's braking systems,
(2) the information involves confidential proprietary information
of a nonparty that Ford is bound by agreement, order, or law to
protect, and (3) it is readily apparent that the information falls
within (1) and (2). If it is not readily apparent to Plaintiffs
that redacted information is irrelevant under this criteria, the
Parties must meet and confer before bringing any dispute under this
paragraph before the Court."

Upon review of the parties' briefs, the Court rejects the
Defendant's proposed language in paragraph 14. District Judge
Gershwin A. Drain explains that the Defendant's proposed language
for redacting Highly Confidential information will cause further
delay of the instant proceedings by requiring multiple meet and
confers and Court involvement if the parties are at an impasse
concerning Ford's determination that the information is irrelevant.
The parties' proposed protective order accounts for "Highly
Confidential" designations and restricts the individuals, who are
able to view these documents. Because of this protection, relevance
redactions are unnecessary and improper, and this district has
rejected the propriety of such redactions.

Ford's assertion that this authority is inapposite because these
decisions involved "extensive redactions" or a non-party's
redactions is unavailing, Judge Drain holds. The number of
redactions or whether said redactions are made by a party or
non-party are irrelevant to the outcome of these cases. The case
law demonstrates that relevance redactions are generally
inappropriate, particularly here, where the Plaintiffs have agreed
to Ford's request for a Highly Confidential designation that
severely restricts access to this type of document.

Based on these considerations, the Court will adopt the Plaintiffs'
proposed paragraph 14 and will reject the Defendant's proposal,
which provides the Defendant unfettered discretion to redact
purported irrelevant information causing unnecessary burden to the
Plaintiffs should they suspect a redaction is improper and
continued delay with the production of discovery.

Finally, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement
concerning the filing of confidential material with the Court. The
Plaintiffs' proposal to follow Local Rule 5.3 for filing documents
under seal is appropriate. The Defendant seeks to require an
onerous process for submission of such documents with unworkable
deadlines and the potential for more court involvement and delay.
The Court has adopted and approved of a procedure for filing
confidential material under seal and Ford fails to persuade this
Court that this case warrants a departure from the Court's local
rules.

Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed
paragraph 16 and will reject Ford's burdensome and unworkable
process for filing confidential information with the Court.

In their Motion to Compel, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant
has failed to produce any electronic communications or reports and
analyses related to the design, testing, validation and release of
all iterations of the master cylinder, the durability, reliability
and life cycle, including the projected, expected or anticipated
useful life of the Class Vehicles' brake system, specifics
concerning quality control measures undertaken during the master
cylinder's manufacturing process, and finally, electronic
communications related to the master cylinder and its purported
defect.

The Plaintiffs further complain that Ford indicated it would
produce the requested documents within sixty days of the
Plaintiffs' requests to produce. However, it has been more than 120
days, and the Defendant has yet to complete its production.
Moreover, the Plaintiff highlights that Ford's reliance on the
absence of a protective order to support its delay in production is
disingenuous considering the Defendant's proposed language was
unsupported by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's
local rules and the Gamboa decision.

Judge Drain holds, because the Plaintiffs' claims and discovery
requests relate to the design, testing, validation, and release of
the relevant brake system components, which by their nature predate
the release of the first sale of a class vehicle in 2013, their
requests are not, as argued by the Defendant, a fishing expedition.
The Plaintiffs' claims require that they establish what the
Defendant knew about the brake Master Cylinder defect and when it
knew it.

The Plaintiffs' requests seeking "all documents and
communications," related to "the design of the Class Vehicle's
Master Cylinder assembly and each component part within the
assembly," are targeted to the issues herein and that involve Class
Vehicles spanning a six-year period. Thus, the Plaintiffs'
discovery requests are not overly broad or disproportionate. For
these reasons, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel.

The Plaintiffs also move for reconsideration of this Court's
January 4, 2021 Order granting in part their motion to extend the
expert report deadline in this Court's October 27, 2020 Case
Management Order. The Plaintiffs argue that at the time the Court
issued its January 4, 2021 decision, Ford had yet to produce the
outstanding document requests even though the record before the
Court suggested that the Defendant would make its document
production no later than December 25, 2020.

Judge Drain states that the Court was misled when it rendered its
decision because the record before the Court at that time suggested
that the Defendants had already completed their document production
in response to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests. This amounts to
an obvious defect. The correction of this defect will result in a
different result -- namely, an extension to the case management
order's deadlines, including the expert report deadlines.

The parties spend much of their briefing lodging accusations
against each other as to where the blame should be placed for the
outstanding document production, Judge Drain notes. The Defendant
claims the Plaintiffs were dilatory in responding to its proposed
protective order. However, based on the arguments raised by Ford in
regard to the protective order's proposed language, the Court deems
Ford's positions untenable. Ford's position with regard to the
outstanding issues was unreasonable and, therefore, the delay in
production based on the failure to enter a protective order cannot
solely be placed on the Plaintiffs.

Judge Drain observes that more than 120 days have passed since the
Plaintiffs served their requests to produce, and the bulk of the
outstanding production concerns discovery relevant to the brake
master cylinder system's design, testing, validation, and release
of the relevant brake system components, among other relevant
issues related to the brake master cylinder, as well as all
electronic communications concerning same. An extension to the case
management order's dates is, therefore, warranted. The Court will
also grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in the Court's Opinion and
Order, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Protective Order is
granted, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted, and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is granted.

Ford will produce discovery responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests
to Produce Nos. 2-6, 8-10, 12-15, 20-39, 42-43, 46-48, and 56-59,
as well as the Plaintiff's Interrogatory Request No. 2 no later
than February 5, 2021.

The Plaintiff's deadline to submit a proposed protective order
consistent with the Opinion was on January 27, 2021, at noon.

The Court will require an expedited briefing schedule concerning
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of ESI Protocol, filed on January
15, 2021. It will schedule a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Entry of ESI Protocol for February 3, 2021, at 10:30 a.m.

The Court's October 27, 2020 case management order's dates are
amended as follows:

   * Plaintiffs' expert report deadline: March 22, 2021;

   * Defendant's expert report deadline: April 19, 2021;

   * Discovery cutoff: May 10, 2021;

   * Dispositive and Class Certification Motions due: June 1,
     2021;

   * Facilitation with Robert F. Riley of Riley and Hurley, P.C.:
     May 5, 2021 per stipulated order at ECF No. 95;

   * Hearing on Dispositive and Class Action motions: July 28,
     2021, at 2:00 p.m.;

   * Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.
     Stafford: August of 2021;

   * Motions in Limine deadline: September 1, 2021;

   * Final Pretrial Order due: September 1, 2021;

   * Final Pretrial Conference: September 7, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.;
     and

   * Jury Trial (1-2 full weeks): September 21, 2021,
     at 9:00 a.m.

The parties are advised that all the policies and procedures set
forth in the Court's October 27, 2020 Case Management Order remain
in effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 25,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y34xfkl5 from
Leagle.com.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiofalo FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH A. CHIOFALO, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS,
LLP, RONALD FORSTER and MARK A. GARBUS, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-487(SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff Chiofalo commenced thw putative
class action against Defendants Forster & Garbus ("F&G"), Forster
and Garbus, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

F&G sent a letter, dated January 24, 2018, to the Plaintiff seeking
to collect a balance of $3,655 in the effort to collect a credit
card debt he owed to Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD"). The upper
right corner of the Collection Letter reads, "FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP
A NEW YORK LAW FIRM" and lists the names of attorneys associated
with F&G. Below that, the letter provides, "BALANCE DUE as of
January 24, 2018 203a $3,655.11", below that is a reference number,
below that is the last four digits of an account number, and
directly below the account number it states, "Re 203a BARCLAYS BANK
DELAWARE."

The main text of the letter reads, in relevant part, "Your account
has been placed with this office for collection. If you request
this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice,
this office will provide you with the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Please
note that we are required, under federal law, to advise you that we
are debt collectors." A detachable section at the bottom of the
letter states, "MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FOSTER & GARBUS LLP as
attorneys" and again provides the balance due and states, "Re 203a
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE." The letter does not include any language
indicating that the debt was transferred, sold or assigned.

Initially, since the Plaintiff does not specifically oppose, or
otherwise address, so much of the Defendants' motion as seeks
summary judgment dismissing his claims seeking to impose personal
liability upon Forster and Garber, they seemingly abandoned those
claims, District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein notes, citing Jackson
v. Federal Express, 766 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, the branch of the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure dismissing the Plaintiff's claims seeking to impose
personal liability upon Forster and Garber is granted and the
Defendants are granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing the
Plaintiff's claims seeking to impose personal liability upon
Forster and Garber in their entirety with prejudice.

The Plaintiff claims that the Collection Letter violates the
provisions of the FDCPA by failing to properly identify the
creditor. Judge Feuerstein finds that the debt collection letter at
issue clearly identifies the creditor, inter alia, by twice
providing, in bold, capital letters, "Re 203a BARCLAYS BANK
DELAWARE," both near the top of the letter and on the detachable
payment slip; by providing the last four (4) digits of the BBD
account number directly above the "Re" line at the top of the
letter; and by indicating, also in capital letters, the balance due
several lines above the "Re" line, at both the top of the letter
and on the detachable payment slip.

Since the context of the Collection Letter, read as a whole,
implicitly makes clear that Barclays Bank Delaware is the current
creditor, the Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of the FDCPA,
Judge Feuerstein opines. Accordingly, the branch of the Defendants'
motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 dismissing the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims alleging that the Collection Letter fails
to properly identify the creditor is granted and the Defendants are
granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing those claims in
their entirety with prejudice.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the collection notice he received
was misleading in violation of the FDCPA because it contained the
phrase "Balance Due as of January 24, 2018," which could lead the
least sophisticated consumer to falsely believe that his balance
might increase. However, the first sentence in the section of the
Plaintiff's opposition brief addressing the "as of" language
states, "It is undisputed that the debt was static," Judge
Feuerstein notes.

Thus, the branch of the Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 dismissing the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims
challenging the "as of" language in the Collection Letter as
misleading is granted and the Defendants are granted judgment as a
matter of law dismissing those claims in their entirety with
prejudice.

For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 is granted and the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The
Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y24kr555 from Leagle.com.


FRESH FARMS: March 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANYALE YARGER, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. FRESH FARMS, LLC, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02767-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order extending until March 26, 2021 the time to file a
Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

On August 12, 2020, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
stating that "Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this
Order to conduct class certification and damages-related discovery
and file a renewed motion for class certification." Ninety days
from the Court's August 12, 2020 Memorandum and Order was November
10, 2020, at which time Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to extend this deadline by 30 days, until December 10, 2020.
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. On
December 9, 2020, Plaintiff sought a second extension of 45 days,
or until Monday January 25, 2021, for the time period by which
Plaintiff is to file a renewed Motion for Class Certification. The
Court granted this extension. Following the prior extensions, the
parties have continued to communicate about outstanding discovery
requests and also about a potential individual settlement. This
third extension is sought to facilitate and hopefully conclude
these discussions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NOPFJO
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:

          Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          BOULWARE L AW LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Tele/Fax: (816) 492-2826
          E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com
                  jeremy@boulware-law.com

GC SERVICES: Feb. 4 Extension to Class Status Bid Opposition Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiDonato, Francis v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 1:20-02154-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants GC Services Limited Partnership and
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. asks the court for a
one-week extension of time for them to serve their oppositions to
the motion of Plaintiff Francis DiDonato seeking class
certification from January 28, 2021 until February 4, 2021.

The Defendants say that no previous requests for extension of this
deadline have been made. They have communicated with the
Plaintiff's counsel and he consented to our request. Moreover, the
parties agreed that if the Defendants' request is granted, the
Plaintiff's time to serve his reply should also be extended by one
week from February 9, 2021 to February 16, 2021, the Defendants
added.

GC Services provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.

A copy of the joint letter motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pRTSLb at no extra
charge.[CC]

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: Kyo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Golden State Warriors, LLC and Does 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00521 (N.D. Cal., January
21, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action,
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Golden State Warriors operates "Warriors Shop." Its website --
https://shop.warriors.com/ -- provides consumers with access to new
styles, featured deals, men's shoes and accessories, women's shoes
and accessories, outdoor shoes, golf shoes, and sale items. Brooks
is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Criticizes Halliburton Fraud Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs
informed the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 25 that the court's 2014
ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund has been, well, a
flop.

But the bank told the justices they can change that! What the
Supreme Court needs to do, Goldman's lawyers at Paul, Weiss,
Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison argued in the bank's opening brief in
Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, is remind
lower courts just how much leeway defendants are supposed to have
in opposing shareholder fraud class actions.

In the 2014 decision, as you surely remember, the Supreme Court
left intact the structural premise of securities class actions, in
which shareholders are entitled to a presumption of reliance on
defendants' alleged misrepresentations as long as they can show the
company's shares traded in an efficient market. (That premise, in
turn, is based on the idea that in an efficient market, the share
price reflects all public information.)

But the Halliburton decision emphasized that defendants can rebut
that presumption of reliance -- and thus prevent shareholders from
being certified as a class. The Supreme Court said in Halliburton
that securities class action defendants are entitled to offer
evidence that their alleged misrepresentations did not actually
affect the price of their companies' shares. If defendants can
break the chain between its share price and the alleged fraud, the
court said in Halliburton, then shareholders can't litigate as a
class.

Since that 2014 decision, Goldman said in the January 25 brief,
Halliburton has benefited defendants in a grand total of five
cases, one at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co, 818 F.3d 775) and four in trial
courts. By Goldman Sachs' reckoning, no securities class action
defendant has managed to rebut the presumption of reliance since
2018. And they've had plenty of chances: Shareholders have filed
more than 2,000 securities class actions since the Supreme Court's
Halliburton ruling.

The record in cases positing a so-called price maintenance theory
is even worse for defendants, Goldman said. These cases, as I've
explained, are a twist on classic shareholder class actions in
which plaintiffs allege that a company's share price rose in
response to a fraudulent statement and then fell when the truth was
disclosed. In price maintenance cases, shareholders allege that a
company's misrepresentations allowed its share price to remain at
an unwarranted height. The extent of the fraud, according to price
maintenance theory, is revealed by the drop in the company's share
price when the truth emerges.

This theory -- which underlies the Goldman class action, as I'll
explain -- has become increasingly prevalent in shareholder fraud
class actions in the last several years, with endorsements by the
2nd, 7th and 11th Circuits. A 2019 Harvard Law Review study found
that 60% of a sample of shareholder class action filings between
2014 and 2017 were based on price maintenance. And Halliburton has
proved to be singularly ineffective in defeating class
certification in these cases. According to Goldman's brief,
defendants in price maintenance cases have never successfully
invoked Halliburton to defeat class certification.

The problem, according to Goldman, is that lower courts have failed
to strike the proper balance between Halliburton and previous
Supreme Court decisions. In 2013's Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement
Plans, the court held that shareholders are not required to prove
the materiality of a defendant's alleged misrepresentations in
order to be certified as a class. And in a precursor to the 2014
Halliburton decision, the justices said in a 2011 decision known as
Halliburton I that shareholders don't have to prove price impact at
the class certification stage.

Goldman argued that its case exemplifies the imbalance. Goldman
shareholders allege that the company's share price was artificially
inflated by statements about its business principles, such as
avoiding conflicts of interest and putting customers first.
Shareholders posited that when Goldman fell under government
investigation for an alleged conflict of interest in the
structuring of four collateralized debt offerings, including the
Abacus CDO that led the bank to a $550 million settlement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the market realized the falsity
of the bank's statements of business principle. They attributed
declines in Goldman's share price to the allegedly fraudulent
statements of business principles.

Goldman contends - and has expert testimony to back the contention
- that declines in its share price were unrelated to those
statements. The bank's experts offered evidence that the market did
not react to dozens of news reports on Abacus and other CDOs but
was spooked when the government began investigating. The share
price drop, according to the bank, wasn't because investors
realized Goldman's generic statements were false. Those statements,
it argued, were not material to investors and had no impact on the
price of its shares.

When the 2nd Circuit upheld certification of the shareholder class
in Goldman's case, the majority said the bank's emphasis on the
generic, anodyne nature of the alleged misstatements was an attempt
to "smuggle" materiality into litigation over class certification.

That approach, Goldman told the Supreme Court, undermines the
intent of the justices' 2014 Halliburton decision, making it
virtually impossible for defendants to rebut the presumption that
investors relied on alleged misstatements. The bank called on the
Supreme Court to make it clear to the lower courts that they must
take defendants' evidence on materiality and price impact into
account during class certification litigation. Amgen and
Halliburton I hold that investors are not required to prove those
elements at the class certification stage, but, Goldman argued,
those rulings do not preclude trial and appellate courts from
looking at defendants' evidence rebutting the presumption of
reliance. Defendants' price impact evidence at the class
certification stage, Goldman said, may overlap with evidence on the
merits of shareholders' claims.

It's time, the bank said, for the Supreme Court to clarify that "a
court may not refuse to consider evidence relevant to price impact
merely because it is also relevant to materiality and loss
causation."

I asked the Arkansas pension fund's Supreme Court counsel, Thomas
Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, for comment on Goldman's brief
but didn't hear back. [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00175, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired GoodRx securities
between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GoodRx securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 16, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

GoodRx purports to provide consumers with free information and
tools that allow them to compare prices and save on their
prescription drug purchases. The Company purports to provide its
users with these services via apps and websites that display prices
and discounts at local and mail-order pharmacies for both insured
and uninsured Americans.

At the time of the Company's September 2020 initial public offering
("IPO"), unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") was
developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile
prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would
directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it
was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical
business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the
common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money
the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Defendants were aware that Amazon had been in
the process of developing and would soon introduce its own online
and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment
service, and timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon
announced its online pharmaceutical business; (ii) accordingly,
Defendants timed the IPO to create artificial demand for the common
shares sold therein; (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its IPO,
Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a
discount card program, which, among other things, would compete
directly with GoodRx's platform by making it "simple for customers
to compare prices and purchase medications for home delivery, all
in one place."

That same day, CNBC.com reported that Amazon Prime members would
now have access to discounts of up to 80% on generic medications
and up to 40% on brand-name prescriptions through its relationship
with the Inside Rx savings program. This competitive pricing posed
a severe threat to GoodRx's business model.

On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock fell $10.51 per
share, or 23%, to close at $36.21 per share on November 17, erasing
more than $4 billion of the Company's market capitalization on
extremely heavy trading volume of over 23 million shares traded.

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]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 26 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021

Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020

Allegations against NAK include that: (1) the Company's Pebble
Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the
public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project
would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public;
(3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble
Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021

Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020

Allegations against GDRX include that: at the time of the IPO,
unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would
soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and
the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's
competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge,
defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged
herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020

Allegations against QS include that: (1) that the Company's
purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery
life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that
the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Jan. 26 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of GTT Communications,
Inc. (NYSE: GTT) between May 5, 2016 and November 9, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=gtt-communications-inc-2&id=2554
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=gtt-communications-inc-2&id=2554

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 15, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that- the Company's internal controls suffered from issues related
to the recording and reporting of Cost of Telecommunications
Services; the Company's previously reported Cost of
Telecommunications was inaccurate or accounted for unsupported
adjustments; inadequate internal controls would result in delays in
the Company's 10-Q quarterly reports; and as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Bid to Continue Class Certification Deadlines Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MOSHTAGH, an
individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-01205-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez
entered an order denying motion to continue class certification
deadlines.

The Court said, "Home Depot has failed to demonstrate diligence in
obtaining the surveillance videos in question. The Court is well
aware of the challenges caused by the current pandemic and the
safety measures that must be taken. However, Home Depot's position
that it cannot collect video evidence from stores that are
currently open to the public strikes the Court as poorly supported
and potentially disingenuous. It is not enough for Home Depot to
submit a paragraph from an HR director stating that it is
impossible to send in "specialized personnel" to some backroom of
an open and operating Home Depot. The Court can easily imagine how
such would be possible to perform in a safe way. It is also not
clear from the record why existing staff at a Home Depot cannot
access or handle the security footage of the store they run and
send it to the "specialized personnel." Home Depot has had many
months to work out a way to do this safely. What Home Depot has
submitted in terms of evidence to support this Motion fails to
demonstrate diligence. Given all of the above, and after reviewed
the briefing, along with the remainder of the record, the Court
hereby finds and orders that Defendant Home Depot's Motion to
Continue Class Certification Deadlines, is denied."

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Home Depot's Motion
to Continue Class Certification Deadlines. This case was originally
filed in 2019 with a class certification deadline in April 2020.
Class certification deadlines were continued twice by stipulation
of the parties, the second time due to difficulties caused by the
pandemic.

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. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ao69QJ at no extra charge.[CC]

HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Settlement Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issues final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
entitled APRIL BECERRA-SOUTH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY,
INC., d/b/a APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. CV 18-08348-CJC(FFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

On January 25, 2021, the Court conducted a hearing on the
Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion in Support of Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, including Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's
Fees and Costs.

It approves the Settlement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of
Class and Representative Action Settlement and the Notice of Class
Action Settlement.

It also certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure:

     all individuals formerly employed by Defendant
     Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc. in California who
     were paid hourly and who were beneficiaries of The Act 1
     Group, Inc.'s VEBA Trust between May 16, 2014 to October 5,
     2020.

The Court approves Michael Gould of Gould & Associates, PLC, as the
Class Counsel, and Plaintiff April Becerra-South as the Class
Representative, including enhancement award of $5,000.

It appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.  It
approves the $10,500 Claims Administration Fee to be paid to CPT
Group.

The Court approves the Class Counsel's request for Attorney's Fees
in the amount of $144,170.45 (25% of the common fund after
deducting counsel's and the settlement administrator's fees) and
$12,818.21 in Costs.  Lastly, it approves the $7,500 LWDA Payment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2m93bj2 from Leagle.com.


ICHIBAN GROUP: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zhang v. Ichiban Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00148 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae
A D'Agostino entered an order granting the Defendant's request for
an extension of time to submit a response to plaintiff Motion to
Certify Class:

   -- The Defendant's response deadline is extended to Feb. 4,
      2021.

   -- The Plaintiff's Reply to Response to Motion deadline is
      extended to Feb. 11, 2021.

   -- The motion will be decided on the submission of the papers
      only.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ichiban Group is one of the pioneers in the Active Participation
Management.[CC]

KANYE WEST: Faces Class-Action Lawsuits Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
dailymail.co.uk reports that Kanye West is facing two class-action
lawsuits and could be hit with $30 million in damages over claims
he mistreated and failed to pay up to 1,000 performers and
backstage staff at his popular Service shows.   

The lawsuits relate to around 500 performers and 300 backstage
staff who worked at the 43-year-old rapper's extravagant, part
Christian worship and part live performance shows that he has been
taking across the US since 2019.

Lawyers for the workers claim that during West's first 'opera', the
'Nebuchadnezzar' at The Hollywood Bowl, in Los Angeles, in November
2019, he violated strict employment laws in California for hundreds
of performers and backstage crew including hair stylists, make-up
artists and costume designers, as well as actors hired to sit in
the audience.

Allegations include not paying hundreds of employees on time, or
'at all' in some cases, as well as not granting the overtime wages,
meal and rest breaks and business expenses to which they were
legally entitled as employees in the state, rather than individual
contractors.

It is estimated West could face up to $30 million in damages if he
contests the lawsuits, a source told The Sun.  

In August last year, West was also sued by MyChannel Inc. who
claimed that West stole some of its technology for his Service show
after its employees worked on it, unpaid, for six-months.

One lawsuit, filed by LA employment lawyer Frank Kim in August,
concentrates on the performers, which totals over 500 people.

The other, filed by entertainment attorneys Harris & Ruble, centres
on behind-the scenes staff of around 300 people.

Hair stylist Raina Leon, representing the backstage employees,
claimed in documents filed in July last year at The Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, that West, as well as
affiliate companies Live Nation Worldwide, Art Partner, and
producers, did not pay her the $550 she was owed for 120 days.

When she was paid, Leon claims that she and other employees were
charged $20 to cash their own pay checks, resulting in a loss.

Michael Pearson, representing the class action for the performers,
claims in documents seen by Mail US that he and other performers
worked two days without meal or rest breaks and were paid $500
'regardless' of the number of hours worked.

He also claimed some performers sat on the floor during ten-hour
days because there were not enough chairs provided and that
although they were collected by shuttle from their cars, a return
vehicle was not provided so they had to walk back.

The lawsuit is suing for lost wages, over time, meal and rest
breaks as well as damages and the cost of the legal action.

The entire class action could cost $1,000,000 per law-suit.

One lawsuit, filed by LA employment lawyer Frank Kim in August,
concentrates on the performers, which totals over 500 people.

The other, filed by entertainment attorneys Harris & Ruble, centres
on behind-the scenes staff of around 300 people.

Yet this is just the 'tip of the iceberg', two sources told The
Sun.

Lawyers are now tracking down other alleged 'victims' of Kanye's
Service shows, and reportedly have dozens of people lined up to
join the lawsuit meaning the final tally will be closer to 1,000
people, the source said.

A legal source said: 'They've got hundreds of people on board
already, but they're talking to many, many others, who want to be a
part of it. People are very upset how they were treated, saying
it's their worst experience. People in the lawsuit are asking their
friends who've worked on previous Services, and they're jumping at
the chance, they want to get involved and talk about their horrible
time.'

They added: 'Now it's about proving that Kanye is the employer and
the buck stops with him. Now that there's others coming forward,
then the complaint will be amended and be bigger in scope. No one
knows how involved Kanye himself was, if he knew what was going on,
as it was all so last minute, it was terribly ran. Whether it was
mismanagement, accidental, or on purpose, this is a very strong
case.'

Another source told The Sun: 'When you do things last minute, it's
disorganised, mistakes will happen. When Kanye West does a
production, he just says to his guys: 'Make it happen,' he has
different teams of people to do things, and when you're under that
amount of pressure, you cut corners. Anything with film or music
production, they do the art first, it's a case of 'let's get the
production done and worry if it's legal later'.'

They added: 'I'm pretty sure Kanye West hasn't done anything about
paying a bill in 20 years, he'd expect people to take care of it.
But Kanye can't have this go to trial, as the jury may not be Kanye
fans and just see a rich rapper ripping off normal folk, he can
settle for much less or be hit with a $30 million legal bill.'
[GN]


KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro TCPA Suit Moved From Mich. to W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, transferred the case,
THOMAS SAMATARO, et al., Plaintiff v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-12185 (E.D. Mich.), to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Plaintiffs Samataro and William Miskokomon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, have filed complaint
against Defendants KWRI; M77, LLC, doing business as Keller
Williams Paint Creek & Somerset ("M77"); and Great Day Real Estate,
LLC, doing business as Keller Williams Troy Market Center, for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA").

The Plaintiffs initiated the instant putative class action on Aug.
13, 2020.  The action stems from the Defendants' allegedly
unsolicited marketing calls to the Plaintiffs' personal cell
phones, without their prior written consent for these calls and
despite the fact that their numbers were registered on the National
Do Not Call Registry.  The Plaintiffs allege that KWRI trained and
directed M77 and Troy Market Center agents to cold call consumers.

The Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions:

     a. Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through class certification (1) someone from KW M77 or Keller
Williams Troy Market Center called, (2) using a prerecorded
message, (3) for substantially the same purpose that they called
Plaintiff Samataro, and (4) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they
obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as
Defendants claim they obtained prior express written consent to
call Plaintiff Samataro, or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior
express written consent.

     b. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through class certification (1) someone on behalf of the KW M77 or
Keller Williams Troy Market Center called more than one time, (2)
within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's phone number had
been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
thirty days, (4) for substantially the same purpose as the calls to
Plaintiffs, and (5) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they obtained
prior express written consent in the same manner as the Defendants
claim they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to
call Plaintiffs, or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior express
written consent.

     c. Michigan Pre-record Class: All persons in Michigan who from
four years prior to the filing of this action through the class
certification (1) someone from KW M77 or Keller Williams Troy
Market Center called, (2) using a prerecorded message, (3) for
substantially the same purpose as the calls to Plaintiff Samataro,
and (4) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they obtained prior
express written consent in the same manner as Defendants claim they
obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiff Samataro,
or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior express written
consent.

On Sept. 12, 2018, almost two years before filing the present
action, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a putative class action in
the Western District of Texas, Wright v. Keller Williams Realty,
Inc., No. 18-00775, asserting claims against KWRI under the TCPA.

In their second amended complaint, filed July 16, 2019, the Wright
action plaintiffs propose the following class definitions:

     a. Prerecorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of
Defendant) called (2) on the person's cellular telephone number (3)
using a prerecorded voice message, and (4) for whom Defendant
claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same
manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express
written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not obtain
prior express written consent.

     b. Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of
Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3)
using an automatic telephone dialing system, and (4) for whom
Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in
the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior
express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not
obtain prior express written consent.

     c. Autodialed Stop Class: All persons in the United States who
from four years prior to the filing of this action through the
present: (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant)
called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using an
automatic telephone dialing system, (4) after the person informed
Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive phone calls from
Defendant.

     d. Prerecorded Stop Class: All persons in the United States
who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the
present: (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant)
called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using a
prerecorded voice message, (4) after the person informed Defendant
that s/he no longer wished to receive phone calls from Defendant.

     e. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of
Defendant) called more than one time; (2) within any 12-month
period (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on
the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for
the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services; and (5)
for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written
consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly
obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b)
they did not obtain prior express written consent.

The matter is now before the Court on KWRI's motion to dismiss.
KWRI seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue,
or, alternatively, transfer to the Western District of Texas
pursuant to the first-to-file doctrine.

Courts evaluate three factors in deciding whether to apply the
first-to-file rule: (i) the chronology of events, (ii) the
similarity of the parties involved, and (iii) the similarity of the
issues or claims at stake.

Judge Goldsmith concludes that the class definitions in the instant
case and the Wright case are substantially similar, as are the
issues in the two cases, counseling application of the
first-to-file rule and transfer of the case to the Western District
of Texas.  Because he has determined that transfer is appropriate
under the first-to-file rule, the Judge need not address KWRI's
request to dismiss the action for lack of the Court's personal
jurisdiction or improper venue in the district.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Goldsmith granted KWRI's motion
insofar as KWRI seeks transfer of the instant action to the Western
District of Texas.  Accordingly, the action is transferred to the
Western District of Texas.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5wr4pmh from Leagle.com.


LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Street, et al., v.
O'Toole, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02590 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Catherine D Perry entered an order extending time to file class
certification motion by the Defendants to April 1, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs include Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, Ronald Harris,
Nicole Warrington and Alicia Street.

The Defendants include  Jeremiah Koerper, Jeffrey Long, Nick
Henderson, Keith Barrett, Steven Fanz, Brian Cheli, James Wooten,
Michael Niethe, Richard Edwards, Ryan Buscemi, Nicholas Martorano,
Donnell Walters, Robert Stuart, Joann Williams, Lucas Brockmeyer,
Tracy Cole, Joshua McBee, Russell Christian, Quincy Silver, Bradley
Walworth, James Buckeridge, Steven Mueller, Daniel Schulte, Andrew
Wismar, Richard Eaves, Patrick Haug, Joseph Pierce, Paul Kosednar,
Patrick Daut, Trenton Lee, Darnell Willis, April Schnetzer, Julius
Conner, Megan Rodgers, Amy Laz, Kyle Santa, Anthony Valenza,
Stephen Walsh, IV, Steven Landers, Dustin Hoskins, Robert Trim,
Sean Martini, Courtney Jordan, Michael Hines, Christopher Seger,
Steven Daugherty, Alfred Allmon, Tamarris Bohannon, Kori Simon,
John Anderson, Mike Mandle, Cornell Robinson, Marcus Biggins,
Laquan Pierce, Reginald Jones, Nicholas Hayden, Jacob Bias, John
O'Brien, Donald Re, Andrew Heimberger, Martinous Vashon Walls III,
Robert Copper, Cristina Widbin, Timothy Turner, George Henry,
Daniel Clauss, Gaston Coleman, Donna Garrett, Nhong Vorachack, Ryan
Lindhorst, Damon Maxwell, Jack Randolph, Jarred Thacker, James
Wood, Christopher Myers, Charles Wall, Michael Ross, Joseph
Marcantano, Steven Strohmeyer, Tracy Hallquist, James Binder,
Taylor Hosna, Daniel Osorio, City of St. Louis, Brandon Wyms, James
Stagge, Rodney Hickman, Brian Lemons, Anthony Coll, John Moton,
Uzoma Onwumere, Matthew Shaw, Jason Brandhorst, Matthew Boester,
Stephen Schroeder IV, Marco Christlieb, Joseph Rodriguez, Daniel
Chitwood, Kristin Chelucci, Brian Hayes, Andre White, Jacob Stein,
James Zwilling, Alan Malone, Nicole Gentilni, Keaton Strong,
Gregory Frost, Louis Wilson, Jonathan Haire, Aaron Gaddis, Edward
Napier, Richard Hellmeier, Jaimie Pitterle, Erich Vonnida, Tom
Halfhill, James Bain, Elijah Simpson, Benjamin Hawkins, Randall
Welsch, Dereck Green, Ronald Ludwig, Nathan Strickland, Luis
Garibay, Steven Fischer, Daniel Chamblin, Mark Pfieffer, Brandon
Clark, Richard Schicker, Jermaine Banks, Gerald Leyshock, Andrew
Schmick, Michael Ronzio, Bianca Myers, James Clark, Thomas Strode,
Philip VonderHeydt, Edward Gonzales, Stephanie Rogers, Christopher
Narez, Brent Fincher, Steven Saito, Kevin Bently, Joslyn Stone,
Matthew Shoults, Kevin Bambrick, Bryan Barton, Joe Carretero,
Nicholas Holt, Joseph Tate, Kelly Fisher, Michael O'Callaghan, Gary
Ruffin, Joseph Morrell, Stephe Ortinau, Ian Csapo, Eric Larson,
Robert Lammert, Joshua Hall, Zeme'z Harris, Jeremy Johnson, Carlus
Ingram, Duane Wells, Trevor Russell, Mitchel Simpher, Ryan Kotaska,
Adam Duke, Matthew McComy, James Murphy, Brian Brewer-Moore,
Richard Zurmuehlen, Amber Hawkins, Nadja Curt, Collin McAnany,
Tawanna Simms, Patrick Riordan, Austin King, Matthew James,
Shaviste Grandberry, Kevin Dang, Brandon Webb, Dustin Boone, Jared
Krumm, Ryan Gibbons, Carolyn Wiener, Samuel Stewart, Kevin Mataya,
John Sabin, Christina Powderly, Mickey Christ, Nathan Dresch,
Perrin Newman, Tom Long, Brian DeMatteis, Lawrence O'Toole, Randy
Jemerson, Michael Shaw, Samuel Gilman, Matthew Karnowski, Paul
Wactor, Paul Chester, William Triplett, Brian Rossomanno, Matthew
Welle, Keith Shelton, Steve Korte, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Joseph
Kerth, David Crocker, John Gentilini, Bill Kiphart, Eric Henry,
Emily Davis, Anna Biondolillo, William Douglas, Thomas Harger,
Michael Calcaterra, Erica Anderson, Joe Lankford, Michael Boll,
Jesse Dyson, Anton Treis, Lawrence Lezewski, Lindsey Wethington,
Jane McKibben, Brian Strehl, Chad Tullock, Kathleen Gutjahr,
Solomon Thurman, Benjamin Cehic, Dennis Neal, Marquise Wren, Keith
Paulitsch, Zohaib Khan, Geoffrey Rose, Kanisha Coleman, Zachariah
Foltz, Brian Gonzales, Rosa Rojas, Ronald Bergmann, Justin Johnson,
Terrence Ruffin, Timothy Hollman, Timothy Bockskopf, Marilyn
Johnson, Michael Mayo, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Anthony Wozniak,
Francis Koziacki, Abby Krull, Patricia Nijkamp, Ohmed Samih, David
Krapf, Michael Missel, Josh Kamper, Scott Weidler, Michael Cheli,
Thearn Clements, Joseph Ross, Orlando Morrison, Ryan Murphy, Jodie
Eaton, Brian Seppi, Matthew Burle, Deneane Jones, Eric Parrish,
William Stevenson, Erin Hein, Roland Degregorio, Jeanine Waters,
Gregory Schaffer, Ashley Smith, Kelli Swinton, David Rudolph,
Benjamin Bayless, Randy Hays, Daniel Kim, Bradley Roy, Sean Murphy,
Christi Marks, Sam Edwards, Scott Valentine, Michael Joyner, Shawn
Griggs, Nicola Orlando, Michael Binz, Douglas McClean, Timothy
Sachs, Kenneth Kegel, Bruce Edmond, David King, Brandt Flowers,
Oliver Poggioli, Jeremy Davis, Quincy Smith, Luke McDonnell, Joshua
Martin, Terron Murphy, Scott Boyher, James Harris III, Amon Figgs,
Jonathan Selbert, Henry Hayden, Thomas Streckfuss, Darla Gray,
Nicholas Lee, Nijauh Woodard, Sean Fortune, Samuel Zouglas, Austin
Patton, Ronald Rust, Anthony Caruso, Timothy McNamara, Brian
Murphy, Joshua Morrison, Kyle Mack, Nicholas Weite, Sisavath
Singharath, Christopher Bramley, Ramelle Wallace, Aaron Muendlein,
Ahman Rasoll, Janika Humphrey, Matthew Bedell, Michael Marks,
Joseph Schmitt, Christy Allen, Gerald Adams, Jon Amesquita, Jamie
Partee, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, Deandre Davis, Kenneth Nizick,
Robert Laschober, Jonathan Senf, Matthew Eernisse, Alexander
Mesnage, Carianne Noga, Courtney Nash, Adam Garibay, Nicholas
Harbaugh, Kimberly Allen, Bailey Colletta, Glennon Frigerio, Joseph
Scalzo, City of St. Louis, Missouri and Lawrence Lazewski.[CC]

LIZHI INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Lizhi Inc. ("Lizhi" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: LIZI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Lizhi securities
pursuant and/or traceable to Lizhi's January 17, 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/lizi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/lizi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Walmart
you have until March 22, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

LIZHI INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI) investors
that acquired shares in connection with it's January 17, 2020 IPO.
Investors have until March 22, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here --
https://portnoylaw.com/lizhi/ -- to join the case.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained
misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the home base,
principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its employees, and
its customers, at the time of the IPO, ; (2) Lizhi's business was
already being negatively affected by the complications associated
with the coronavirus, as employees and customers contracted the
virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced difficulty in
generating, publishing, and monetizing the content critical to
Lizhi's platform; (3) Lizhi employees and customers complained of,
and to, Lizhi, even prior to the IPO, which harmed the Lizhi's
reputation and financial condition and prospects; and (4) Lizhi's
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times, as a result.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


LIZHI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired 9F Inc. ("9F" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: JFU) American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's):

1. pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or

2. between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

All investors who purchased ADR's of Lizhi, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Lizhi, Inc., you may,
no later than March 22, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of ADR's of Lizhi, Inc.

On or about January 17, 2020 the company conducted its IPO, selling
4.1 million Lizhi ADR's at $11.00 per ADR. Defendants generated
approximately $45 million in gross offering proceeds from their
sale of Lizhi's securities in the IPO.

By the commencement of this action, Lizhi shares were trading below
$4 per share, a decline of over 63% from the offering price.

The filed complaint alleges that the registration statement for the
IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

   - at the time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging
China, the home base, principal market, and significant hub for
Lizhi, its employees, and its customers;

   - the complications associated with the coronavirus were already
negatively affecting Lizhi's business, as employees and customers
contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced
difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content
critical to Lizhi's platform;

   - even prior to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers
complained of, and to, Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation
and financial condition and prospects; and

   - as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago, and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Remanded Over Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
grants the parties' joint stipulation to remand in the lawsuit
titled WORREN JACKSON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. LMS
TRANSPORTATION LLC; GREG SOUTHERN; ANDREA SOUTHERN; and DOES 3-100,
Defendants, Case No. CV 20-8939-GW-Ex (C.D. Cal.).

Based on the stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing
for the same, the Court ordered that the action be remanded back to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to pursue approval of the Parties' proposed class action
settlement reached, without waiver or limitation of the Defendants'
right to remove the action to federal court if such settlement is
not approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2vhfp55 from Leagle.com.


MANDARICH LAW: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Terry Quinn, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP,
Resurgent Capital Services LP d/b/a LVNV Funding LLC, DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00812 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Mandarich Law Group -- http://mandarichlaw.com/-- is a debt
collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
          7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 937-0400
          Fax: (866) 288-9194
          Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


MANDARICH LAW: Sorondo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Matthew Sorondo, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP,
Resurgent Capital Services LP d/b/a CACH, LLC, DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00820 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Mandarich Law Group -- http://mandarichlaw.com/-- is a debt
collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
          7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 937-0400
          Fax: (866) 288-9194
          Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC has filed a class action lawsuit for the
contamination of the groundwater relied upon private well owners in
Lubbock, Texas. The class action complaint was filed against
manufacturers of aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") containing
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and manufacturers of fluorosurfactants containing PFOS and
PFOA. The class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873, In
Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability
Litigation.

Decades of use, storage, and disposal of AFFF at the former Reese
Air Force Base caused the widespread PFOA and PFOS contamination of
groundwater in the surrounding community, including contaminating
private wells serving residents in Lubbock. To date, over 500
private drinking water wells have been sampled for PFAS, and the
Air Force has installed 220 whole-house filters. Testing data has
revealed elevated levels of PFAS in dozens of private wells
exceeding the USEPA health advisory levels for PFOA and/or
additional PFAS for which the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality ("TCEQ") has published protective concentration levels
(PCLs).


The class action complaint alleges that plaintiffs and others
similarly situated with private water wells in Lubbock have been
exposed to high levels of PFAS and are now at an increased risk of
several health effects, including testicular cancer, ulcerative
colitis, effects on the liver and the immune system, high
cholesterol, changes in thyroid hormone, as well as kidney and
other cancers. Studies have also shown an association between
increased PFOA blood levels and increased risks for several health
effects in children (for example, effects on birth weight,
cognitive and behavioral development, immune function, and
cholesterol levels). Unfortunately, many of these serious health
issues can be long-term, especially in children.

The complaint also states that property values in the area have
dropped as a result of the contamination.

We strongly encourage Lubbock residents with a private water well
who may have been exposed to these toxic chemicals and are now
suffering from the various diseases and cancers listed above to
seek medical help and contact our environmental legal team. Our
knowledgeable staff will explain your legal options; the
consultation is free and confidential. There is no obligation and
we only recover fees if we win your case. There are strict time
limitations for filing an action for both property damage and
personal injury claims, so do not lose your opportunity to file or
receive compensation by not contacting us.

We look forward to the opportunity to help you too; contact us for
your free, no-obligation case evaluation today.

URL: http://www.napolilaw.com

Contact Information:
www.napolilaw.com [GN]


MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Foods Contain Toxic Aflatoxin, Williams Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey E. Williams, Owen Woodall, Vollie Griffin, Mel LaFebre, and
Christina Kennedy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00022-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought on
behalf of all consumers nationwide who bought the Defendant's pet
food products containing excessive levels of Aflatoxin, a toxin
created by the mold Aspergillus flavus which, at high levels, can
result in illness and death.

Aflatoxin is a toxic mold that can result in illness or death if
ingested. On or around the same day, the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") published news about the Defendant's recall
and reported that several dogs have fallen ill or died after
consuming Defendant's Sportmix products.

On or around December 30, 2020, the Defendant announced a recall of
three formulas of cat and dog food products; specifically, Sportmix
Energy Plus, Sportmix Premium High Energy and Sportmix Original
Cat. According to Defendant's news announcement, tests indicated
that the recalled products contained "levels of Aflatoxin that
exceed acceptable limits."

The Defendant has marketed and advertised the Pet Food Products as
suitable for animals, has represented that the Pet Food Products
provide targeted nutrition, and/or has guaranteed the Pet Food
Products for taste and nutrition. According to the complaint, the
Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Pet Food Products is
false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because
the Pet Food Products contained dangerous or toxic levels of
Aflatoxin, and thus were not as advertised, represented, or
guaranteed.

The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Pet Food Products had
they known the Products contained, or might have contained,
dangerous or toxic levels of Aflatoxin and/or that the Defendant
did not adequately test or inspect the Pet Food Products before
selling them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserts claims on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated persons for
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment, says the complaint.

The Defendant manufactures, warrants, advertises, and sells a
variety of pet foods under several brand names, including Sportmix
CanineX, Earthborne Holistic, Pro Pac, Venture, Wholesomes,
Sportmix, Sportstrail, Splash, Nunn Better and Unrefined.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG & YOUNG
          128 N. Delaware St., 3rd Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 639-5161
          Facsimile: (317) 639-4978
          Email: john@youngandyoungin.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com
                 ds@classlawgroup.com


MINNESOTA: Court Adopts in Part R&R Issued in Roybal v. Schnell
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Kristopher Roybal et al., Plaintiffs v. Paul
Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-1200 (WMW/LIB) (D. Minn.), the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota issued an order adopting in part and
rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation.

On May 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Roybal, Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts,
Chavez Wind, Warren Skinaway, Brian Bloom, Robert Boettcher, Arthur
Vanwert, Joseph Tipton, Barris Guy, Zach Clark, Chris Clark, John
Vondal, Jr., and "Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault"
filed a putative class-action complaint against Defendant Paul
Schnell, as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis
without prepaying fees or costs. The Plaintiffs are incarcerated at
the Minnesota Correctional Facility located in Faribault, Minnesota
("MCF-Faribault"), and it appears that all Plaintiffs are Native
Americans. Defendant Schnell is the commissioner of corrections for
the State of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that Schnell is
violating the Plaintiffs' civil rights, including their rights to
religious practice. To date, the Plaintiffs have not served a
summons on Schnell.

On September 14, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I.
Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending
that the Court dismiss sua sponte the putative class of "Native
Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault" and all individually named
Plaintiffs except the first-named Plaintiff, Roybal. The R&R also
recommends denying the Plaintiffs' requests for (1) the Court to
aid them in creating a multi-plaintiff litigation fund and (2) for
them, in the alternative, to be allowed to collectively pay the
filing fee.

No objections to the R&R have been filed. In the absence of timely
objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error.

The R&R recommends dismissing the putative class of "Native
Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault" and all the named
Plaintiffs other than the first-named Plaintiff, Roybal. But a
district court's authority to sua sponte dismiss parties or claims
from a case is limited to a few narrow categories of circumstances,
such as when the court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, that a claim is frivolous, or that a
prisoner-plaintiff seeking to proceed in forma pauperis has failed
to state a claim, District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright notes, citing
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

But a sua sponte dismissal before the defendant has been served and
given an opportunity to respond, as is the case, is disfavored
because the district court is cast in the role of a proponent for
the defense, rather than an independent entity, Judge Wright
opines. Here, the R&R does not analyze or conclude that any of the
narrow circumstances authorizing sua sponte dismissal is present.

In support of the recommendation to sua sponte dismiss parties from
the case, the R&R relies on a decision from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience
Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). In
Acevedo, the Fifth Circuit observed that a district court can
reject joinder of parties otherwise properly joined under Rule 20
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "in the interest of
avoiding prejudice and delay, ensuring judicial economy, or
safeguarding principles of fundamental fairness." In Acevedo,
approximately 800 former employees from more than 300 stores sought
to be joined in one lawsuit. The Acevedo court was particularly
concerned that the wide variety of practices at each of the
different stores would result in different defenses applying to
different plaintiffs.

Judge Wright opines that in the instant case, by contrast, there
are 13 named Plaintiffs, all are incarcerated at MCF-Faribault, and
the alleged harms that they have experienced likely involve
identical rules and procedures. As a result, the Acevedo court's
concerns about the vast number of named plaintiffs and different
defenses applying to each plaintiff's claims are not present here.
Moreover, the dismissal of parties in Acevedo was not a sua sponte
decision rendered before the defendants had been served. Instead,
the Judge explains, the dismissal of the parties occurred after the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the misjoinder of
parties. Accordingly, Acevedo's reasoning does not persuasively
govern the Court's analysis.

For these reasons, the R&R's recommendation to dismiss the putative
class and all the named Plaintiffs other than the first-named
Plaintiff is clearly erroneous and contrary to law, Judge Wright
finds. She shares the concerns of the Magistrate Judge as to the
"potential problems and procedural complexities that are likely to
impede the expedient administration of justice" in the case.
However, because the R&R does not provide adequate legal authority
to support the method by which the R&R recommends resolving these
procedural complexities, she rejects the portions of the R&R
recommending sua sponte dismissal.

Based on the R&R, the Court's analysis and all the files, records
and proceedings herein, the Court rules that the September 14, 2020
R&R is adopted in part and rejected in part as follows:

   a. The R&R's recommendation to deny the Plaintiffs' requests
      for the Court to provide some type of documentation that
      they may submit to M.C.F.-Faribault's inmate accounts and
      that they be permitted to collectively pay the filing fee
      is adopted, and those requests are denied;

   b. The R&R's recommendation to sua sponte dismiss the
      Plaintiffs Native Americans Confined at M.C.F.-Faribault
      and all named Plaintiffs other than Kristopher Roybal is
      rejected; and

   c. The R&R's recommendation that Roybal be ordered to file an
      amended complaint and an individualized application to
      proceed in forma pauperis is rejected.

The matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6zhejsu from Leagle.com.


MOUNTAIRE CORP: April 12 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION,
and Arkansas corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation. Defendants., C.A. No. S18C-06-009 CAK

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

To: All Persons who, on or after May 1, 2000, owned, leased,
resided on, or were employed on a full-time basis at property
located in whole or part within a defined geographic area near
Millsboro, Delaware, as described more precisely in maps setting
forth the Class Definition available at
www.MountaireSettlement.com, or available from the Claims
Administrator and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel, identified below, subject
to certain exclusions.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Superior Court of
Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the Delaware Superior Court,
that the Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of
themselves and all members of the Class, and Mountaire Farms of
Delaware, Inc., Mountaire Farms Inc., and Mountaire Corporation
("Mountaire" or the "Defendants"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $65,000,000.00 (the "Settlement"). This
Settlement is intended to provide compensation for personal injury
and property damage associated with alleged groundwater and air
contamination from the Millsboro, Delaware poultry processing
facility owned by Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.

The Court has scheduled a Final Fairness Hearing on April 12, 2021,
at 9:30 a.m., at the Sussex County Superior Court Courthouse,
located at 1 The Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947. However, in light of
the continuing threat COVID-19 poses to public health, the hearing
may be held virtually (such as on-line through the internet). The
hearing may be moved to a different date, time or location. Please
check the Mountaire Settlement website at
www.MountaireSettlement.com for updates regarding the date, time,
and location of the hearing. At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court will also consider the requests by Class Counsel for
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and for any monetary awards to
the Class Representatives for their service as such ("Enhancement
Awards"). If there are objections, the Court will also consider
them at that time. Following the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Settlement, attorney fees and expenses, and
any Enhancement Awards.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Registration Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
visiting the website of the Claims Administrator,
www.MountaireSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

Cuppels v. Mountaire Class Action
Claims Administrator
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479

Phone: (866) 742-4955
Email: info@rg2claims.com
Settlement Website: www.MountaireSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Registration Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

Chase Brockstedt, Esq.
Re: Mountaire Class Action
Baird, Mandalas, Brockstedt, LLC
1413 Savannah Rd, Suite 1
Lewes, DE 19958
(302) 313-5288

If you are a Class Member, you must register to be considered for
payment from this Class Action Settlement. You may do so by either
(1) visiting the Mountaire Settlement website at
www.MountaireSettlement.com, and completing the Registration Form
online at that site, or (2) mailing the completed Registration Form
to the Claims Administrator identified above. You must complete the
Registration Form and submit it by mail postmarked on or before by
March 22, 2021 or online through the Mountaire Settlement website
on or before March 22, 2021, in order to be considered for payment
through the Class Action Settlement. Those who fail to register by
this date by mail or through the Mountaire Settlement website will
NOT be eligible for compensation.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice, and it must be postmarked
no later than February 22, 2021. If you properly exclude yourself
from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable
or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund.

If you wish to participate in the Class Action Settlement, but wish
to object in whole or part to the proposed Settlement, you must do
so by first class mail in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice on or before February 22, 2021.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: January 11, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT [GN]


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavity at capegazette.com reports that Mountaire Farms has
agreed to a $65 million settlement with more than 800 members of a
class-action lawsuit against the company for injuries and damages
allegedly caused by Mountaire's environmental practices.

The settlement will be subject to April 12, fairness hearing where
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz will review the
settlement, hear testimony and, eventually, rule on whether to
finalize the settlement.

As part of the settlement, Mountaire will conduct plant upgrades
and remediation valued at $120 million at its Millsboro plant. In
return, the litigants, who had intervened in a federal case between
Mountaire and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, agreed to let a consent decree between
Mountaire and DNREC be approved.

Chase Brockstedt, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a
statement, "We are honored and humbled that the Millsboro community
trusted our firms to litigate this important environmental case. I
cannot be more proud of our entire team and the incredible effort
over the last three years which led this case to settlement."

Co-counsel Phil Federico said, also in a statement, "We thank
Mountaire for choosing environmental responsibility and doing what
is right for the Millsboro community. This settlement is a win-win
for Mountaire and those we represent. We wish them well with their
upgrades and improvement and know they will continue to be a vital
part of Sussex County and the Eastern Shore for decades to come."

Phillip Pyler, president of Mountaire, said, "Our sole focus now
can be on building our new state-of-the art wastewater treatment,
which has been our goal all along. We are ready to move forward."

The litigation has been ongoing for more than two years, after
Millsboro couple Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels filed suit alleging
that Mountaire's wastewater treatment practices had contaminated
their groundwater, leading to health problems for the couple.
Eventually 800 people joined the litigation seeking compensation.

While that suit was going on, the plaintiffs sought to have input
in a separate action between DNREC and Mountaire over a 2017
wastewater permit violation at the Millsboro plant. DNREC and
Mountaire had entered into a consent decree for plant upgrades
related to the violations, but the class-action plaintiffs did not
think the decree went far enough in addressing environmental
problems at Mountaire's plant. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. of Homeless People in Fisher Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, denied the
Petitioners' motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned MORLEEN FISHER, TAMARA WILLIAMS, BJ ATHILL, RODAISHA
SMITH, GARY CORBIN, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, Petitioners v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
STEVEN BANKS, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES,
JOSLYN CARTER, Respondent, Case No. 452069/2020 (N.Y. Sup.).

The New York State Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1 (adopted
in 1938, in the wake of the Great Depression) provides as follows:
"The aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and
will be provided by the state and by such of its subdivisions, and
in such manner, and by such means, as the legislature may from time
to time determine." A well-established line of cases interprets
those words to compel the City of New York to provide safe shelter
to homeless persons.

In January 2020, the novel coronavirus started spreading throughout
the United States, early on reaching New York City. The virus
causes Covid-19, a highly contagious disease that can cause serious
illness, sometimes with lingering significant side effects, or
death.

The crux of the case is whether homeless people, or "at-risk"
homeless people, or "disabled" homeless people, are entitled to
single-occupancy rooms ("SORs") in hotels or other shelters. The
Petitioners have moved for a preliminary injunction (1) declaring
such entitlement and compelling concomitant action; and (2) for
class action certification. However, as there is no competent
medical, or unrebutted statistical, evidence that "congregate"
(i.e., group) shelter significantly, or even noticeably, raises the
risk of contracting Covid-19, and because declaratory judgment
actions against governmental entities are disfavored, the motion
must be denied, Judge Arthur F. Engoron opines.

The proposed class action is on behalf of all single adults in NYC,
who are entitled to shelter, who have not received placement in an
SOR ("Right-to-Shelter Class"), which includes two sub-classes: (1)
members of the Right-to-Shelter Class who are at "heightened risk,"
as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
("CDC"), of severe illness or death from Covid-19 due to their ages
and/or medical conditions ("Heightened-Risk Sub-Class"); and (2)
members of the Right-to-Shelter Class who have a disability within
the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"),
the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), the
New York State Human Rights Law, and/or the NYC Human Rights Law
("Disability Sub-Class").

The petition pleads 10 causes of action against the Respondents,
including that the Respondents' failure to offer SORs to the
Right-to-Shelter Class is arbitrary and capricious, that the
Respondents' failure to offer SORs to the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class
is arbitrary and capricious, and that the Respondents are failing
to provide State due process to the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class.

The Respondents claim (1) that they have developed a "comprehensive
program" to ensure the safety of homeless people living in
congregate shelters and double-occupancy rooms; and (2) that they
are providing due process galore. DHS formulated the program with
input from the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
("DHMH"), including its then-Deputy Commissioner of the Division of
Disease Control, Doctor Demetre Daskalakis (now apparently at the
CDC). DHS also has a recently updated "reasonable accommodation
policy," titled "DHS PB-2020-012 Interim Reasonable Accommodation
Request Process," originally developed pursuant to the settlement
in Butler v City of New York, 15-CV-3783 (RWS) (JLC) (SDNY 2017).

DHS's Office of the Medical Director has recently formulated
Covid-19 Risk Factor Guidelines, with input and review by DHMH,
based on, but slightly different from, the following 13 conditions
that the CDC has identified as associated with an increased risk of
severe illness from Covid-19: cancer; kidney disease; chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease; heart failure; coronary artery
disease; cardiomyopathies; immuno-compromised state; organ
transplant; obesity; severe obesity; sickle cell disease; smoking;
and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The CDC has identified the following 12 other conditions that may
be associated with an increased risk of severe illness from
Covid-19: hypertension; cerebrovascular disease; cystic fibrosis;
immune deficiencies; neurological conditions; liver disease;
pregnancy; overweight; pulmonary fibrosis; thalassemia; type 1
diabetes mellitus; and moderate-to-severe asthma.

The Petitioners point out that the DHS Covid-19 Risk Factor
Guidelines do not exactly track the CDC; for example, the
guidelines fail to include smoking, obesity, and mild-stage COPD;
and they specify only certain types of cancer.

The Petitioners now move, simply put, pursuant to New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 9, for class certification;
and, pursuant to CPLR 6301, for a preliminary injunction requiring
the Respondents, during the Covid-19 pandemic, to offer SORs to
members of the Right-to-Shelter Class; or, in the alternative, to
the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class; or, in the alternative, to the
Disability Sub-Class; and to make individualized determinations
with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The
Respondents oppose the Motion.

The Court finds that the case is justiciable; that the Petitioners
have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on
their Article 78, constitutional (including due process), and
disability discrimination claims; and that the class action
certification is unwarranted.

Thus, the instant motion for class certification and a preliminary
injunction are denied; and, as previously arranged, the
case-in-chief will be heard on March 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. via
Microsoft Teams. The Court will be sending a link via NYSCEF or
other means well in advance. At that time the Court will address
any issues of compliance and enforcement. The Counsel should be
prepared with up-to-date health information and statistics and with
concrete yet creative ideas to resolve the instant dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision + Order dated Jan. 25,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ep55yg from
Leagle.com.


PHH MORTGAGE: Attorney General Blasts Mortgage Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Shalin at Patch Staff reports that Illinois attorney general
Kwame Raoul joined a bipartisan group of 33 attorneys general to
denounce a proposed class action settlement they say would punish
many homeowners while continuing to benefit the mortgage provider
accused of charging illegal fees.

According the attorneys general, the proposed settlement in Morris,
et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, would allow New Jersey-based
PHH Mortgage Corporation to profit from illegal processing fees it
has been charging to nearly 1 million customers across the
country.

The initial suit challenged the mortgage company's ability to
charge processing fees, ranging from $7.50 to $17.50, each time
homeowners made a monthly mortgage payment online or by phone.
Those fees, it was argued, were not authorized in the homeowners'
mortgage contracts. Additionally, the fees were not charged to
customers making their monthly payment by check or automatic
debit.

But the attorneys general argue that under the terms of a proposed
settlement, the mortgage company can continue to charge these fees,
and will be able to increase them, up to $19.50 per month, for the
remaining life of the loan. The attorneys general also suggest the
class action settlement violates most states' laws.

"This settlement will prolong the necessary harm that homeowners
have experienced by allowing PHH to continue charging homeowners
illegal processing fees," Raoul said in a statement. "Any
settlement should hold PHH accountable for its conduct, instead of
allowing it to continue to profit from unethical and illegal
conduct."

Raoul and the coalition of attorneys general also object to the
proposed settlement's method of compensating the homeowners for the
complaint. Homeowners whose loans are still serviced by PHH will
not receive direct monetary rewards for prior unlawful payments.
Instead, they will get credits that can be applied to only the
unpaid principal balance of the mortgage after any late fees are
first paid. This, the attorneys general argue, actually costs the
homeowners more in the end and ensures a portion of the settlement
money will go back to PHH.

PHH Mortgage Company is based in Mount Laurel, N.J. It's
predecessor company Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC also was named in the
original suit. The coalition of attorneys general opposed the
settlement by filing a motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
[GN]



POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a proposed class of workers sued Popeyes and
its parent company in Illinois state court on Jan. 25, alleging
that the fast food chain collected and stored their fingerprints
without obtaining their written permission. [GN]

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Suit Moved From California to Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
adopts in full the findings and recommendations to grant the motion
to transfer venue in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA COWLEY, Plaintiff v.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01472-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

Before the Court for decision is the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on October 16, 2019, bringing
claims against the Defendant under both the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and California wage and hour laws. Among
other things, the complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay non-exempt, hourly security guards for all hours worked; failed
to pay required minimum wages; failed to pay required overtime
wages; failed to authorize, permit, and/or make meal and rest
periods available; failed to pay for these missed breaks; failed to
pay all wages at termination; and failed to provide accurate,
itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in
California City, California, and seeks to represent other current
and former non-exempt, hourly security guards, who worked for the
Defendant in California and elsewhere in the United States.

On December 11, 2020, findings and recommendations were issued
recommending that the Defendant's motion to change venue be granted
and this case be transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan.
The assigned Magistrate Judge agreed with the Defendants that the
gravamen of the case is the FLSA action, with its "center of
gravity" in Michigan because the "vast majority" of the relevant
current and former employees live and work in Michigan.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that because the
Defendant has settled with all but nine of the 36 known and current
former California employees, the import of the California claims is
minimal relative to the federal claims. Even if the settlements are
not considered, the Magistrate Judge concluded that a class of 36
may not be large enough to warrant certification for lack of
numerosity.

The Magistrate Judge then found that many of the relevant factors
weighed in favor of transfer. Of particular note, the pending
Findings and Recommendations highlight that litigating this action
in Michigan would be more convenient for the witnesses, most of
whom work and reside in Michigan -- a factor that is "recognized as
the most important factor to be considered" in a motion to transfer
(citing Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1160 (S.D. Cal.
2005)). The Magistrate Judge also highlighted the fact that the
Court's extraordinarily congested calendar (with more than four
times as many cases per judge than in the Eastern District of
Michigan) will make it very difficult to proceed to trial here in a
timely manner and that this weighs strongly in favor of transfer.

The Findings and Recommendations were served upon all parties and
contained notice that objections were due within 14 days. On
December 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed objections to the findings
and recommendations. The Defendant filed a reply on January 6,
2021.

District Judge Dale A. Drozd holds that the Plaintiff's objections
do not undermine the ultimate conclusion reached in the Findings
and Recommendations that transfer is warranted in the case. For
example, the Plaintiff claims in the objections that the Defendant
failed to produce any evidence to support its contention that most
of the California class members have settled with it.

Even assuming it to be true -- which is certainly debatable -- it
does nothing to dissuade the Court from agreeing with the
Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff's FLSA claims are the
"gravamen" of the case and that consideration of the fact favors
transfer to Michigan, Judge Drozd opines. The record supports the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this point. Even assuming,
arguendo, that none of the 36 known California class members have
settled their claims and that a class of 36 would be sufficiently
numerous to warrant certification--which is also debatable -- the
value of the California claims would be vastly overwhelmed by the
FLSA claims by virtue of the sheer number of impacted employees,
Judge Drozd adds.

He likewise agrees with the Magistrate Judge with respect to
consideration of the heavily weighted factor of convenience to
witnesses. With respect to the weight to be given to a plaintiff's
choice of forum, he says the Plaintiff's reliance on the decision
in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) is misplaced.
That case stands not for the proposition that the weight given the
choice of forum in a putative class action should be diminished
only if the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and
the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter, but
rather for the quite different proposition that the forum choice of
any plaintiff bringing a class action or derivative suit is "given
less weight" and is further minimized if the operative facts have
not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the
parties or subject matter.

Accordingly:

   1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 11, 2020,
      are adopted in full;

   2. The Defendant's motion to change venue is granted; and

   3. The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
      Eastern District of Michigan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2f3qfw7 from Leagle.com.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 21, 2021, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a real estate services
company and certain of its current and former executives.
Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., No. 19-cv-15053, slip op.
(D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2021). Plaintiff alleged that the company made
misrepresentations concerning: (1) the effect of increased
commissions paid to its agents; (2) technology offerings; (3) the
company's acquisition strategy; and (4) allegedly anticompetitive
behavior that inflated the company's average commissions. The Court
held that the alleged misstatements were either not alleged to be
false with the required particularity or were otherwise not
actionable.

With respect to the increased commissions paid to its agents,
plaintiff contended that the company represented that commissions
would not increase further than they had, that any negative impact
on the company's profitability would be short-term, and that the
initiative could be maintained while also leading to sustainable
growth and increased profitability. Slip op. at 9-10. The Court
determined that statements plaintiff pointed to as supposedly
providing assurances that the commission payments would not
increase were taken out of context, and that plaintiff's assertions
did not establish that the statements were false. Id. at 10-11.
Similarly, the Court explained that plaintiff's challenges to
statements regarding the short-term impact of the initiative and
the path to sustainable growth were based on conclusory and
unsupported assertions, id. at 13-15, and amounted to impermissible
pleading of "fraud by hindsight," id. at 21.

In addition, the Court rejected plaintiff's claims that the company
misled investors by touting the company's technology initiative,
which was designed to provide new technology and data-driven
products for its agents, without disclosing that the technology was
outdated. Id. Again, the Court determined that plaintiff's
assertions of obsolescence were conclusory and unsupported by any
factual allegations that the technology was outdated. Id. at 21-22.
Moreover, while plaintiff claimed that statements by company
executives showed that the technology was outdated, the Court
disagreed, and further noted that to the extent one statement was
critical of the technology, when read in context, it was a
criticism of the entire real estate industry and not the company in
particular. Id. at 23-24.

Next, the Court addressed the company's statements that it was
shifting to organic growth strategies from a prior
acquisition-focused strategy. Plaintiff alleged the statements were
misleading because they failed to disclose the inefficiencies that
had been caused by the company's previous acquisitions. Id. at 25.
Here, too, the Court concluded that plaintiff's allegations of
inefficiencies were conclusory and unsupported by any factual
allegations, and that assertions based on an executive's statements
were taken out of context and did not show that the acquisitions
had not been effectively integrated. Id. at 25-27.

Finally, the Court also dismissed plaintiff's claims that the
company had failed to disclose that the stability of average
commissions reported was due to allegedly anticompetitive conduct
to keep that rate artificially high. Id. at 27. Specifically,
plaintiff asserted that the stability was due to an anticompetitive
scheme in the real estate industry whereby, for properties listed
in the primary industry database, the seller's broker or agent
would make a blanket, non-negotiable offer for how much of the
commission would be shared with any buyer's broker or agent, which
plaintiff alleged led to inflated buyer's agent commissions by
eliminating competition among buyer's agents. Id. at 27-28. In
support of this assertion, plaintiff pointed to two class action
lawsuits brought against several real estate brokerage firms,
including the company, as well as the fact that the DOJ
subsequently announced an investigation into anticompetitive
practices in the industry generally. Id. at 28. The Court
concluded, however, that the existence of these lawsuits and the
investigation, standing alone, were insufficient to establish
falsity of the alleged misstatement. While noting that plaintiff
was not required at the pleading stage to establish that defendants
actually engaged in anticompetitive behavior, it nevertheless was
required to plead facts supporting that conclusion with
particularity. Here, though, plaintiff merely relied on the other
lawsuits and the DOJ investigation without pleading with any
specificity "the who, what, when, where and how" of the purported
anticompetitive behavior. Id.

The Court also noted that various of the challenged statements were
not actionable for other reasons, including that they were
forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary
language, statements of opinion, or puffery. Id. at 31, 33, 38.
While plaintiff argued that some forward-looking statements were
nevertheless actionable because they were based on then-present
facts, the Court disagreed, noting that for such statements -- for
example, that "we see no reason to think [the guidance for the
commissions paid to our agents] [i]s any higher than that" -- any
"present-tense aspect" was "too vague to be actionable and cannot
be separated from the future projection." Id. at 33.

Given that plaintiff had already amended its complaint and there
was no indication that further amendment could cure the
deficiencies found by the Court, the Court denied leave to amend
and dismissed the action with prejudice. Id. at 41. [GN]


RESCARE INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for Nov. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz v. Rescare, Inc. et
al., Case No. e 4:20-cv-01333-YGR (N.D. Cal ), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez rogers entered a scheduling order as follows

   Expert Opening Reports:                July 29, 2021

   Rebuttal Reports:                      September 15, 2021

   Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff:           October 29, 2021

   The Plaintiff's Motion for             November 15, 2021
   Class Certification filed:

   Opposition filed:                      December 30, 2021

   Reply filed                            January 28, 2022

   Class Certification Motion             March 1, 2022
   hearing set:      

ResCare provides support services for people with physical and
mental disabilities.

A copy of the Court's civil minutes dated Jan. 25, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jbYMzK at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

Attorney for the Defendant is:

          Matthew Boyd, Esq.
          Phil Montoya Jr., Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
          SunTrust Plaza
          303 Peachtree St NE No. 4000
          Atlanta, GA  30308
          Telephone: (404) 614-7691
          Facsimile: (404) 614-7500
          E-mail:mboyd@hpylaw.com

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands International, Inc.
("Restaurant Brands" or the "Company") (NYSE: QSR) common stock
between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Restaurant Brands investments or
would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover
your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your
contact information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/restaurant-brands-international-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation with over 27,000 Tim
Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100
countries and U.S. territories.

On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged
that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with
global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and
admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is
slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to
"softness in sales."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to
close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Restaurant
Brands' "Winning Together Plan" was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the "Tims Rewards" loyalty program was not generating
sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not
offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands common
stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
February 19, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon RAF Text Message Suit Gets Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaac Gordon, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:19-cv-00390-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice
entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the following Class in this case:

      "all persons, as that term is defined in RCW
      19.190.010(11) and RCW 19.86.010(a); who are Washington
      residents; to whom the Defendant initiated or assisted in
      the transmission or one or more commercial electronic text
      messages; to a cellular phone or pager service that is
      equipped with short message capability or any similar
      capability allowing the transmission of text messages;
      without obtaining the recipients' clear and affirmative
      consent to receive such messages in advance; from October
      4, 2015 to January 25, 2021";

      Excluded from the Class is the Defendant and all officers,
      members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of
      the Defendant and their respective immediate families, and
      legal counsel for all parties to this action and all
      members of their immediate families.

   3. certifying the following claim, Pursuit to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(c)(1)(B), including all damages related thereto:

         The claim that Defendant initiated or assisted in the
         transmission of one or more commercial electronic text
         messages to class members without first obtaining those
         recipients' clear and affirmative consent to receive
         such messages.

   4. appointing the Plaintiff Isaac Gordon as the Class
      Representative;

   5. appointing Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as Class
      Counsel, and appointing Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J.
      Sutherland of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC as Co-Class
      Counsel.

   6. directing class counsel, within 14 days from the date of
      this Order, to serve and file a proposed "Notice" to
      members of the certified classes and suggest a method by
      which this should be accomplished and at whose expense;

   7. directing the Defendant, within 14 days from service of
      the proposed "Notice", to serve and file any objections to
      the same; and

   8. directing Class counsel to have seven days from service of
      any objection to serve and file a reply to the same.

The Court said, "The Court finds no reason to doubt the competency
or commitment of the class representative and class counsel, nor
does the Court identify any conflicts at present. Therefore,
adequacy of representation has been established. Moreover, the
identity of class members will answer questions as to receipt of an
"Refer a Friend" (RAF) text message, Washington residency, and
consent. Therefore, the predominance requirement is satisfied. Any
future management concerns may be addressed with a "variety of
procedural tools" to ease administrative burdens. Therefore, the
superiority element is satisfied. The Court finds that the
Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for class certification."

This case concerns the RAF marketing feature from the Defendant's
online investment brokerage application, which the Plaintiff
alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by
way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA").

The Plaintiff initially filed a putative class action complaint
against the Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood
Markets Inc. in Spokane County Superior Court. The Defendants
removed the action to federal court on the basis of class action
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Following removal, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The
Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant Robinhood Markets and a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to adequately allege a CEMA violation. The
Court granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss without prejudice
and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. On June 3, 2020, the Court
found the Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC substantiated that the
amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million by potentially involving
over 1,000 RAF recipients with Washington addresses. On November
23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Certify Class.

The Defendant is an online investment brokerage service that
enables customers to invest commission-free in stocks,
exchange-traded funds, and options. The Defendant created a
referral program, RAF, where customers can refer someone to sign up
for the Defendant's services whereby both the customer and referee
receive one share of free stock after the referee signs up.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwNNjp at no extra charge.[CC]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Wieg Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wieg, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00693 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the
stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst
of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of
the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the
open-market.

On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise. At that time,
Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market.
Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the
growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use
their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly
pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no
longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app.

According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done
purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit
of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's
customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have
gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in
the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of
"shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has
completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no
legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the
benefits of Robinhood's services, the suit says.

On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his
Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's
app, and found it was unavailable. The stock did not even appear,
although GME is a publicly traded company available on all other
platforms. The Plaintiff intended to purchase GME stocks and other
stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived of that ability due to
Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff, like so many others, lost
out on all earning opportunities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff David Wieg was and is a citizen of the State of
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ishan Dave, Esq.
          Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
          Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (310) 602-6050
          Facsimile: (310) 602-6350
          Email: Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Zybura Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartosz Zybura, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01348 (D.N.J., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against the
Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the
stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst
of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of
the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the
open-market.

On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise and at that time,
Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market.
Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the
growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use
their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly
pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no
longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app.

According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done
purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit
of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's
customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have
gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in
the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of
"shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has
completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no
legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the
benefits of Robinhood's services. Robinhood continues to randomly
pull other securities from its app for no legitimate reason, the
suit says.

On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his
Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's
app, and found GME and others was unavailable. The stocks did not
even appear, although GME and others are publicly traded companies
available on all other platforms. The Plaintiff intended to
purchase GME and other stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived
of the ability due to Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff,
like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Bartosz Zybura was and is a citizen of the State of New
Jersey.

Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760




ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ziegler Sues Over Open-Market Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Ziegler, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00123 (D. Conn., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against the
Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the
stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst
of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of
the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the
open-market.

On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise and at that time,
Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market.
Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the
growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use
their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly
pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no
longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app.

According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done
purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit
of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's
customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have
gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in
the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of
"shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has
completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no
legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the
benefits of Robinhood's services. Robinhood continues to randomly
pull other securities from its app for no legitimate reason, the
suit says.

On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his
Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's
app, and found GME and others was unavailable. The stocks did not
even appear, although GME and others are publicly traded companies
available on all other platforms. The Plaintiff intended to
purchase GME and other stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived
of the ability due to Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff,
like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Zachary Ziegler was and is a citizen of the State of
Connecticut.

Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760


ROY GRINNELL: Tellez-Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roy Grinnell LLC. The
case is styled as Cheryl Tellez-Vasquez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Roy Grinnell LLC doing business
as: Muv Dispensary, Case No. 2:21-cv-00152-SPL (D. Ariz., Jan. 28,
2021).

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

MUV AZ -- https://muv-az.com/ -- is a medical cannabis dispensary
located in the North Phoenix area near the corner of Cactus and
Cave Creek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mariam Grigorian, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: mgrigorian@shamisgentile.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the pace
of a class-action suit over PFOA contamination of groundwater in
sections of Bennington has been slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic,
attorneys for the hundreds of plaintiffs said this week, but it
remains on track for a trial in U.S. District Court or a possible
settlement with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics.

The three law firms involved have released a video and media
statement to update those affected in terms of their health and
through diminution of their property values, because of the
long-lasting industrial contamination embedded in soils and
groundwater.

"After nearly five years of litigation, lead plaintiffs in
Bennington's class action PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid)
contamination case are still waiting for a trial date," the release
stated. "Attorneys had expected the case to be adjudicated by now,
but it has been delayed due to COVID-19 risks. With public health
strategies progressing, attorneys are optimistic that a court date
or settlement may be approaching."

In a phone interview, two of the attorneys, David Silver of
BarrSternberg Moss, Silver & Munson, of Bennington, and Emily
Joselson, of Langrock Wool & Sperry, of Middlebury, stressed that
they are ready to provide updates and to answer the questions of
current or former residents who believe they might have been
affected.

The firms have established benningtonclassaction.com, where people
can learn how to contact the attorneys or find other information
about the contamination or the progress of the suit.

Also representing the class-action plaintiffs are attorneys Gary
Davis and Jamie Whitlock of Davis & Whitlock, of Ashville, N.C.

Since nearly five years has passed, some residents might not
realize the suit is still pending, the attorneys said, or that they
might still be able to join the suit and/or qualify for blood
testing to determine their level of PFOA.

"We also want them to know we are still fighting for them," Silver
said.

HUNDREDS INVOLVED
The attorneys said some 2,300 Bennington and North Bennington
property owners have real estate within an area that was adversely
affect, based on a state-identified contamination zone.


And a subgroup of between 500 to 1,000 residents who consumed
contaminated well water and have elevated levels of PFOA in their
blood make up the exposure class.

PFOA has been associated with kidney cancer, testicular cancer,
ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and
pregnancy-induced hypertension, and one aspect of the suit has
sought continued medical monitoring for the exposure class, as the
chemical is known to diminish slowly in the blood over many years.

The lawsuit was certified as a class-action in 2019, and an appeal
by the company of that decision by Judge Geoffrey Crawford in U.S.
District Court in Rutland was later rejected at the appellate
level, the attorneys said.

They said they now expect a trial in the fall, unless there are
further COVID-19-related delays, or a settlement agreement is
reached with Saint-Gobain.

DISOVERED IN 2016
The suit was filed over PFOA contamination of soil, groundwater and
hundreds of private wells around two former ChemFab Corp. plants
here, which Saint-Gobain acquired shortly before closing the last
Bennington plant in 2002 and moving the operations to New
Hampshire.

Filed in May 2016, the lawsuit followed discovery of the chemical -
associated with the liquid Teflon that ChemFab used to coat
fiberglass and other fabric and dry them at high temperature - in
numerous local wells.

State environmental officials concluded that the contaminant was
dispersed through factory stack emissions over parts of Bennington
and over time worked into soil and then the groundwater. ChemFab
began in 1968 at 108 Northside Drive and later moved to a newer
46,300-square-foot factory and warehouse on Water Street in North
Bennington, where it operated through 2002.

It is only since the early 2000s that PFOA and related industrial
chemicals, which were used for decades in consumer and industrial
products, emerged as a long-lasting contamination threat in water
supplies around industrial sites worldwide.

"The outcome of this class action suit is likely to inform future
cases, and points to the scope of the chemical industry's potential
future financial liability," according to the release. "Industry
advisors and attorneys representing multinational corporations that
manufacture or process PFOA and related chemicals PFAS (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances) are expected to continue to monitor the
case."

Joselson and Silver said that, while Saint-Gobain has reached two
consent agreements with the state that required the company to
provide some $50 million for new municipal water lines to
contaminated properties and to cover other costs of addressing the
pollution, the company has not admitted liability for harm caused
to the health of residents or to their property.

The contaminated wells have been replaced by a municipal source,
they said, but the groundwater is expected to be reclassified by
the state as Class IV, or unsuitable as a source of potable water
because of PFOA, thereby affecting property values going forward
for many years.

The ongoing lawsuit "will be the first such case in Vermont, and
the first in the state to request that a PFOA polluter pay for the
cost of medical monitoring for members of the exposure class," the
attorneys said in a release.

For the property class members in the suit, the attorneys said they
are seeking recovery for lowered property values as a result of the
contamination, dubbed "property diminution."

They said that, according to the suit's lead plaintiffs and an
independent real estate expert, claimed losses can range from
approximately 35 percent to 11 percent of each class member's
overall property value.

"If a jury agrees, the potential payout could be significant across
the class," the attorneys stated.

Joselson discussed the importance of the case in a video interview
that was shared with suit class members.

"Under federal law, we currently leave it up to chemical
manufacturers like DuPont to report to the EPA if they are
producing and selling a chemical that's unsafe," she said. "Some
companies don't report their unsafe chemicals, and that was the
case with the manufacturers of PFOA."

Joselson said she and her co-counsel are confident about the status
of the case, and are committed to presenting the evidence to a
Vermont jury.

"We have litigated virtually every possible legal issue for more
than four years now," she said. "We're ready to try this case in
court, if we're not able to settle it first." [GN]


SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corporation (OTCQX: SMICY) investors that acquired
shares between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020. Investors
have until February 8, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here
https://portnoylaw.com/semiconductor/ to join the case.

After market hours on September 7, 2020, it was reported in Reuters
that "The Trump administration is considering whether to add
China's top chipmaker SMIC to a trade blacklist, a Defense
Department official said[.]" SMIC's American depositary receipt
("ADR") price fell $3.08 per share, or over 20%, on this news, to
close at $12.02 per share on September 8, 2020, the next trading
day. Reuters reported on September 26, 2020 that "The United States
has imposed restrictions on exports to China's biggest chip maker
SMIC after concluding there is an ‘unacceptable risk' equipment
supplied to it could be used for military purposes." SMIC's ADR
price fell sharply on this news, during intraday trading on the
next trading day, September 28, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
8, 2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


SOAR COLLECTIVE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that another day, two
more TCPA class actions targeting the Cannabis industry. This time
both cases are in California (my backyard.)

First, in Ronny McConn v. Soar Collective, Inc. d/b/a Orange County
Cannabis Club the Plaintiff asserts that a dispensary hammered him
with text messages promoting their product, without consent. These
texts are pretty bad– full color images of tantalizing (for some)
bud and everything.

Ronny seeks to represent: "All persons in the United States who,
within four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent
a text message by or on behalf of Defendant, (2) using an automatic
telephone dialing system, (3) for the purpose of soliciting
Defendant's goods and services, (4) without prior express consent
of the recipient, or with the same manner of purported consent
Defendant claims to have obtained from Plaintiff, if any."

Second, in Aram Sargsyan v. Empire Twin Palms, LLC and A1, A CA
Commercial Cannabis Association, Inc. the Defendants are likewise
accused of peppering a young surgical technologist with unwanted
ads pushing pot. Aram seeks to represent: "All persons in the
United States who (1) received a text message to their cellular
phone number from Defendants, (2) within four years prior to the
filing of this action, (3) which text message was sent without the
recipient's prior express consent, and (4) which text message(s)
(a) advertised Defendants or (b) encouraged the recipient to make a
purchase from Defendants."

Both of these cases were just filed on Friday and continue a trend
the cannabis industry must make a note of. As we've been reporting,
the cannabis industry is under a full on assault by the TCPA
plaintiff's bar as the industry seems to be under the influence of
mind-altering substances when it comes to TCPA compliance. And it
hasn't gone well for either the dispensaries or the CRM and
platforms that support them to date.

We'll continue to keep an eye on these developments but, in the
meantime, let's hope cannabis industry participants are reading
this and looking to clean up their act. As the CEOs of Jornaya and
Active Prospect explained in our big Unprecedented podcast
interview -- the TCPA represents an existential threat to the
well-funded cannabis industry as the Plaintiff's bar is looking to
wake and rake -- in the money, that is.

Will cannabis dispensaries (and their PE backers) be the new GREEN
goose that print millions in settlement dollars for ravenous
plaintiff's lawyers? Only time (and tcpaworld.com) will tell.

But to my (really the Archduke's) cannabis dispensary friends -- is
"pot dealers" too informal a term? -- there ARE resources to help.
Let's chat. [GN]


SONA NANOTECH: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Sona Nanotech, Inc. (OTC: SNANF)
investors that acquired shares between July 2, 2020 and November
25, 2020. Investors have until February 16, 2021 to seek an active
role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email to join the case.

The investigation focuses on whether Sona issued misleading and/or
false statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to
investors. On October 29, 2020 it was announced by Sona that its
request for an emergency use authorization to market its rapid
COVID-19 antigen test in the United States was denied by the FDA.
On the same day, Sona's shares fell 48%. On November 25, 2020, the
withdrawal of "an Interim Order authorization from Health Canada
for the marketing of its rapid, COVID-19 antigen test in order to
obtain more clinical data to augment its submission" was announced
by Sona. Shares of Sona fell by more than 67% on the same day based
on this news.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
16, 2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Splunk
Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) ("Splunk") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Splunk common stock between October 21, 2020
and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

REMINDER: Investors who purchased or acquired Splunk common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than February 2, 2021, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James
Maro, Esq. (484-270-1453) or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484-270-1435);
toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/splunk-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=splunk

According to its filings with the SEC, Splunk "provides innovative
software solutions that ingest data from different sources
including systems, devices and interactions, and turn[s] that data
into meaningful business insights across the organization." Splunk
states that its "Data-to-Everything platform enables users to
investigate, monitor, analyze and act on data regardless of format
or source."

The Class Period commences on October 21, 2020, when Splunk held a
call with several analysts at the Virtual Analyst & Investor
Session at .conf.20. On this call, Splunk assured investors that
everything was on track for the close of the third quarter, which
was just ten days after the call.

However, the truth regarding its third quarter was revealed after
the market closed on December 2, 2020, when Splunk announced its
financial results for its third fiscal quarter for 2021. In its
announcement, Splunk reported total revenues of $559 million, down
11% year-over-year and which missed estimates by nearly $60
million. Furthermore, Splunk announced quarterly non-GAAP earnings
per share of -$0.07, missing estimates by $0.15, as well as GAAP
earnings per share of -$1.26, missing by $0.24 per share.

Following this news, shares of Splunk common stock fell, closing at
$158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the
December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at info@ktmc.com.

Splunk investors may, no later than February 2, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]


SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
shareholders of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as
lead plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SPLK)
between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than February 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Splunk investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Splunk Securities Class Litigation

Splunk, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San
Francisco, California, is a software company specializing in
web-based products for searching, monitoring, and analyzing
machine-generated data at an organizational level.

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Splunk was
failing to close deals with most of its biggest customers in the
fiscal third quarter 2021; (2) Splunk was not achieving the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were at all relevant times materially
false and misleading.

On December 2, 2020, after markets closed, Splunk announced
disappointing results for the fiscal third quarter 2021, including
a decrease of approximately 11% in total revenues, missing analyst
estimates by almost $60 million. On the subsequent earnings call,
Company executives disclosed for the first time that Splunk had
failed to close most of its largest deals during the quarter. On
this news, the price of Splunk stock dropped $47.88 per share, or
23.25%, from its closing price of $205.91 on December 2, 2020, to
close at $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The case is styled as Austin Schaff, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00222-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2021).

The case arises from alleged civil rights violation pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a broker that
offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial
assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
contracts, exchange-traded funds, options, cryptocurrency, mutual
funds, and fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin Street, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 566-0550
          Fax: (813) 566-0770
          Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

               - and -

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Phone: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com


TEXAS: Eaunman Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stevai Kurt Eaunman v.
Jimmy Bowman, et. al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00560-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all inmates who are, or will be, incarcerated at the
      Powledge Unit, and who are subjected to Texas Dept of
      Criminal Justice's (TDCJ's) policy and practice of failing
      to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the
      housing areas;"

   2. certifying the following sub-classes of people who are 1)
      incarcerated at the Powledge Unit, or will be in the
      future, 2) are subjected to TDCJ's policy and practice of
      failing to regulate high apparent temperatures in the
      housing areas, and either:

      a. Heat-Sensative Subclass: (i) have a physiological
         condition that places them at increased risk of heat-
         related illness, injury, or death (including, but not
         limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes,
         hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric
         conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive
         pulmonary disease, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid
         dysfunction); or, (ii) are prescribed an anticonvulsant,
         anticholinergic, antipsychotics, antihistamines,
         antidepressants, beta blockers, or diuretic; or, (iii)
         are ever the age of 60.

      b. Disability Subclass: suffer from a disability that
         substantially limits one or more of their major life
         activities and who are at increased risk of heat
         related illness, injury, or death due o their
         disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat
         heir disability.

TDCJ manages the overall operation of the state's prison system,
parole, and state jail systems. It also provides funding, training,
and certain oversight of parole. TDCJ is the largest state agency
in Texas.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pEbUjQ
at no extra charge.[CC]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Misclassification Suit Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that more than
4,800 Uber drivers may proceed as a class on their claim that they
were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees
under California law but not on their related minimum wage,
overtime, and sick-pay claims, a federal judge in San Francisco
ruled on Jan. 26.

Whether Uber misclassified these drivers under California's ABC
test can be mostly resolved on a classwide basis, Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California said. He partially granted the class certification
motion on that threshold issue, as well as the expense
reimbursement and wage-statement claims.

Parts A and B of that test ask if the drivers are free from Uber's
control when performing their work and if their work is outside the
course of Uber's normal business. Those questions don't require any
individualized inquiries, the court said. Determining whether the
drivers have "sufficient flexibility" under part A can be resolved
by examining the terms of Uber's standard contract, which apply to
all drivers, and courts have consistently ruled that Uber and the
drivers are "both in the business of transportation" under part B.

Part C, which asks if the drivers are engaged in independently
established businesses, presents some individualized issues, but it
doesn't matter because Uber has to satisfy all three parts of the
ABC test to prove it properly classified the drivers as
contractors, the court said.

But it's impossible to determine the wage- and sick-pay claims
without delving into individualized inquiries because the drivers
insist they should be paid for the time they spent waiting to
accept rides and should be counted toward their leave, instead of
limiting their claims to their driving time, the court said.
Determining if this "on call" time is compensable would require the
court to assess if each driver engaged in any personal activities
while waiting for a ride request.

The drivers filed a consolidated class action complaint in April,
alleging that Uber's misclassification resulted in multiple
wage-and-hour violations of California law.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC represents the proposed class. Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents Uber Technologies Inc.

The case is James v. Uber Techs. Inc., N.D. Cal., No.
3:19-cv-06462, 1/26/21 [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify RNs Class in Crawley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims denies the Plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
LINDA CRAWLEY, LIP CHEN, MARTA ELIZABETH LOPEZ, EVELYN SHERMAN,
HEATHER GUTENSOHN, MELANIE CHRISTIAN, JOSEPH HICKS, JENNY B.
REDMOND, and SAJITHA NATHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case
No. 18-1804C (Fed. Cl.).

The Plaintiffs seek to recover back pay and interest for
night-premium pay allegedly not paid by the United States, acting
through the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). The named
Plaintiffs are registered nurses ("RNs") from the VA Medical Center
in Richmond, Virginia, and hybrid health-care workers from the VA
Medical Center in Hines, Illinois. They seek to represent other VA
employees similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification under Rule 23 of
the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), approval of a
postcard providing notice to putative class members, approval of
the official class notice, appointment of Ira M. Lechner as class
counsel, and appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions,
Inc., as class-action administrator. They have also moved for an
order compelling the Defendant to produce under seal identifying
information of potential putative class members in various
categories.

Discussion

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the VA did not pay
them the differential night-premium pay to which they were
entitled. They seek back pay and interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
Section 5596 (the Back Pay Act); 5 U.S.C. Section 6303, et seq.
(the leave-with-pay statutes); and 38 U.S.C. Sections 7453(b),
7454(b)(1). The Richmond Plaintiffs -- Heather Gutensohn, Melanie
Christian, Joseph Hicks, Jenny B. Redmond, and Sajitha Nathan --
are employed as RNs at the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia.
The Hines Plaintiffs -- Linda Crawley, Lip Chen, Marta Elizabeth
Lopez, and Evelyn Sherman -- are employed as hybrid employees at
the VA Medical Center in Hines, Illinois. The Plaintiffs from both
the Richmond and Hines facilities seek to represent putative
classes of similarly situated VA employees at both their own
facilities and other VA medical facilities.

The Plaintiffs have moved to certify subclasses based on two
categories of affected employees: (1) hybrid employees similarly
situated to the Hines Plaintiffs, and (2) RNs and Licensed
Practical Nurses ("LPNs") similarly situated to the Richmond
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also moved to certify another
subclass consisting of general schedule employees at the VA, who
were allegedly not paid the proper night-premium pay.

The Defendant has opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that the
named Hines Plaintiffs were in fact paid the premium pay to which
they were entitled under Title 5, so they cannot be representative
of a putative class, and class status is inappropriate and
unnecessary for the Richmond Plaintiffs because the VA has
identified all potential claimants at the Richmond facility, among
other arguments.

RCFC 23 establishes the requirements for the Court to certify an
opt-in class. The Court has summarized RCFC 23's provisions as
imposing five requirements: (i) numerosity; (ii) commonality; (iii)
typicality; (iv) adequacy; and (v) superiority.

Judge Richard A. Hertling finds that despite having the burden of
establishing all five of RCFC 23's requirements for class
certification, much of the Plaintiffs' argument amounts to
assertions that the requirements have been met. The Plaintiffs'
complaint alleges that class status is appropriate by asserting
that the requirements of RCFC 23 are satisfied without providing
the necessary factual support and legal analysis to enable the
Court to determine that the requirements are indeed satisfied.

According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Plaintiffs make no effort to apply the facts derived through class
discovery to the legal standards for each prong of RCFC 23. The
"submission" that the requirements of RCFC 23 are met does not
satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden. The Defendant's opposition,
however, enables the Court to determine that portions of the
Plaintiffs' motion must be denied with prejudice.

The named Hines Plaintiffs are hybrid employees and they seek to
represent other hybrid employees who, when they used authorized and
accrued leave during nighttime hours, were not paid an amount equal
to the additional pay they would have received while working
scheduled tours of duty between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (and
contiguous hours). The Plaintiffs argue that the 8-hour rule in 5
U.S.C. Section 5545(a)(2) does not apply to the hybrid employees at
the Hines VA facility, and that the Hines facility applied the
limitation in error.

The Court cannot know how many of the 237 individuals identified in
the interrogatory response were not paid properly under Title 5.
Regardless of the precise number, however, the Court determines
that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the requisite
numerosity. In addition, the named Hines Plaintiffs cannot meet
RCFC 23's commonality requirement.

Because the named Hines Plaintiffs properly received the
night-premium pay to which they were entitled under Title 5, they
do not have a common question of law or fact with potential
Plaintiffs, who were improperly paid. The Court denies the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification regarding the Hines
Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs propose to certify two subclasses, based separately
on the Hines and Richmond plaintiffs' claims, covering all
similarly situated VA employees nationally. The Plaintiffs,
however, have failed to establish RCFC 23's commonality requirement
because they have not shown that "there are questions of law or
fact common to the class" or that "the United States acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class."

Because the named Hines Plaintiffs themselves were not improperly
paid, they cannot represent a national putative class, Judge
Hertling holds. Given the confusion caused by the Plaintiffs'
interrogatory, there is no indication that there are pay
discrepancies at the Hines facility, much less national or systemic
discrepancies.

The VA confirmed that 795 RNs and LPNs were not paid the approved
14 percent pay at the Richmond facility. A current VA Management
Analyst, Robert Jackson, explained that the discrepancy at the
Richmond facility was caused by "personnel actions that changed
employee records due to promotion, job change, and[/]or general
adjustments."

Despite indication of errors at the Richmond facility, it does not
follow that the same systemic error exists throughout the VA
system, Judge Hertling notes. According to the Defendant's witness,
Mr. Jackson, the pay discrepancy found in Richmond is
individualized to certain personnel actions.

It is possible that there are pay errors at other VA facilities,
but the Court needs more than speculation to conclude that there is
a national problem. It is the Plaintiffs' burden to meet, and they
have failed to do so, Judge Hertling points out.

The Plaintiffs also have not identified any other VA facilities
where an increase in night-premium pay was approved, even though
they noted that they have served the Defendant with an
interrogatory seeking specific information as to pay practices at
other VA facilities.

Because the Plaintiffs merely speculate about underpayment at other
VA facilities without identifying a systemic error or even
identifying other VA facilities that have authorized increased
night-premium pay, they cannot show that there is a common question
of law or fact in a national class, Judge Hertling holds. On the
same reasoning, they cannot show that the United States acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to a national class.
The Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot establish a national putative
class based on the Richmond Plaintiffs' claims.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish RCFC 23's
commonality requirement for a national class based on the Hines and
Richmond Plaintiffs' claims, the Court denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a national putative class.

The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a subclass consisting of
general schedule employees at VA facilities. They refer to these
employees as "GS-Title 5." The VA allegedly "failed to pay night
premium pay and/or Saturday premium pay when those employees used
authorized annual leave, sick leave, or military training leave,
instead of performing scheduled work during night and/or Saturday
hours since November 23, 2012."

To the extent that the "GS-Title 5" employees may be subject to the
same Title 5 provisions as the Hines Plaintiffs, the named Hines
Plaintiffs were not improperly paid and cannot represent them,
Judge Hertling holds. The Court, therefore, must deny the
Plaintiffs' attempt to certify a subclass of general schedule
employees at VA facilities.

The Court considers class certification at the Richmond facility
alone. The named Richmond Plaintiffs are RNs at the VA Medical
Center in Richmond, Virginia. They seek to represent other RNs and
LPNs who were not paid the approved increase in the night-premium
pay from 10 percent to 14 percent at the Richmond VA Medical Center
and other VA facilities that have approved increased night-premium
pay. The VA has identified 795 RNs and LPNs, who were not paid the
increased pay at the Richmond facility.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under RCFC 23 for
class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' amended motion
for class certification is denied.

Limited to potential plaintiffs at the Richmond facility, the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class based on the Richmond
Plaintiffs' claim is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may
move again for class certification of potential Richmond facility
Plaintiffs by no later than February 8, 2021. If the Plaintiffs
choose to do so, they must analyze each of RCFC 23's requirements
with particularity, considering the facts and circumstances of this
case.

The Plaintiffs' motion for (1) approval of a postcard providing
notice to putative class members; (2) approval of the official
class notice; (3) appointment of Ira M. Lechner as the class
counsel; and (4) appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims
Solutions, Inc. as the class-action administrator, limited to the
Richmond Plaintiffs, is denied without prejudice.

Regarding potential classes consisting of (1) hybrid employees at
the Hines facility, (2) hybrid employees, RNs, and LPNs nationally,
and (3) general schedule employees, the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is denied. With respect to these classes, the
Plaintiffs' motion for (1) approval of a postcard providing notice
to putative class members; (2) approval of the official class
notice; (3) appointment of Ira M. Lechner as the class counsel; and
(4) appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, Inc. as
the class-action administrator is denied.

The Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxswh56c from
Leagle.com.

Ira M. Lechner, in Washington, D.C., for the Plaintiffs.

Joseph A. Pixley -- Joe.Pixley@usdoj.gov -- Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington,
D.C., Kendall Rocio, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, of
counsel, for the Defendant.


VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Voyager Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:VYGR) between June 1, 2017 and November 9, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than March 24, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Voyager Therapeutics securities during
the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Voyager class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2026.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT: According to the lawsuit, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's VY-HTT01 IND
submission to the FDA lacked key information regarding certain
chemistry, manufacturing and controls matters, including, inter
alia, drug-device compatibility and drug substance and product
characterization; (2) the Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was
therefore deficient; (3) the Company had thus materially overstated
the likelihood of FDA approval for VY-HTT01 based on the IND
submission; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To join the Voyager class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2026.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 26 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. ("Voyager" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
VYGR) 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 June 1,
2017 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 24, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here --
https://schallfirm.com/cases/voyager-therapeutics-inc/#case-form --
to participate.

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. Voyager's IND submission to the FDA for
VY-HTT01 failed to include key information on chemistry,
manufacturing and controls ("CMC") matters including drug-device
compatibility and product characterization. The Company's IND
submission for VY-HTT01 was deficient based on this failure. The
Company overstated the likelihood of the IND submission achieving
FDA approval. 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 Voyager, 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.

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


WALMART INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. ("Walmart" or
"the Company") (NYSE: WMT) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Walmart
securities between March 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/wmt.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company knowingly filled prescriptions that were
issued by so-called "pill-mill" prescribers; (2) the Company filled
thousands of prescriptions that showed obvious red flags, including
highly-dangerous cocktails of drugs, (3) the Company's managers
made it difficult for Walmart pharmacists to comply with their
legal obligations by pressuring them to fulfill as many orders as
possible; (4) hence, the Company's pharmacy revenues were inflated
because the Company filled thousands of invalid prescriptions in
violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements;
(5) the aforementioned conduct would subject the Company to
regulatory scrutiny; and 6) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Walmart's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/wmt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Walmart
you have until March 22, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contacts

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


WORLDPAC INC: FLSA Collective Status of Delivery Drivers Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective;

   2. approving his proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit"
      and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms, and authorizing the
      Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice via
      first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA
      collective, defined as:

      "all current and former Delivery Drivers who worked for
      Worldpac, Inc. or National Delivery Solutions, LLC., and
      were not paid overtime, in the United States at any time
      from three years prior to the date the Court grants
      conditional certification through a date specified by the
      Court";

   3. granting the Plaintiff's to send each member of the
      proposed FLSA collective a text message notifying them of
      their right to opt in to the case;

   4. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
      dates of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses
      in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of
      the entry of the order; and

   5. allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
      circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.

This case arises from the Defendants' willful misclassification of
John Honeycutt and all other similarly situated Delivery Drivers as
independent contractors. The Plaintiff and the putative collective,
deliver automotive parts to the customers of WorldPac and Defendant
NDS. The Delivery Drivers are critical to operation of both the
Defendants' businesses. The business model is simple. NDS finds the
Delivery Drivers, has them sign a standardized "Independent
Contractor & Equipment Lease Agreement," then assigns the Delivery
Driver to perform package delivery services for WorldPac. The
Plaintiff (and the Opt-in Plaintiff) spent 50-60 hours a week
delivering packages exclusively for the Defendants, but never
received any overtime wages. This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 207, to recover unpaid overtime
wages.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cHTawj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, Michigan 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com

[*] Australian Insurers Face COVID-19 Payout Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
insurancebusinessmag.com reports that Australian insurers can't
catch a break as they continue to face COVID-19 pandemic-related
business interruption (BI) class action lawsuits revolving around
an "absolute stuff up" in their contractual fine print.

At least five legal firms are investigating potential class-action
lawsuits against insurers over their denial of BI insurance payouts
amid the pandemic.

Michael Herrmann, who owns a bicycle tour company in Sydney, said
the class action is "going to be a fight to the end." He had seen
his business's revenue drop by 95% since the beginning of the
pandemic due to lockdowns and loss of international tourists as the
country's borders remain closed.

When COVID-19 hit Australia, Herrmann's Bonza Bike Tour had a BI
policy with CGU, a subsidiary of IAG. Despite making a claim and
involving the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA),
Herrmann still has not yet received a payout.

"Every time I've made a claim, they've waited to the last possible
day to respond," Herrmann said, as reported by ABC.

IAG argued: "Our policies weren't written or designed to provide
cover for a pandemic, so we need clarification on how they should
be interpreted in light of the impact of COVID-19."

Many BI policies state they do not cover revenue losses due to
"diseases declared to be quarantinable under the Quarantine Act
1908 (Cth) and subsequent amendments." However, the Commonwealth
replaced the Quarantine Act with the Biosecurity Act 2015, which
judges have pointed out in recent rulings.

Investor Claim Partner (ICP) litigation funder John Walker
describes the Quarantine Act debacle as an "absolute stuff up" by
the insurance industry.

"If they did not intend to cover pandemics, then to a certain
extent I feel sorry for them, but that does not alleviate their
legal obligations to the insured," Walker said, as reported by
ABC.

"It's been 12 months since this pandemic started. There's been
negligible claims paid. It ought to change." [GN]


[*] Blank Rome Issues Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, Esq., and Jeffrey Rosenthal, Esq., of Blank Rome LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that for some time now, employers
have been the main target of a relentless wave of class action
lawsuits by employees alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the use
fingerprint scans for timekeeping purposes. Recently, however,
employees and the plaintiff's bar have added a new primary target
for such suits: third-party biometric timekeeping technology
vendors. To date, vendors' ability to avoid or limit liability
under BIPA has been mixed. But there are several defenses that -
while still being developed and refined by the courts - may prove
useful for vendors to extricate themselves from bet-the-company
BIPA suits or, at a minimum, trim the scope of potential
liability.

Originally published in the February/March 2021 edition of Pratt's
Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report (Vol. 7, No. 2.

Please see full article below for more information.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/designing-a-bipa-defense-strategies-for-8256902/
[GN]






                            *********

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 ***