/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210211.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 25

                            Headlines

2SNZ GROUP: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Lammey Claims
ALLY FINANCIAL: Cheng Suit Alleges Over Stock Market Manipulation
ALTAMAREA GROUP: Cabrera Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Dismissed
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending

ANIWA LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
ARIZONA: Court Junks Kilian Hale Class Action
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Community Launches PFAS Class Action
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 465 Women's Health Product Claims

BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 520 Filter Product Liability Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 23,260 Hernia Product Liability Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Underway
BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Submits Court Motion to Quash Subpoena
BEVERLY TERRACE: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Says

BIT DIGITAL: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
BOEING CO: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $2 Million
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Settlement in Securities Suit Granted Final OK
BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Ringo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
BUENA VISTA: Faces Robles Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: Faces Retaliation Suit Over Unpaid Rent Fees
CARWELL LLC: Underpays Sales Associates, Megally Suit Alleges
DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DSQUARED2 INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
ERIE INSURANCE: Teemnow Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims

EUROSTAR INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
FACEBOOK INC: Garvin Suit Asserts Social Media Monopoly
FOOT LOCKER: Jacobo Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
FRANKLYLOFTLY CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Seek Overtime Pay

GE REALPROP: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Day Sues Over Deceptive Vehicle Service Warranty
GOLDEN PEANUT: Appeals Ruling in Farmers Antitrust Suit to 4th Cir.
GORJANA & GRIFFIN: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Power Workers

HANKOOK ATLASBX: Laudermilk Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ILLINOIS: Transgerder Inmates' Class-Action Suit Can Proceed
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Discovery Ongoing in Investors Suit
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: DJY Bid to Intervene in Suit Pending
IRHYTHM TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 2 Deadline

IRHYTHM TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IT'SUGAR LLC: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baby Powder Causes Cancer, Trinidad Suit Says

KAI DATA: Tikotzky Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls & Messages
KENT COUNTY: Calkins Files Civil Rights Suit v. County Treasurer
KINKISHARYO INT'L: Reply Brief to Class Status Bid Due Feb. 16
KONE INC: Lucchese Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Pending

LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit
LEXINGTON FRESH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Has Until Oct. 4 to File Class Status Bid
LIZHI INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
MAPLEWOOD, MO: Request for Hearing on Class Status Bid Tossed

MATTERPORT INC: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Oct. 7
MEI PHARMA: Bahat Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
MEREDITH CORP: Appeal in Iowa Putative Class Suit Pending
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due June 4
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Benton Labor Suit in Cal. State Court

OKC SOUTHERN: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Dedmon Suit Claims
OPEN TEXT: Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Appeal Due Feb. 24
PASCHALL TRUCK: Carter Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
PENUMBRA INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 16 Deadline

PLUM PBC: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Class Suit Says
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: City of Warren Police Appeals Suit Dismissal
RALPH LAUREN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
REALPAGE INC: Kelly Appeals Ruling in FCRA Suit to Third Circuit
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Carella Byrne Files Securities Class Action

RESTAURANT BRANDS: The Schall Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Sanchez Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Curiel-Ruth Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Gamestop Trading Halt
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Suit Over Stock Market Manipulation Amended

ROBINHOOD: Gary R. Carlin APC Files Class Action in California
ROBINHOOD: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Antitrust Class Action
ROYAL SEA: Trial Unnecessary in McCurley & Deforest Class Suit
SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 5 Deadline

ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Judge Dismisses Patients' Class Action Lawsuit
STAFF PRO INC: Eliacin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STATE FARM: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition in Vogt Suit to S.C.
STATE FARM: Singh Sues Over Deductions on Insureds' Account Values
STATE STREET: Lieff Cabraser Appeals Order in ATRS Suit to 1st Cir.

STOCKX LLC: I.C. Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 6th Cir.
SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Underway
SUMMIT PIZZA: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action
SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Williams Suit Claims
SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway

TAPESTRY INC: Butler Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
THE 1 DELIVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Dickinson Suit Says
TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Sues Over Sale of PHO-Containing Tootsie Pops
TRITERRAS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Perez Habeas Corpus Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Beck Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
VAXART INC: Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Barker Suit Says
VESPER HEALTHCARE: Purvance Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VF OUTDOOR: Alcazar Files Suit in California Over ADA Violations

VON BRIESEN: Faces Lenzner Suit Over Failure to Pay Paralegals' OT
WESBANCO BANK: Faces Stillgood Products Suit in S.D. Indiana
WESCO INSURANCE: MSP Class Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
WHOLE FOODS: Workers Punished Over BLM Masks Lose Bias Claims
ZOOSK INC: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Sept. 9

[*] Parking Heaters Price-Fixing Class Action Certified in Canada
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Down 22% in 2020, Report Says

                            *********

2SNZ GROUP: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Lammey Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dwain Lammey v. Bhikubhai Jivanji Patel, Trustee of the 2014 B & G
Patel Family Trust dated April 28, 2014; Gitaben Patel, Trustee of
the 2014 B & G Patel Family Trust dated April 28, 2014; 2SNZ Group
Inc, a California Corporation; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21LBCV00028
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Defendant of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act with respect to its
reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
information on the hotel's reservation Website,
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/travelodge/harbor-city-california/travelodge-harbor-city/rooms-rates,
that would permit Plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that
would work for people with physical disabilities like him. As a
result of the Defendant's failure to comply with its ADA
obligations, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking
of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether
the room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.

Mr. Lammey is a California resident with physical disabilities who
is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a
quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

The Defendants own the Travelodge by Wyndham Harbor City located at
1440 Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
          Russell Handy, Esq.
          Amanda Seabock, Esq.
          Zachary Best, Esq.
          CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
          E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

ALLY FINANCIAL: Cheng Suit Alleges Over Stock Market Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE CHENG, and TERELL STERLING, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.;
ALPACA SECURITIES LLC; CASH APP INVESTING LLC; SQUARE INC.; DOUGH
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; ETRADE SECURITIES LLC; ETRADE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION; ETRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC; ETORO USA
SECURITIES, INC.; FREETRADE, LTD.; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC; M1
FINANCE, LLC; OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC.; ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC;
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC; TASTYWORKS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC ; TRADING 212 LTD.; TRADING 212 UK LTD.;
WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC; FUMI HOLDINGS, INC.; STASH FINANCIAL, INC.;
BARCLAYS BANK PLC; CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; CITADEL
SECURITIES LLC; MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP; SEQUOIA CAPITAL
OPERATIONS LLC; APEX CLEARING CORPORATION; THE DEPOSITORY TRUST &
CLEARING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00781 (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 1, 2021) alleges Defendants' violation of the Sherman
Act.

According to the complaint, on January 27, 2021, after the close of
the stock market and before the open of the market the next day,
the Fund Defendants coordinated and planned increased short volumes
in anticipation of short calls on January 28, 2021.

The Brokerage Defendants that operate through Websites and mobile
applications, disabled all buy features on their platforms and
thereby left the Retail Investors with no choice but to sell or
hold their rapidly dwindling stocks. The Brokerage Defendants did
so to ensure that the stock prices for the Relevant Securities go
down in furtherance of the conspiracy. Other Brokerage Defendants
displayed loading graphics on the landing pages for these Relevant
Securities to prevent users from purchasing any more Relevant
Securities. Plaintiffs and Class members, faced with an imminent
decrease in the price of their positions in the Relevant Securities
due to the inability of Retail Investors to purchase shares, were
induced to sell their shares in the Relevant Securities at a lower
price than they otherwise would have. Additionally, Class members
that would have purchased more stock in the Relevant Securities
given the upward trend in price could not do so, the suit says.

By doing so, the Defendants and their co-conspirators forced Retail
Investors to choose between selling the Relevant Securities at a
lower price or holding their rapidly declining positions in the
Relevant Securities. Allegedly, Defendants did so to drive the
price of the Relevant Securities down.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to prevent the
Retail investors from buying further stock in order to mitigate the
Fund Defendants' exposure in their short positions. By forcing the
Retail Investors to sell their Relevant Securities at lower prices
than they otherwise would have, Defendants artificially reduced the
value of the Relevant Securities that Retail Investors either sold
or held on to, added the suit.

Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  areddy@saverilawfirm.com


ALTAMAREA GROUP: Cabrera Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTAMAREA GROUP, LLC; MRMADISON LLC d/b/a
RISTORANTE MORINI; AMG PARK LLC, d/b/a VAUCLUSE and OMAR AT
VAUCLUSE; ALTAMAREA LLC, d/b/a MAREA; LETTA #1, LLC, d/b/a
NICOLETTA; AMG HOTELS #1, LLC, d/b/a AI FIORI; 218, LLC, d/b/a
OSTERIA MORINI; MICHAEL WHITE; and AHMASS FAKAHANY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00922 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage, overtime due to invalid
tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Cabrera was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Altamarea Group, LLC operates as a restaurant. The Company retails
prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Amcor plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted a motion to
dismiss filed by Bemis Company, Inc. and the other defendants and
dismissed the case with prejudice.

Two lawsuits brought by purported holders of Bemis stock against
Bemis and Bemis directors and officers were pending in federal
court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, in which plaintiffs sought damages for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations.

Plaintiffs alleged a failure to disclose adequately information in
the proxy statement issued in connection with the Amcor-Bemis
merger.

The cases are: Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and
Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al., which were instituted on April
15, 2019 and April 17, 2019, respectively.

On March 10, 2020 the federal court in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York consolidated the two pending
cases into a single class action.

On January 12, 2021, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
Bemis and the other defendants and dismissed the case with
prejudice.

Amcor plc is a holding company originally incorporated under the
name Arctic Jersey Limited as a limited company under the Laws of
the Bailiwick of Jersey in July 2018, in order to effect the
Company's combination with Bemis Company, Inc. On October 10, 2018,
Arctic Jersey Limited was renamed "Amcor plc" and became a public
limited company incorporated under the Laws of the Bailiwick of
Jersey.

AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
related to alleged price-fixing, market allocation and bid rigging
of generic drugs, is pending.

In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.

The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.

The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint.

On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting
a ruling from the court.

AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.

ANIWA LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
-------------------------------------------
Debra Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aniwa, LLC, John A. Urban and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00114, (E.D.
Wis., January 26, 2021) seeks damages for violations of the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for illegally withholding tips.

Aniwa operates as "Texas Jay's," an adult-oriented entertainment
facility located in Birnamwood, Wisconsin where Weiss worked as an
exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through tips from
customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at their
establishment. However, she was required to share her tips with
other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Urban, Esq.
     URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
     Urban Taylor Law Building
     4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
     Milwaukee, WI 53212
     Telephone: (414) 906-1700
     Email: jurban@wisconsininjury.com

            - and -

     John P. Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Telephone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

            - and -

     Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     1105 Milford Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 554-2377
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


ARIZONA: Court Junks Kilian Hale Class Action
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kilian Gregoire Hale, v.
David Shinn, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00558-JCH-PSOT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge John C. Hinderaker entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
      Pauperis;

   2. directing the Plaintiff to pay the $350 filing fee and
      initial partial filing fee of $10.20, as required by the
      accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency;

   3. dismissing the complaint for failure to file on a court-
      approved form, and denying the Plaintiffs requests for
      counsel, class certification, and Rule 706 expert;

   4. giving the Plaintiff 30 days from the date this Order is
      filed, to file a first amended complaint in compliance
      with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
      complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without
      further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this
      action without prejudice and deny any pending unrelated
      motions as moot; and

   5. directing the Clerk to mail the Plaintiff a court-approved
      form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

Plaintiff Kilian Gregoire Hale is confined in the Arizona State
Prison Complex-Tucson.

Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson is one of 13 prison facilities
operated by the Arizona Department of Corrections. ASPC-Tucson is
located in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona, 127 miles south from the
state capital of Phoenix, Arizona.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YYU3bK at no extra charge.[CC]

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Astrazeneca Plc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

AZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=12710&wire=1

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

AZN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2020 -
November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=12710&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Astrazeneca Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the
Company's COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical
manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) clinical
trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the
validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the
clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (c)
certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a
second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the
second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled
to be delivered according to the original trial design; (d)
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (e) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e)
above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in
accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards
and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the
clinical trials was of limited utility; and (g) as a result of
(a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial
use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Community Launches PFAS Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ainslie Drewitt-Smith, writing for ABC News, reports that an
Aboriginal community has launched a class action against the
Federal Government claiming chemical contamination on their land
from Department of Defence operations has "destroyed" their
livelihoods.

The residents of Wreck Bay, on the New South Wales south coast,
allege Defence negligently allowed perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals to leech into surface water,
groundwater, and soil.

The chemicals are found in firefighting foams that had been used on
neighbouring naval base HMAS Creswell and the Jervis Bay Range
Facility for more than three decades since the 1970s.

What you need to know about PFAS

PFAS contamination is emerging as a major ongoing Australian public
health issue.

Defence has since erected signs warning against fishing from
waterways in the area, putting an end to Aboriginal practices that
have existed inside Jervis Bay Territory for thousands of years.

"We can't go and hunt and gather anymore, we can't teach our
younger generation coming through about our culture, like I learnt
as a kid," traditional owner James Williams said.

"We look at our land like our mother and that's how we treat it --
with respect," Mr Williams said.

"Our land has been destroyed. Our mother's been taken away from
us."

Community's 'greater exposure

Hundreds of residents from Wreck Bay and neighbouring villages have
joined the action, filed by Shine Lawyers in the Federal Court on
Feb. 2.

"These chemicals are known around the globe to persist in the
environment and in human bodies, and there's a lot of evidence out
there to suggest that there are possible human health affects that
relate to these chemicals as well," said the practice leader of
class actions with Shine Lawyers, Josh Aylward.

"This class action is claiming three things. One is for loss in
property value, the second is for inconvenience, stress and
vexation, but unlike any other action that's been run so far we're
also bringing a claim for cultural loss.

"For the people in Wreck Bay, because of their intimate connection
with the land and how far back it goes, they appear to be exposed
to the contamination more than most other people are in most other
communities."

The fresh suit follows the successful settlement of similar legal
challenges brought by the firm on behalf of the communities of
Katherine in the Northern Territory and Oakey in Queensland in
2020.

The government also agreed to compensate residents at Williamtown
in New South Wales who pursued legal action separately.

Defence planning remediation

Mr Williams said for his family at Jervis Bay, the loss of culture
is priceless.

"It can never be replaced. No compensation money can ever give us
back what we've had taken away from us," he said.

"People want peace of mind, for the Department of Defence to turn
around and say 'sorry'."

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Defence said
it had started planning for remediation of the area.

"This remediation plan is expected to be finalised in mid-2021 and
will consider a range of potential treatment options — for
example, excavating contaminated soils, water treatment, and
infrastructure upgrades," the spokesperson said.

"Defence will continue to engage with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community Council (WBACC) throughout remediation planning."

In December 2020, Defence completed an ecological risk assessment
detailing the potential exposure risks to flora and fauna in the
area.

It found that PFAS was primarily moving off Defence land through
groundwater and surface water into Jervis Bay Territory creeks.

"Precautionary advice has been provided to the community advising
that Mary Creek is closed to human use, and that collecting and
eating seafood from Summer Cloud Creek, Captains Lagoon, and Flat
Rock Creek should be avoided," the spokesperson said.

"For the remainder of the investigation area, the Defence
investigation did not identify any elevated PFAS exposure risks."

To date, the Commonwealth has agreed to pay out more than $200
million in compensation to communities affected by PFAS
contamination. [GN]


BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 465 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that as of
December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 465
product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic
mesh devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in various
federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 980 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted
or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient information
to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the Company is
actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc), each a supplier of the
Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to
products its subsidiaries had manufactured.

In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in
which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing
settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that
relate to products distributed by the Company under supply
agreements with Medtronic.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic toward these potential settlements.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $148
million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may,
in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of
additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar
terms.

The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative
class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have
settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle
to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims." The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek
damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the
products.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,280 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.

The Company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional
inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The WHP
Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial
verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health Product
Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2021 in state and federal
courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in
March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the
Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process
of appealing that verdict and a hearing before the appellate court
was held on January 25, 2021. The Company expects additional trials
of Women's Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months, which may potentially include consolidated trials.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company' estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 520 Filter Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that as of
December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 520
product liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior
vena cava filters.

The majority of those claims were previously pending in an MDL in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being,
remanded to various federal jurisdictions.

Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State
Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally
seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of
the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company.

On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or
transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above,
remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to
continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials
are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company entered into settlement
agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for
approximately 9,280 cases.

On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of the plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for
(a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to
warn; and (c) negligent design.

In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that verdict on appeal.
On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims.

On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects
additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the
next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 23,260 Hernia Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that as of
December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 23,260
product liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia
repair devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition,
those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada.

Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to
time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months.

In August 2018, a hernia multi-district litigation (MDL) was
ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. Trials
are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021 in various state and/or
federal courts, with the first trial currently scheduled for April
2021 in the Rhode Island State Court. A second trial is scheduled
for April 2021 in the MDL.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC)
(CLW).

On February 27, 2020, the putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material
information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1)
certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was
investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements
and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain
pumps and/or experience regulatory delays.

These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain
public statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock
at an inflated price.

The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add certain
additional factual allegations on January 14, 2021.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Submits Court Motion to Quash Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled JACOB DEVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BETHESDA SOFTWORKS LLC, BETHESDA SOFTWORKS, and ZENIMAX MEDIA,
INC., Case No. 1:21-mc-91073, Defendants Bethesda Softworks LLC and
ZeniMax Media Inc. filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on February 4, 2021 to quash the
subpoena issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on January 12, 2021 to third party Providence Equity
Partners LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-02009-TDC.

The Defendants also submit the accompanying memorandum and the
declaration of their counsel, Margaret A. Esquenet, Esq., in
support of their motion to quash subpoena.

Bethesda Softworks LLC is an American video game publisher based in
Rockville, Maryland.

Bethesda Softworks is a video game company based in Rockville,
Maryland.

ZeniMax Media, Inc. is an American video game holding company based
in Rockville, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
     
         Alissa K. Lipton, Esq.
         FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
         Two Seaport Lane
         Boston, MA 02210-2001
         Telephone: (617) 646-1643
         E-mail: alissa.lipton@finnegan.com

                 - and –

         Margaret A. Esquenet, Esq.
         Anna B. Naydonov, Esq.
         FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
         901 New York Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20001-4413
         Telephone: (202) 408-4000
         E-mail: margaret.esquenet@finnegan.com
                 anna.naydonov@finnegan.com

BEVERLY TERRACE: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitaker v. Beverly Terrace, Inc., a California Corporation,
and Does 1-10, Case No. 21SMCV00129 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 19, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated alleging violations of the Defendant of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act with respect to its reservation policies and practices
of a place of lodging.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
information on the hotel's reservation Website,
http://www.hotelbeverlyterrace.com/,that would permit Plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for people with
physical disabilities like him. As a result of the Defendant's
failure to comply with its ADA obligations, the Plaintiff is unable
to engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any
confidence or knowledge about whether the room will actually work
for him due to his disability, the suit says.

Mr. Whitaker is a California resident with physical disabilities
who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a
quadriplegic who suffers from a C-4 spinal cord injury and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.

Beverly Terrace, Inc., a California corporation owns and operates
the Hotel Beverly Terrace, Inc., located at 469 N. Doheny Dr.,
Beverly Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
          Russell Handy, Esq.
          Amanda Seabock, Esq.
          Zachary Best, Esq.
          CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
          E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

BIT DIGITAL: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that 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"). Bit Digital investors have until March 22, 2021 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

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 Bit Digital securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than March 22, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Bit Digital securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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


BOEING CO: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boeing Co.
will pay $2 million to settle a class action alleging it failed to
pay overtime wages to about 770 current and former employees, the
parties informed a federal court in Seattle.

Jaine Bialk, Cynthia Johnson, and Brenda Bezeredi alleged that
Boeing failed to pay time-and-a-half overtime rates to facilities
project administrators, facilities planners, and staff analysts in
Washington who worked more than 40 hours in a week.

Boeing misclassified the workers as exempt from overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington state law, the plaintiffs
claimed. [GN]



BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Settlement in Securities Suit Granted Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brightview Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Court in the
class action suit entitled, In re BrightView Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation entered a final order and judgment approving
the settlement.  

In April 2019, two purported class action complaints, one captioned
McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., and the other captioned
Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., were filed against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders.

The complaints were consolidated in July 2019 in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania under the caption In
re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the
McComas complaint, as subsequently amended, as the operative
pleading.  

Both complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims
under Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants.

The plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who
purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased
BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares
issued in the IPO. The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus
was misleading because it allegedly failed to disclose that a
portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or
represented undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result,
BrightView would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin
or non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future
revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor
shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient
workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect
earnings.

On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed
preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as
legally insufficient. Defendants also filed a petition for
dismissal based on the provision in BrightView's certificate of
incorporation that designates the federal district courts of the
United States of America as the exclusive forum for resolving any
claim arising under the United States federal securities laws, or
to stay the action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme
Court in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi.

In that case, the Delaware Supreme Court was expected to decide
whether federal forum selection provisions such as the one in
BrightView's certificate of incorporation are enforceable under
Delaware law.  On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification. On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled
defendants' preliminary objections and denied defendants' petition
for dismissal or for a stay, without prejudice to renewal after the
Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision in Salzberg v.
Sciabacucchi.  

On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed answers to the complaint.
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court rendered its
decision, upholding under Delaware's General Corporate Law the
facial validity of federal-forum selection provisions such as the
one in BrightView's certificate of incorporation.  Following
mediation, the parties agreed to settle the litigation, and on
August 27, 2020, executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement.

On September 15, 2020, the Court entered a preliminary approval
order directing notice to the class and setting a hearing on
December 14, 2020 on final approval of the settlement.

Following that hearing, on December 17, 2020, the Court entered a
final order and judgment approving the settlement.  

The settlement amount is substantially covered by the Company's D&O
liability insurance policies, subject to applicable self-insured
retentions.  

The Company and the individual defendants continue to deny the
substantive allegations of the complaints or that they committed
any wrongdoing, and the settlement is without any admission of
liability or wrongdoing.

Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services
provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services,
ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care
and landscape development. It operates through an integrated
national service prototype, which systematically delivers services
at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.

BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Ringo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AHMIR RINGO v. BRISTOL FARMS and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV01924 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) is
brought by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours
worked, failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages when
employment ends, failed to pay wages owed every pay period, failed
to maintain accurate records, failed to provide rest and meal
breaks, failed to reimburse business expenses, engaged in
retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy,
and failed to prevent retaliation in violation of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

Mr. Ringo started working for Bristol Farms as "meat clerk" on or
around September 2019 until the end of his employment on or around
March 2020.

Bristol Farms Inc. is an upscale grocery store chain in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.  
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

BUENA VISTA: Faces Robles Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ROBLES, on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. BUENA VISTA
THEATRES, INC. and DOES 1-25, Case No. 21STCV02348 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff as an aggrieved employee of Defendant Buena Vista for
penalties and unpaid wages under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, resulting from unpaid wages and
overtime premiums, failure to provide meal and rest periods in
accordance with law, failure to pay penalties related to missed
meal and rest breaks, failure to return deposits for required
uniforms, failure to provide notice of available sick leave,
failure to pay all wages in a timely manner, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

Mr. Robles is a California resident who at all times relevant
hereto was employed by Defendant Buena Vista within the County of
Los Angeles, State of California.

Buena Vista Theatres, Inc. is a California-based company which is
listed under the amusement and recreation services industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH GOLDMAN, PC
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 287-7689
          Facsimile: (818) 287-7816
          
               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807

CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: Faces Retaliation Suit Over Unpaid Rent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Quinn at Patch Staff reports that prominent Brooklyn landlord
is facing a class-action lawsuit from tenants who claim they were
harassed for not paying rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

Carnegie Management, which owns at least a fifteen New York City
properties, was sued this week by tenants from one of its buildings
on Eldert Street, who say the company retaliated against them for
not paying rent and organizing by making damaging reports to credit
bureaus.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, comes nearly a year after the tenants,
many of whom lost their jobs in the pandemic, first formed a tenant
organization and hired a lawyer. It argues that tenants at four
other nearby Carnegie buildings have faced the same treatment.

"We decided as a group to take legal action because if we didn't,
no one was going to make Carnegie answer for playing outside the
law," one of the tenants, Cian O'Day told Patch. "Landlords already
have so much power over a such a basic need. The game is stacked in
their favor, and they still chose to cheat."

Tenants from 345 Eldert St., five of which are plaintiffs in the
suit, first formed their tenants' organization in April when many
lost their job or were began facing financial hardship brought on
by the pandemic. A large percentage of tenants at the building are
artists, independent contractors or members of the gig economy,
according to the association's attorney Jack Lester.

In those early weeks, Carnegie began threatening tenants with late
fees on their rent payments or with negative reports to credit
bureaus, despite an order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited
soliciting late fees.

The "inaccurate" reports, barred by law, created permanent
financial consequences and credit damage for the tenants, the
lawsuit says.

"The impact of negative credit can prevent people from renting new
places, show up on job applications, block the issuance of
insurance policies and prevent obtaining mortgages," Lester said.
"These credit reports are utilized to make decisions about whom to
grant economic resources, such as jobs, housing, credit and
insurance."

Carnegie claims that they have not charged late fees for rent
accrued during the pandemic, or did anything illegal.

Some tenants, they said, were not satisfied with financial relief
offers and are trying to "leverage the eviction moratorium . . .
irrespective of their individual financial situations." The company
pointed specifically to a tenant in the lawsuit who they say can
pay but has refused to and another who left the apartment more than
a year ago, sublet it, and has not paid rent.

Only those who refused to pay or negotiate, or ignored their
communications, were sent to a collection agency, Carnegie said.

"It is standard practice of landlords to refer tenants who owe
arrears to collection agencies, but we only do it as a last resort,
if we are unable to reach an amicable agreement with a tenant or
former tenant," a spokesperson told Patch.

Tenants say Carnegie has refused to collectively bargain with the
association and continued to send threats to individual tenants
despite a letter in April asking for all communications to go
through their lawyer.

The tenant who moved out did so because there was black mold in the
apartment, they said.

"Rather than engage in good faith negotiation, they've attempted to
isolate individual tenants while at the same time engaging in a
campaign of harassment and intimidation and credit referral
threats," O'Day said. "The bottom line is that they've refused to
recognize the tenants' association and refused to negotiate with
the tenants' association." [GN]

CARWELL LLC: Underpays Sales Associates, Megally Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RIHAM MEGALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARWELL, LLC, dba Mercedes-Benz of South Bay
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV04424 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked; failure to authorize and permit all
legally required rest periods, or pay premium in lieu thereof;
failure to provide all legally required meal periods, or to pay
premium pay in lieu thereof; failure to reimburse for all necessary
work expenses; failure to timely pay all final wages due; failure
to pay all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month;
and failure to maintain accurate records.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' Mercedes Benz of South Bay
car dealership in California as a non-exempt sales associate until
approximately June 2, 2020.

Carwell, LLC, doing business as Mercedes-Benz of South Bay, is a
company that owns and operates several car dealerships in Southern
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
         Neil M. Larsen, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                 nlarsen@haineslawgroup.com

DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES

To: All individuals and/or entities and their assignees who are
citizens of the United States who lent money to Diversified
Financing LLC, Sonoqui LLC or any of the ALT Money Investments LLC,
ALT Money Investments II, LLC, ALT Money Investments III LLC, ALT
Money IV LLC and in exchange received a promissory note and/or
membership interest issued by Diversified, Sonoqui or any of the
ALT Money Investments entities indicating that the money would
thereafter be loaned to Collins Asset Group, LLC (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all members of the
Class, and Collins Asset Group, LLC ("CAG") have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $15,755,000 (the "Settlement").

An approval hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday,
June 10, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1708 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, located at the
Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse,
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309 to determine
whether: (a) the proposed settlement class should be certified for
settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23; (b) the settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and, in accordance
with the settlement's terms, this matter should be dismissed with
prejudice; (c) class counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; (d) the application for the class
representatives to receive service awards should be approved; and
(e) any other matters the Court deems necessary and appropriate
will also be heard. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the net Settlement.

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 Claim Form,
you may obtain copies of these documents, the Settlement Agreement,
and Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing For
Notice, dated January 13, 2021 by visiting the website of the
Settlement Administrator, www.diversifiedlendingclassaction.com, or
by contacting the Settlement Administrator at:

RG2 Claims Administration, LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA, 19102-9479
info@rg2claims.com
(866) 742-4955
(215) 979-1620
Settlement Website: www.diversifiedlendingclassaction.com

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

The Doss Firm, LLC
Jason R. Doss
The Brumby Building
127 Church Street, Suite 220
Marietta, Georgia 30060
www.dossfirm.com
770-578-1314

Levine, Kellogg, Lehman, Schneider + Grossman, LLP
Jason L. Kellogg
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
www.lklsg.com
305-403-8788

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
with Reasonable Documentation as defined in the Settlement
Agreement and in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing For Notice
dated January 13, 2021, by May 13, 2021. If you are a Class Member
and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net Settlement, but
you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered
by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing For Notice dated
January 13, 2021, such that it is postmarked no later than April 3,
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.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court or with the Settlement Administrator
instructions set forth in the Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing For Notice dated January 13, 2021, such
that it is postmarked no later than April 3, 2021.

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

DATED: February 2 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA [GN]


DSQUARED2 INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DSQUARED2 INC. d/b/a DSQUARED2 RETAIL LA INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00133-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2021), alleges that the
Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.dsquared2.com/us, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA).

Because the Defendants' Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

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

Dsquared2 was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business
includes the production of apparel, accessories, and shoes for
misses, youths, amd boys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ERIE INSURANCE: Teemnow Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEEMNOW LLC, d/b/a Exiles, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No.
1:21-cv-00053-MRH (D.D.C., Jan. 19, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's denial of the obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders,
including the Plaintiff, for the physical loss and damage to the
insured property from measures put in place by the civil
authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that Defendant is liable for the losses
suffered by its policyholders.

The Plaintiff, which owns and operates a celebrated restaurant,
Exiles, purchased a policy of insurance issued by Erie to protect
itself and the income generated by its business operations.

Erie Insurance is a publicly held insurance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad Ponder, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
          1015 15th Street NW Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 201-0305
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
          E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com

               - and -

          Luke Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
          2226 1st Avenue North Unit 105
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (888) 201-0305
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
          E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com

EUROSTAR INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EUROSTAR, INC. d/b/a WSS, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00134-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.shopwss.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

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

Eurostar, Inc. operates as a footwear retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FACEBOOK INC: Garvin Suit Asserts Social Media Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
Rita Garvin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00618 (N.D. Cal., January 26, 2021), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief under the Sherman Antitrust
Act, Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act.

Garvin maintains a Facebook active account since 2011 and regularly
uses it and so doing, has uploaded her sensitive personal data into
their site. She claims that Facebook's platform allows advertisers
to target its user base by their attributes and behavior while
third party advertisers have been able to use Facebook's
advertising platform to track and target consumers all throughout
the internet.

Facebook allegedly misled its users about its data privacy
practices and the scope of the data it collected and made available
to third parties. Garvin alleges in her complaint that consumers
are forced to accept Facebook or forgo use of the only social media
platform used by most consumers' friends and family members
vis-a-vis a monopolistic conduct that violates the antitrust laws
and harms consumers given the fact that Facebook is dominant in the
Social Network Market and the Social Media Market. Plaintiff's
action seeks recovery for consumers' losses and Facebook's unlawful
gains, and seeks other appropriate equitable relief to prevent
Facebook from continuing to destroy competition and harm consumers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 986-1400
      Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
      Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com

             - and -

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Brant Penney, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 287-2100
      Fax: (651) 287-2103
      Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
             b.penney@rwblawfirm.com


FOOT LOCKER: Jacobo Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JACOBO III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. and SESSIONCAM LTD, Case No.
1:21-cv-00447 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors, including the Plaintiff, to Foot
Locker's Website, footlocker.com.

According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded in the
computer code on the Website, are used by the Defendants to
secretly observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of
personally identifiable information, in real time. By doing so, the
Defendants have allegedly violated the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and invaded Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy
rights in violation of the California Constitution.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an American sportswear and footwear
retailer, with its headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JOHNSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. d/b/a Champs US, a
New York corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-21-589180 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 19, 2021)
seeks penalties and/or damages for Defendants' failure to provide
off-duty meal periods, pay overtime wages owed for all hours worked
and at the correct rate of pay, pay all wages owed upon separation
of employment, and provide accurate, itemized wage statement under
California Labor Code statutes, and restitution for unfair business
practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.

Mr. Johnson was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate
from about November 2017 until on or about July 31, 2020. He worked
as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an American sportswear and footwear
retailer, with its headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

FRANKLYLOFTLY CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cruz, Drivin Alexis Lara Soto, Jose Juarez, Mario Vega, and
Pablo Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FranklyLoftly Construction Services Corp.,
Michael Raar, Iqbel Doe and Ronny Doe, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-б (S.D. N.Y., January 26, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company in
Brooklyn, NY under the name FranklyLoftly Construction Services
Corp. where Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers. They
claim to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
They also claim to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GE REALPROP: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitaker v. GE Realprop, L.P., a California Limited
Partnership and Does 1-10, Case No. 21SMCV00131 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated, alleging violations of the
Defendant of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act with respect to its reservation
policies and practices of a place of lodging.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
information on the hotel's reservation Website,
https://www.wilshiremotel.com, that would permit Plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for people with
physical disabilities like him. As a result of the Defendant's
failure to comply with its ADA obligations, the Plaintiff is unable
to engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any
confidence or knowledge about whether the room will actually work
for him due to his disability, the suit says.

Mr. Whitaker is a California resident with physical disabilities
who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a
quadriplegic who suffers from a C-4 spinal cord injury and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.

GE Realprop, L.P., a California limited partnership, owns and
operates the Wilshire Motel located at 12023 Wilshire Blvd., Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
          Russell Handy, Esq.
          Amanda Seabock, Esq.
          Zachary Best, Esq.
          CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
          E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Day Sues Over Deceptive Vehicle Service Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROY A. DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and MARY T. BARRA,
Defendants, Case No. 120660343 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Feb.
2, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to honor the service
warranty of the Plaintiff's motor vehicle.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entered into a
contractual agreement to purchase a new General Motors Chevrolet
Spark 1LT (hereafter, "S" - 2016 model) from Castriota Chevrolet
(hereafter, "CC") in Hudson, Florida (VIN: KL8CD6SA5GC563413) for a
"specific sum certain" monthly loan fee with the Defendant "GM's"
subsidiary (GM Financial) on May 19, 2016. The "S" came with a
bumper-to-bumper thirty-six thousand (36,000) mile warranty or
three years (hereafter, "W36"). The mileage on the "S" on February
19, 2017 was 12,317 miles.

On February 28, 2017 the "S" had a Left HighBeam fail, first time,
and was replaced under warranty. On September 13, 2017, the
Plaintiff delivered a letter to Ms. Cathy Davidson at "CC" in
Hudson, Florida on the "S" HighBeam issue, and the probability that
an "electrical system" issue exist for the "S". On October 5, 2017,
with 26,435 miles, the "S" had a Right Highbeam fail (First Time),
and was replaced under warranty. On January 4, 2018, the "S" had a
Battery Failure, and the Plaintiff received a Jump Start with GM
Roadside Assistance after the Plaintiff telephoned Defendant "GM's"
RoadSide Assistance. The "S" on January 19, 2018 had 33,856. On May
19, 2018, the "S" had a mileage of 42,364.

On June 29, 2018 the "S" had another Dead Battery, and the
Plaintiff received a Jump Start from GEICO RoadSide Assistance. The
mileage on June 19, 2018 was 44,456 miles. With 45,000 miles on
July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff had another battery failure, and the
"Cruise Control" failed, no longer functional in the "set" mode. In
addition, on July 3, 2018, the "Traction Control/Electronic
Stability Control" failed, no longer functional in the "set" mode,
with the "icon constantly appearing in the information display.
Subsequently, on July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a new
battery from Advance Auto Parts (Battery Gold ATOCF – EA 11348065
H4).

With the "W36" reflecting a "cunning, misleading, and deceptive
paper-expiration," even though the Plaintiff had documented the
deficient HighBeam issue as associated with a deficient electrical
system issue on the "S, the Plaintiff made an appearance at "CC" in
Hudson, Florida requesting service under the warranty for the
aforesaid Cruise Control issue, and Traction Control issue, and the
HighBeam issue, and the electrical system issue, but was denied
service under the "cunning, misleading, and deceptive"
paper-expiration-warranty, and was informed that the diagnostic
check would be $148. The Plaintiff refused, since the Plaintiff
contends that since the Plaintiff documented the HighBeam issue, as
associated with the electrical system on the "S", that the
Plaintiff was still under the "W36." The Defendants are using
"W36's" disclaimers on warranties in an unfair or misleading
manner, the suit says.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GOLDEN PEANUT: Appeals Ruling in Farmers Antitrust Suit to 4th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Golden Peanut Company, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE PEANUT FARMERS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL , in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
at Norfolk.

On Sept. 5, 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen
filed an antitrust lawsuit on behalf of peanut farmers against
Golden Peanut and Birdsong. The complaint alleges that Birdsong and
Golden Peanut coordinated with one another in violation of
antitrust laws to underpay farmers for runner peanuts, the primary
type of commercial peanut raised. As a result, peanut farmers have
suffered low payments for their crops.

The Defendant seeks an appeal from the Court's Order entered
January 22, 2021 granting a Motion to Seal and granting the
Defendant leave to file a redacted version of its Memorandum of Law
in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and to file under SEAL
the designated exhibits. The Court also ordered that Golden
Peanut's unredacted Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment and the designated accompanying exhibits shall be
maintained under seal by the Clerk.

The appellate case is captioned as D&M Farms v. Golden Peanut
Company, LLC, Case No. 21-1107, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, dated January 27, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on March 8, 2021; and

   -- Response Brief is due on April 7, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees D&M FARMS; MARK HASTY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; DUSTIN LAND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ROCKY CREEK PEANUT
FARMS, LLC; DANIEL HOWELL; and LONNIE GILBERT are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin Jerome Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com    

Defendant-Appellant GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          Erin Elizabeth Murphy, Esq.
          Julie M.K. Siegal, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389-5000
          E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com
                  erin.murphy@kirkland.com
                  julie.siegal@kirkland.com  

GORJANA & GRIFFIN: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GORJANA & GRIFFIN, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00148-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 25, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://gorjana.com/, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

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

Gorjana & Griffin, Inc. is located in Laguna Beach, California, and
is part of the jewelry stores industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Power Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHADWICK SMITH,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL,
INC. And GUIDANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-12318-GAD-CI (E.D.
Mich. ),

   1. conditionally certifying the putative class of, and
      authorizing notice (via mail, email, and text) to:

      "all current and former power industry workers who worked
      for, or on behalf of, Guidant, who were paid and/or billed
      on a straight time for overtime basis at any time in the
      last 3 years, and who were assigned to Duke and/or Entergy
      (the "Straight Time Power Workers");

   2. approving his Notice and Consent forms, as well as his
      email, text, and phone scripts;

   3. authorizing his notice methods;

   4. directing Guidant to produce each Straight Time Power
      Worker's contact information to Class Counsel within 10
      days; and

   5. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period.

According to the complaint, Discovery confirms no more than 5,184
Straight Time Power Workers are covered by this narrowed collective
action. In that discovery, Guidant admitted the Straight Time Power
Workers are similarly situated and that it maintains significant
employer rights and responsibilities over these workers. And Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance is central to Guidant's
employer responsibilities to the Straight Time Power Workers. This
is true even though: (1) Guidant does not contend any exemption
applies to these workers; 4 and (2) these workers were all paid the
same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those over 40 in a
workweek under Guidant’s straight time scheme.

Guidant provides staffing services. The Company provides
engineering, information technology, and administrative staffing,
as well as offers related outsourcing services and solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jy1hMZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the plaintiff and the putative class members, are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MH 58067
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

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

HANKOOK ATLASBX: Laudermilk Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LAUDERMILK and GEORGE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. HANKOOK ATLASBX AMERICA CORP., a Tennessee Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00076 (M.D. Tenn., February 2, 2021)
bring this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as hourly-paid production
employees performing duties as machine operators at the Defendant's
battery production facility in Clarksville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant classified them and other
similarly situated production employees as non-exempt under the
FLSA and paid them an hourly rate. However, although they sometimes
worked overtime hours in excess of 40 per week, the Defendant
failed to compensate them at one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per workweek.
Specifically, the Defendant did not count 15 minutes breaks as
hours worked, as well as the 10-15 minutes spent in mandatory
"post-shift" showers to remove toxic lead particles, which are
integral and indispensable part of its production employees' job
requirements and duties, for the purpose of calculating overtime
hours, the suit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unlawful policy and
practice of failing to pay its production employees for all
overtime hours they worked was allegedly its scheme to save payroll
costs and payroll taxes for which the Defendant has unjustly
enriched itself.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.

Hankook AtlasBX America Corp. manufactures batteries. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER,
             HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

                - and –

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


ILLINOIS: Transgerder Inmates' Class-Action Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymon Troncoso at Daily Herald reports that a federal district
court in southern Illinois denied a request Thursday from the
Illinois Department of Corrections to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit against the department for its treatment of transgender
prisoners.

That case, Monroe v. Jeffreys, was originally filed in 2018 as
Monroe v. Rauner by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of
five transgender women in IDOC custody. According to the ACLU of
Illinois, the prisoners have experienced "denials of basic medical
treatment" and "inordinate delays" in care.

The case became a class-action lawsuit last year after the court
certified transgender individuals in IDOC custody as collective
plaintiffs.

"There is no medical reason for such excruciatingly painful and
risky denials, delays, and other missteps in providing treatment to
prisoners with gender dysphoria," the ACLU's webpage for the case
reads.

The ACLU won a preliminary injunction in the case in 2019 when U.S.
District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel ordered IDOC to reform its
policies for dealing with transgender inmates. Prior to the ruling,
IDOC was found to have used a "Transgender Care and Review
Committee" to make medical decisions regarding trans prisoners,
despite the committee having no members qualified for
professionally treating gender dysphoria.

As a result, Rosenstengel's order required IDOC to bring in
qualified medical experts to develop care plans for transgender
detainees based on the World Professional Association for
Transgender Health's standards of care, give inmates medical
evaluations for gender dysphoria and provide monitored hormone
therapy to transgender prisoners seeking to transition in custody.

IDOC's attempt to have the case dismissed through summary judgment
was based "in part on the efforts that have been made to comply
with the preliminary injunction," an argument the court rejected
Thursday. Its opinion stated the defendants "have not yet
implemented the policy changes they describe, and many practices
which gave rise to this suit are still ongoing."

Even though IDOC has not fully implemented every reform ordered in
that 2019 injunction, the court issued a Jan. 6 opinion that "(IDOC
officials) are indeed still working diligently to implement the
Court's preliminary injunction order," and acknowledged delays were
unavoidable due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the court has denied IDOC's request for a dismissal, it also
denied the plaintiff's request in January for an independent
monitor to be appointed to oversee IDOC's compliance with the
mandated reforms.

"After months of dragging their feet and ignoring the clear needs
of our clients in their custody, the State instead sought to get
out of the lawsuit. . . . That is wholly inadequate for our
clients, who continue to endure significant harm from existing
Department policies," John Knight, LGBTQ director at the ACLU of
Illinois, said in a Friday release. "We are pleased the Court
soundly rejected the State's effort to escape its constitutional
duty to promptly reform its health care system and hope to have a
chance soon to prove our case at trial."

A spokesperson for IDOC said the department could not comment on
pending litigation. [GN]

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Discovery Ongoing in Investors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the consolidated putative class action suit initiated
by the company's investors.

In 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of
the company's subsidiaries, were among more than 40 financial
institutions and U.S.-based equity exchanges named as defendants in
four purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern
District, by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other
plaintiffs.

In a subsequent consolidated amended complaint filed against only
the exchange defendants (which include exchanges owned and operated
by Nasdaq and Cboe), the plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a
class of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock from April
18, 2009 to the present on the named exchanges.

In 2015, the district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
the exchange defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.


The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state
a claim under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and
additionally that some of the claims were barred by the doctrine of
self-regulatory organization immunity.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit, issued a decision
vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the district court
for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held that the claims
against the exchanges were not barred by the doctrine of
self-regulatory organization immunity because (in the view of the
Second Circuit) the exchanges were not carrying out regulatory
functions while operating their markets and engaging in the
challenged conduct at issue, and that the plaintiffs had adequately
pleaded claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.

The Second Circuit directed that, on remand, the district court
should address and rule upon various other defenses raised by the
exchanges in their motion to dismiss (which the district court did
not address in its prior opinion and order).

In 2019, the district court denied a new motion to dismiss filed by
the defendants, and the exchanges filed answers to the complaint,
denying the principal allegations of the plaintiffs, denying
liability in the matter, and asserting various affirmative
defenses.

Under the existing case schedule, the discovery period in the
matter is scheduled to continue through most of 2021, and also
during 2021 the plaintiffs are expected to move for class
certification and the defendants intend to seek the dismissal of
the matter through one or more motions for summary judgment.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: DJY Bid to Intervene in Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties
are awaiting a decision from the Second Circuit on the plaintiffs'
counsel request seeking permission on behalf of DYJ Holdings, LLC,
a New Jersey-based holding company, to intervene for the purpose of
serving as named plaintiff and representative of the purported
class.

In 2019, three virtually identical purported class action
complaints were filed in the Southern District against the company
(ICE) and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark
Administration Limited (IBA) (the ICE Defendants), as well as 18
multinational banks and various of their respective subsidiaries
and affiliates (the Panel Bank Defendants) by, respectively, Putnam
Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut; two municipal
pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia, Michigan; and
four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the Hawaii Sheet
Metal Workers Union. IBA is the administrator for various regulated
benchmarks, including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated
daily based upon the submissions from a reference panel (which
includes the Panel Bank Defendants).

The plaintiffs sought to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the
period from February 1, 2014 to the present.

The plaintiffs alleged that the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially
low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing
payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported
class.

Subsequent to the filing of the individual complaints, the various
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the ICE
and Panel Bank Defendants. As with the individual complaints, the
consolidated amended complaint asserted a claim for violations of
the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and sought unspecified
treble damages and other relief. The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On March 26, 2020, the court issued a decision and order granting
the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Among other things, the court found that the
amended complaint "…is made up of almost entirely conclusory
allegations and is essentially devoid of any evidence, direct or
circumstantial, to support the conclusion that Defendants colluded
with one another."

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit. While
briefing of the appeal was ongoing, each of the named plaintiffs
withdrew from the case. Plaintiffs' counsel, by request dated
December 28, 2020, sought permission on behalf of DYJ Holdings,
LLC, a New Jersey-based holding company, to intervene for the
purpose of serving as named plaintiff and representative of the
purported class; the defendants opposed this request and requested
that the Second Circuit dismiss the appeal.

The parties are awaiting a decision from the Second Circuit.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.

IRHYTHM TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Feb. 2 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) from August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased iRhythm securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit iRhythm Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would
suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates
would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS
rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the
Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

The truth began to be revealed on December 1, 2020, when the CMS
issued its final rule, which finalized the codes as anticipated,
but did not finalize national pricing for certain products and
services offered by iRhythm. Shares opened on December 2, 2020 at
$183.00 each, down from the December 1, 2020, close of $240.64 per
share.

Then on January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor
Novitas Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the
CMS' 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst
commented that these rates were "way lower than" the former codes,
citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around
$311, but was now receiving just $42.68.

On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42,
down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased iRhythm securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/irhythmtechnologiesinc-irtc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-359/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


IRHYTHM TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
("iRhythm" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired iRhythm securities between August 4, 2020 and January 28,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site:
www.bgandg.com/irtc.

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 materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as
a result of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services'
("CMS") rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet;
(3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule
would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the iRhythm Defendants' public
statements were materially false and 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/irtc 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 iRhythm
you have until April 2, 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. [GN]



IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 2 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of iRhythm between
August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for iRhythm
investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that alleges that throughout the Class Period
and in violation of the Exchange Act, Defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking;
(ii) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (iii) a lack of
national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause
uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of iRhythm
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
2, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

IRTC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=12710&wire=1

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC)

IRTC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 4, 2020 -
January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=12710&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRhythm's business
would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement
rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the
CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in
the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]



IT'SUGAR LLC: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Hedges, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. IT'SUGAR LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00729 (S.D. N.Y., January 26, 2021),
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.

IT'SUGAR operates https://itsugar.com/, an online retail store
providing consumers with access to specialty candy items, gifts,
novelty items and other products. Hedges is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
             Dana@Gottlieb.legal
             Michael@Gottlieb.legal


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baby Powder Causes Cancer, Trinidad Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA TRINIDAD and JOHN TRINIDAD v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL, f/k/a COSMETIC TOILETRY AND
FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION (CTFA); JOHN DOES/JANE DOES 1-30; UNKNOWN
BUSINESSES AND/OR CORPORATIONS 1-50, Case No. ATL-L-000230-21 (N.J.
Super., Atlantic Cty.,  Jan. 25, 2021) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated alleging that Defendants
have intentionally and recklessly designed, manufactured, marketed,
labeled, sold and distributed the talcum powder containing product
known as Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder (TM) with wanton and
willful disregard for the rights and health of the Plaintiff and
others, and with malice, placing their economic interests above the
health and safety of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated.

This action arises out of the the Plaintiff Maria Trinidad's
diagnosis of ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately
caused by her regular and prolonged use of "J&J Baby Powder" in the
perineal area. The Plaintiff's damages are a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' and/or their corporate predecessors,
negligent, willful and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of J&J Baby Powder,
the complaint says.

This suit is brought under the New Jersey Products Liability Act,
the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act, and the common law of the
State of New Jersey, and equivalent causes of action under the
statutory and common law of the State of New Jersey, to recover
damages and other relief, including the costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, for the injuries the
Plaintiff sustained as a result of the the Defendants' and/or their
corporate predecessors' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct.

Ms. Trinidad was born on August 19, 1961 and used J&J Baby Powder
from January 2005 until January 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. BY:
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177

KAI DATA: Tikotzky Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls & Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ETA TIKOTZKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAI DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00971 (C.D. Cal., February 2, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started receiving
incessant calls, text messages and pre-recorded voice messages to
her cellular telephone number 323-333-XXXX from the Defendant in or
around June 2019 consequently thereafter the Defendant added her
contact information to its database that was scraped from the
Internet. Purportedly, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" in placing its calls without obtaining the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive such calls using ATDS
or artificial or pre-recorded voice.

The Plaintiff asserts that she was frustrated and distressed by the
Defendant's unsolicited numerous calls. Thus, the Plaintiff brings
this complaint as a class action seeking for statutory damages, an
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
the future, pre- and post-judgment interest on monetary relief,
litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as
the Court deems necessary, just and proper.

Kai Data, LLC operates a data mining syste, along with a powerful
autodialing system, which it packages together and markets to real
estate business throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

                - and –

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


KENT COUNTY: Calkins Files Civil Rights Suit v. County Treasurer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenneth D. Parrish,
et al. The case is styled as Mindy Calkins, an individual; Ali
Abdulmajeed Al-Faraj, an individual; and Kerry Mark Properties,
LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, for themselves and all
those similarly situated v. Kenneth D. Parrish, in his individual
capacity as Kent County Treasurer, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00062
(W.D. Mich., Jan. 19, 2021).

The case is brought over alleged civil rights violations.

Kent County is located in the U.S. state of Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Visser, Esq.
          VISSER AND ASSOCIATES PLLC
          2480 44th Street, SE, Ste. 150
          Kentwood, MI 49512
          Telephone: (616) 531-9860
          Facsimile: (616) 531-9870
          E-mail: donv@visserlegal.com

KINKISHARYO INT'L: Reply Brief to Class Status Bid Due Feb. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LOAIZA and JOSE
LANDAVERDE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, v. KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL
LLC, a California corporation, an unknown business entity; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07662-JAK-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order granting
in part the plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue their
deadline to file reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification and continue the hearing date on their motion for
class certification to grant their additional depositions pursuant
to f.r.c.p. 30(a)(2)(a)(i) and the defendant's opposition to the
application, as follows:

        Deadline              Current Date      Continued Date

   Reply to motion for        Feb. 3, 2020      Feb. 16, 2021
   class certification:

   Hearing on motion for      Feb. 22, 2021     March 1, 2021
   class certification:

   Last day to participate    March 29, 2021    April 27, 2021
   in a settlement
   conference/mediation:

   Last day to file notice    April 2, 2021     April 30, 2021
   of settlement/ joint
   report resettlement:

   Post Mediation Status      May 10, 2021      April 19, 2021
   Conference:

   Non-Expert Discovery       April 26, 2021    May 3, 2021
   Cut-Off:

   Initial Expert             May 20, 2021      May 24, 2021
   Disclosures:

   Rebuttal Expert            June 3, 2021      June 7, 2021
   Disclosures:  

   Expert Discovery           June 17, 2021     June 21, 2021
   Cut-Off:

   Last day to file all       June 17, 2021     June 21, 2021
   Motions (including
   discovery motions):

Kinkisharyo delivers a full range of customized and
customer-focused products and services including overhaul,
maintenance, and repair work on passenger rolling stock.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oZpugp at no extra charge.[CC]

KONE INC: Lucchese Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW LUCCHESE and JULIO CHAVEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KONE INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588225, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00889 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide wages
when due, and retaliation.

Kone Inc. is a manufacturer of elevators and escalators,
headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Edwin M. Boniske, Esq.
         Kyle W. Nageotte, Esq.
         Jamie M. Ritterbeck, Esq.
         HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
         401 West A Street, Suite 2600
         San Diego, CA 92101-7913
         Telephone: (619) 236-1551
         Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
         E-mail: boniske@higgslaw.com
                 nageottek@higgslaw.com
                 ritterbeckj@higgslaw.com

LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the putative class action suit filed before the
federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is
pending.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint alleging that the Company and two of its former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the impact
of competition on prices and sales of certain of the Company's
products and regarding the potential effects on the Company of
regulatory investigations and antitrust litigation. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November
2018.

In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer
to the third amended complaint. On October 1, 2020, the plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification.

The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable
laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this
time.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Court in the
consolidated class action complaint related to contaminated
ranitidine, granted the Company's motion to dismiss Master Personal
Injury Complaint, Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint and
Consolidated third Party Payor Class Complaint, all based on
federal preemption.

On June 1, 2020, a class action complaint was served upon the
Company and approximately forty-five other companies asserting
claims for personal injury arising from the presence of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") in Ranitidine products.

The complaint is consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL)
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. Similar complaints were filed in state court
in New Mexico and state court in Maryland and served upon the
Company.

Subsequently, a number of similar complaints were served on the
Company. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
filed in the MDL and has filed a motion to transfer the complaint
filed in the New Mexico state court to the MDL.

On December 31, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss Master Personal Injury Complaint, Consolidated Consumer
Class Action Complaint and Consolidated third Party Payor Class
Complaint, all based on federal preemption.

The Court dismissed some of the claims with prejudice and others
with leave to amend.

Separately, the New Mexico case was conditionally transferred to
the MDL and the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the conditional
transfer, which the Company has opposed.

The Company filed a notice to remove and transfer the Maryland case
to the MDL which the plaintiff has opposed. The Company has placed
its insurance carrier on notice of the claim and the carrier has
appointed counsel to defend the Company.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

LEXINGTON FRESH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXINGTON FRESH FARM INC; D/B/A
SMILEY'S DELI; CHI B LEE; HAI RANG LEE; TAE HOON KIM; SAM KIM; AMIR
DOE; NASIR GHESANI A.K.A. NAYEEM GHESANI; and ATUL N. KASMIRA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00912 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Flores was employed by the Defendants as a cashier, delivery
worker, stocker and flower arranger.

Lexington Fresh Farm Inc. owns and operates a deli in New York
under the name "Smiley's Deli". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Has Until Oct. 4 to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHAN MARANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-02215-CJC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling
order:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by July 11, 2022. Discovery motions must be
      heard prior to this date;

   2. The parties shall have until September 12, 2022 to have
      heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings;

   3. The Plaintiff shall have until October 4, 2021 to file any
      class certification motion;

   4. The Plaintiff shall have until February 7, 2022 to have
      heard any class certification motion;

   5. A Pretrial Conference will be held on Monday, November 7,
      2022 at 3:00 p.m.;

   6. The case is set for a Jury Trial, Tuesday, November 15,
      2022 at 8:30 a.m.;

   7. The parties shall have until July 26, 2022 to conduct
      settlement proceedings; and

   8. The Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of the Order on
      counsel for the parties in the case.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the
third-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YXuMhR at no extra charge.[CC]

LIZHI INC: 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 Lizhi
Inc. ("Lizhi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIZI) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's January 2020 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering").

If you suffered a loss on your Lizhi 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/lizhi-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.

In January, 2020, Lizhi conducted its IPO, issuing 4.1 million ADSs
priced at $11.00 per ADS.

On April 20, 2020, Lizhi admitted that before the IPO, as early as
"late 2019," the COVID-19 pandemic was already negatively impacting
its business.

Since the IPO, Lizhi shares are trading below $4 per share, or 63%
below the IPO price.

The complaint alleges that 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) 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' 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 Lizhi ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO,
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. [GN]



MAPLEWOOD, MO: Request for Hearing on Class Status Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA ROBERTS WEBB, et
al., v. THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01703-CDP
(E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Catherine D. Perry entered an order
denying the Defendant City of Maplewood's request for evidentiary
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Perry says that the briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification as set out her January 13 Order remains in
effect. Hearing by way of oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification will be set by separate Order. "Both sides in
this case have been afforded ample opportunity to discover both
testimonial and documentary evidence on the class certification
issue. With the opportunity to submit such evidence with their
briefs on the motion for class certification, the parties have the
opportunity to present to the Court a record from which I can
determine whether Rule 23's requirements are met. Defendant has
presented nothing to the Court demonstrating that an evidentiary
hearing is required in the circumstances of this case", the Judge
adds.

A major dining hub, up-and-coming Maplewood is home to a
restaurant's specializing in innovative fusion and New American
fare, especially around buzzing Manchester Street. Independent
shops sell fashion, homeware, and gifts, while hip bars, cocktail
lounges and brewpubs liven up the area at night. Vintage venues
include the landmark 1916 Saratoga Lanes bowling alley.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rw6p7l at no
extra charge.[CC]


MATTERPORT INC: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Oct. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STEMMELIN, v.
MATTERPORT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04168-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order pursuant to Rule 16
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Civil Local Rule
16-10:

   1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by
      February 5, 2021, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c),
      including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 22 26(a)
      (1)(A)(iii);

   2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be
      sought by April 29, 2021;

   3. The motion for class certification must be filed by
      October 7, 2021, to be heard on a 49-day track;

   4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be February
      25, 2022;

   5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and
      disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as
      to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof
      (opening reports) shall be February 25, 2022;

   6. The last date to file dispositive motions shall be March
      31, 2022;

   7. The final pretrial conference shall be held on June 2,
      2022;

   8. A jury trial shall begin on June 6, 2022; and

   9. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
      for Settlement Conference.

Matterport provides a 3D camera and interactive viewing platform.
The Company allows users to capture, upload, and create digital
scans of real-world environments and share them online.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2IpH9 at no extra charge.[CC]

MEI PHARMA: Bahat Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
MEI Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit
initiated by Guy Bahat.

On August 10, 2020, Guy Bahat, an individual who allegedly
purchased 50 shares of the company's common stock filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company, Dr.
Daniel P. Gold, and Mr. Brian G. Drazba, asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Mr. Bahat did not seek appointment as lead plaintiff, and the court
appointed another individual, Ramesh Mahalingham, as lead
plaintiff.

The plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf of all purchasers of our
securities from August 2, 2017 through July 1, 2020 and alleges,
among other things, that the company made false and misleading
statements relating to pracinostat during the proposed class
period.

MEI Pharma said, "We believe that the claims are without merit, as
to both the facts and the law, and intend to vigorously defend the
case."

MEI Pharma, Inc. is an oncology company focused on the clinical
development of novel therapeutics targeting cancer metabolism. The
Company's lead drug candidates have been shown in laboratory
studies to interact with specific enzyme targets resulting in
inhibition of tumor cell metabolism, a function critical for cancer
cell survival. The company is based in San Diego, California.

MEREDITH CORP: Appeal in Iowa Putative Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, is pending.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019.

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019.

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Both complaints assert claims under the federal
securities laws and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. On November 12, 2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew
the New York Action, and the action has been dismissed.

On November 25, 2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa
Action. On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Iowa Action, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between January
31, 2018 and September 30, 2019. On June 22, 2020, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa Action.

On October 28, 2020, a U.S. District Judge granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissing the Iowa Action with prejudice at
plaintiffs' cost due to plaintiffs' failure to satisfy applicable
pleading requirements.

Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead
any actionable misstatement or omission, scienter, or loss
causation. The court observed that, "as explained in Defendants'
motion to dismiss and supporting briefs, this lawsuit is precisely
the type of frivolous 'strike' suit that Congress directed federal
courts to dismiss at the pleading stage."

On November 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the District Court's dismissal.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled briefing on the
appeal. The Company expects all briefs to be submitted within the
first half of calendar 2021.

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due June 4
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIO and ROSA
CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH and TERESA
MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC
(N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order granting the parties'
stipulated motion to extend discovery deadlines in light of
settlement discussions as follows:

      Event                       Current        Proposed New or
                                 Deadlines         Extended
                                                   Deadlines

   Class Certification         Feb. 3, 2021     May 14, 2021
   Amended Expert Report
   Deadline(for Plaintiffs):

   The Plaintiffs' Deadline    Feb. 24, 2021    June 4, 2021
   to File Motion for
   Class Certification:

   Class Certification         March 24, 2021   July 2, 2021
   Amended Expert Report
   Deadline (for Defendants):

   The Defendants' Opposition  April 21, 2021   July 30, 2021
   to Plaintiffs' Motion for
   Class Certification:

   The Plaintiffs' Reply in    June 2, 2021     Sept. 10, 2021
   Support of Motion for
   Class Certification:

   Class-Certification Expert  June 16, 2021    Sept. 24, 2021
   Discovery Cutoff:

   Merits discovery cutoff:    Sept. 3, 2021    Dec. 13, 2021

   Disclosure of Expert        Oct. 28, 2021    Feb. 4, 2022
   Witnesses and Information
   Required by Rule 26(a)(2):

   Expert Discovery Cutoff:    Jan, 7, 2022    April 18, 2022

   Deadline for Parties        Feb. 4, 2022     May 16, 2022
   to File Dispositive
   Motions:

According to the Parties' Motion, to avoid incurring the costs of
additional fact and expert discovery while simultaneously engaging
in settlement negotiations, they request that the Court extend all
deadlines on pending party discovery and class certification
briefing. Following conclusion of this process, they will promptly
file a notice with the Court informing it of the outcome and either
request a schedule for filing settlement papers or an order
resuming discovery. They agree that during the settlement
negotiation process they will only seek discovery necessary for
resolution of the matter, except as it relates to the Defendants'
completion of production of agreed electronically stored
information (ESI). To accommodate the time period necessary to
bring these settlement negotiations to a conclusion and then
proceed with postponed depositions before preparing class
certification papers, they request that the case deadlines for
class certification briefing and fact and expert discovery be
extended by approximately 100 days from the dates contained in the
Stipulated Motion to Extend Case Schedule Deadlines and Order.

Nationstar Mortgage offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Sxwl7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Nick Styant-Browne, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com
                  nick@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq.
          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: jbs@severson.com
                  mks@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Benton Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern California
Inalliance. The case is captioned as Patricia Benton vs. Northern
California Inalliance, a California domestic non-profit, Case No.
34-2021-00293036-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
25, 2021).

The case alleges employment-related violations.

Northern California Inalliance operates as a nonprofit
organization. The Organization offers community training and
employment programs, independent and supported living, augmentative
communication, and advocacy services. Northern California
Inalliance serves communities in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Miles Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com

OKC SOUTHERN: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Dedmon Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY DEDMON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. OKC SOUTHERN HILLS INVESTMENTS,
LLC d/b/a PLATINUM NIGHTS, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00073-PRW
(W.D. Okla., February 2, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer at
the Defendant's Platinum Nights strip club in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma during the period of about January 2019 through about May
2020. On behalf of herself and all other exotic dancers at Platinum
Nights who were misclassified by the Defendant as independent
contractors and not as employees, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint as a collective action complaint against the Defendant
seeking relief under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant failed to pay any wages to all exotic dancers
for all hours they worked;

     -- The Defendant unlawfully required them to pay a house fee
or kickback of $20.00-$40.00 or more for each shift they worked;

     -- The Defendant regularly and customarily kept and/or
assigned to management their tips and gratuities received from
customers; and

     -- The Defendant failed pay them wages at or above the Federal
Minimum Wage of $7.25 for each hour worked.

OKC Southern Hills Investments, LLC d/b/a Platinum Nights operates
as an exotic dance club featuring nude and semi-nude exotic
dancers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq.
          5613 North Classen Boulevard
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Tel: (405) 286-1600
          Fax: (405) 842-6132
          
                - and –

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


OPEN TEXT: Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Appeal Due Feb. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that lead plaintiff's
brief in support of its appeal in the appealed consolidated class
action suit related to Carbonite, Inc.'s Server Backup VM Edition
will be due February 24, 2021.

On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite
Inc., a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class
action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive
Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer,
Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc.,
Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS).

On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities
Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel.


On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020. The motion was fully briefed in June 2020 and a hearing on
the motion to dismiss the Securities Actions was held on October
15, 2020.

Following the hearing, on October 22, 2020, the court granted with
prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Actions.


On November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The lead plaintiff's
brief in support of its appeal will be due February 24, 2021. The
defendants will vigorously contest any such appeal of the court's
dismissal of the Securities Actions.

Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.

PASCHALL TRUCK: Carter Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALE CARTER and FORBES
HAYES, v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00041-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for Rule 23(b)(3) class
certification

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court facilitate notice to
the putative class members.

Paschall Truck operates as a route carrier shipping company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YVn6gh
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste, 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com

PENUMBRA INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
March 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Penumbra, Inc.
("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE: PEN) common stock between
August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Penumbra investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

One of the Company's flagship products is the Jet 7 Xtra Flex, an
aspiration catheter to remove blood clots.

On September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial Journalism
published an article raising concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's
safety profile, including that there had been 12 reported deaths
since the product was introduced in mid-2019.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.77, or 3%, to close
at $193.66 per share on September 14, 2020.

On November 9, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management issued a
research report on the Company entitled "Penumbra and its 'Killer
Catheter': A tale of corporate greed and seemingly blatant
disregard for patients' lives[.]" The report accused Penumbra of a
"seemingly blatant disregard for patients' lives." The Company
continued to insist that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe"
and refuted any claims to the contrary by stating they made "no
sense" and there "isn't an issue."

On November 23, 2020, the Journal of NeuroInventional Surgery
published an article presenting three cases of patients who had
suffered due to malfunctions with the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. The article
was widely disseminated over the next two days.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $30.59, or 12%, to
close at $224.12 per share on November 25, 2020.

On December 8, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management released a
follow-up research report entitled "Is Penumbra's core scientific
research authored by a fake person?: The incredible story of
Penumbra's Dr. Antik Bose[.]" The follow-up report alleged that
some of Penumbra's scientific research pieces appear to have been
incorrectly attributed or even authored by a fake individual.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $19.95 per share, or
almost 9%, to close at $204.07 per share on December 8, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.

On December 15, 2020, after the market closed, Penumbra announced
that it was voluntarily "recalling its JET 7 Xtra Flex because the
catheter may become susceptible to distal tip damage during use[,
which] may result in potential vessel damage, and subsequent
patient injury or death."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $13.84 per share, or
almost 7%, to close at $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal
use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in
fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to
be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result,
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 Penumbra common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 16,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. 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 these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


PENUMBRA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Penumbra Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

PEN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-information-request-form?prid=12710&wire=1

Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN)

PEN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 3, 2020 -
December 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-information-request-form?prid=12710&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Penumbra, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had
known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2)
that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already
occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled
due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's public
statements as set forth above were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]



PLUM PBC: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Decorated law firms Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen PLLP, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca LLP, and Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC filed a
class action lawsuit against Plum, PBC, makers of the "Plum
Organics" brand of baby food. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of a
nationwide class, alleges that despite being marketed as "organic"
and "made from the best ingredients," Plum's baby food products are
tainted with the presence of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and mercury.

The Complaint cites to a February 4, 2021 Staff Report by the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform's
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which found "high
levels of toxic heavy metals" in baby foods. The Staff Report noted
that Plum "refused to cooperate with the Subcommittee's
investigation causing great[] concern that their lack of
cooperation might obscure the presence of even higher levels of
toxic heavy metals in their baby food products, compared to their
competitors' products." A Healthy Babies Bright Futures Report,
dated October 2019, indicates Plum's baby food contains heavy
metals.

The Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive
damages. [GN]


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: City of Warren Police Appeals Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled In re
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2-19-cv-20839, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this
securities fraud action seeks to recover losses allegedly sustained
as a result of an insurance company's failure to speak truthfully
about the insufficiency of policy reserves. According to the
Amended Complaint, the market reacted poorly and drastically to the
news of second quarter reserve charges and related negative news.
Prudential's stock price declined more than 10%, from a close of
$101.31 per share on July 31, 2019, to a close of $91.09 per share
on Aug. 1, 2019, on massive, abnormally high volume of over than
7.6 million shares traded.

Lead Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
brings the putative class action pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the common stock of Prudential
Financial,Inc. between Feb. 15, 2019, and Aug. 2, 2019, inclusive.

The Plaintiff is now seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated December 29, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Prudential Financial Inc, et al., Case No.
21-1147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, dated January 27, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individaully and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Matthew F. Gately, Esq.
          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF
          Park 80 West - Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com
                  psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
                  shawnw@rgrdlaw.com  

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 693-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com    

Defendants-Appellees PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC., CHARLES F. LOWREY,
KENNETH Y. TANJI, and ROBERT M. FALZON are represented by:

          David D. Cramer, Esq.
          Selina M. Ellis, Esq.
          Tricia B. O'Reilly, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 757-1100
          E-mail: dcramer@walsh.law
                  sellis@walsh.law
                  toreilly@walsh.law

RALPH LAUREN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; RALPH
LAUREN RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; RALPH LAUREN MEDIA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00147-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., Jan. 25,
2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.ralphlauren.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA).

Because the Defendants' Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

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

Ralph Lauren retails apparels. The Company offers shirts, pants,
shoes, jackets, coats, handbags, sunglasses, fragrance, blazers,
waistcoats, and accessories to teenagers, men, women, and children,
as well as provides furnishings and home decoration products. Ralph
Lauren serves customer worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

REALPAGE INC: Kelly Appeals Ruling in FCRA Suit to Third Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin Joseph Kelly and Karriem Bey filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY
and KARRIEM BEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a On-Site and RP ONSITE, LLC, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01706-JDW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Joshua D. Wolson entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's
Motion to Stay in light of the Court's order Denying Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class.

The lawsuit is a consumer class action brought pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by Plaintiffs seeking relief for
Defendants' widespread violations thereof for themselves and all
others similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs file this petition under the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) seeking review of the said order by Judge Wolson,
denying class certification because the decision rests on a
misinterpretation of the FCRA.

The appellate case is captioned as KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY AND KARRIEM
BEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. REALPAGE, INC., doing business as
"On-Site" and "RP On-Site LLC," Defendant-Respondent, Case No.
21-8005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, January 19, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY AND KARRIEM BEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Carella Byrne Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C.
has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) ("Restaurant
Brands") on behalf of those individuals who purchased or acquired
Restaurant Brands common stock between April 29, 2019, and October
28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned
Paul J. Graney v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., et al.,
Case No.1:21-cv-20508 (the "Graney Action").

There is a related class action case pending against Restaurant
Brands in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. That first-filed action issued a notice of
its filing pursuant to the federal securities laws on December 21,
2020, which triggered the deadline of February 19, 2021, for any
investors who purchased Restaurant Brands common stock to seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. The
filing of the Graney Action does not change the February 19, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline. For additional information or to learn how
to participate in this litigation, please contact Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C.: Zach Bower, Esq. (973)
994-1700 or via e-mail at zbower@carellabyrne.com.

Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation and headquartered in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and is one of the world's largest
restaurant chains with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and
Popeyes restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S.
territories. On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new
strategy designed to improve performance within its Tim Hortons
brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on
three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and
brand communications. Then, on March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands
announced "Tims Rewards" - a new loyalty program for Tim Hortons
customers in Canada. Under the Tims Rewards program, customers
would be eligible for a free hot brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked
good after every seventh paid visit to a participating Tim Hortons
restaurant. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
United States.

The Class Period begins on April 29, 2019, when Restaurant Brands
filed its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31,
2019 with the SEC. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported
0.5% system-wide year-over-year sales growth for Tim Hortons on
system-wide sales of $1.547 billion. The complaint alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, the defendants repeatedly touted the
implementation and execution of Restaurant Brands' "Winning
Together Plan" and "Tims Rewards" loyalty program. On the heels of
Restaurant Brands touting the benefits of these initiatives, the
company completed two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019,
and September 5, 2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of
approximately $3 billion to insiders.

However, the reality about Restaurant Brands' execution of its
"Winning Together Plan" and "Tims Rewards" loyalty program was
revealed on October 29, 2019 when the company announced
disappointing financial results for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2019. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported
a 0.1% system-wide year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortons --
representing a 1.4% same-store sales decline -- on system-wide
sales of $1.774 billion. Following this news, the price of
Restaurant Brands common stock declined $2.59 per share, or
approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per share on October 25,
2019, to close at $64.86 per share on October 28, 2019.

The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose 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, the
defendants' statements about Restaurant Brands' business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Restaurant Brands investors may, no later than February 19, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Carella Byrne, or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a 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.

Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., founded in
1976, is a leading law firm in the New Jersey - New York
metropolitan area, serving a diverse clientele ranging from small
businesses to Fortune 500 corporations. For more information about
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., please
visit www.carellabyrne.com.[GN]



RESTAURANT BRANDS: The Schall Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Restaurant
Brands International Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or "the Company")
(NYSE:QSR) for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 29,
2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 19, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here 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. Restaurant Brand's "Winning Together
Plan" failed to improve sales and other key metrics for the Tim
Hortons brand. The "Tims Rewards" program did not generate revenue
growth, offsetting increased consumer traffic with promotional
discounting. 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 Restaurant Brands,
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. [GN]



ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Sanchez Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FRANCISCO SANCHEZ and JOSE ANTONIO REYES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and ROADRUNNER
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00890
(N.D. Cal., February 4, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by failing to reimburse
business expenses.

Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Reyes worked for the Defendants as delivery
drivers in California from approximately 2010 to August 2020 and
from approximately 2008 to September 14, 2020, respectively.

Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. is a company that provides
transportation and logistics services, with its principal executive
offices in Cudahy, Wisconsin.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a truck freight
transportation services provider, with its principal executive
offices in Downers Grove, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
         David Pogrel, Esq.
         Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
         LEONARD CARDER, LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 272-0169
         Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
         E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                 dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
                 golmedo@leonardcarder.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Curiel-Ruth Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIA CURIEL-RUTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC; ETRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; INTERACTIVE BROKERS,
LLC; CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; and MELVIN CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00829 (N.D. Cal., Feb.
2, 2021) alleges Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, in late 2020, stocks for various
companies began to fluctuate greatly, including the stocks for the
company GameStop Corp. ("GME") and American Movie Company ("AMC"),
which experienced an extreme downturn due to the COVID-19
pandemic's effect on consumer's abilities to show in-store and to
attend theatres. GME and AMC began to dramatically rise when retail
investors began buying the stock in January 2021.

Robinhood, Schwab, TDAmeritrade, Webull, ETrade, and IB
(collectively, hereinafter the "Trading Platform Defendants") are
online brokerage firms on which many retail investors invest, given
its consumer-friendly label as a firm that allows open trading and
does not charge fees.

The Trading Platform Defendants purposefully, willfully, and
knowingly removed its users' ability to purchase certain stocks
from its trading platform in the midst of the short squeeze,
depriving retail investors of the ability to invest in the
open-market and manipulating the open-market to artificially lower
the price, the suit alleges.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company. The Company provides online and mobile application-based
discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          David Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com
                  kkessler@audetlaw.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Gamestop Trading Halt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Martin, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that Robinhood,
the stock trading app formerly popular with millennials, is facing
another class-action suit, following its recent temporary
suspension of purchases of GameStop and other "meme-stocks" through
its platform.

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 29 in Houston, Texas, alleges that
Robinhood, along with other named defendants including TD
Ameritrade and WeBull, arrived at "a common understanding of what
must be done, which they carried out with conscious parallelism."

Conscious parallelism, in competition law, refers to behavior in
which competitors in an oligopoly set prices or terms without a
formal agreement. One entity will take the initiative in setting a
price, while the others follow suit, as a departure from that
behavior could threaten market share and lower profits.

"In short, the situation that was unfolding was a threat to
traditional players in the finance industry, many of whom were
Defendants' largest customers, and it could not be allowed to
continue."

Robinhood and several other trading platforms suspended trades in a
number of stocks, which were being targeted through a crowd-sourced
collective purchasing strategy.

This had initially been proposed through the r/Wallstreetbets
subreddit, in response to the revelation that certain hedge-funds
had taken short positions on GameStop which exceeded the available
stock.

The strategy involved a short-squeeze, "ultimately punishing the
hedge funds and transferring a large sum of their money to
individual investors."

The suit alleges that the actions of the defendants in suspending
trading in GameStop and other shares denied their customers the
chance to profit from the volatility, and actively manipulated the
course of the stocks.

Robinhood is accused of violating customer contracts, breaching
fiduciary responsibilities, and violating laws on anti-competitive
practices and price-fixing.

The company did not immediately respond to Cointelegraph's request
for comment.

A previous class-action suit filed in Manhattan on Jan. 28 makes
similar claims. Disgruntled users are able to automatically join as
a plaintiff through online consumer-rights platform DoNotPay.

The furor over Robinhood's actions has seen it face the ire of
Democratic Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, and reportedly
shelve plans for an IPO in the wake of the PR disaster.

Hollywood studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer even felt that the debacle
deserved a feature length dramatization and quickly snapped up the
movie rights. [GN]


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Suit Over Stock Market Manipulation Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in California Southern District Court
on January 28, 2021 has been amended to include six hedge fund
companies worth billions of dollars, a total of ten online brokers
who manipulated the stock market, and the thirteen stocks
involved.

The various brokers and hedge funds allegedly conspired together to
knowingly deprive retail investors of the ability to invest in the
open market during an unprecedented stock rise, in order to benefit
the hedge fund companies, such as Citadel, Melvin Capital, and
Maple Lane Capital. The lawsuit alleges that the online brokers
involved froze the everyday investors out to enable the hedge funds
to stop losing money when the stocks rose in value.

The lawsuit continues to allege that Robinhood and nine other
online brokers failed to provide duty of care to their customers
and that they purposefully harmed their customers positions in
GameStop Corp (NYSE: GME) and twelve other stocks, such as
Blackberry, LTD (NYSE: BB), AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (NYSE:
AMC), Nokia Oyj (NYSE: NOK), Koss Corporation (NYSE: KOSS), and
Naked Brand Group Ltd (NYSE: NAKD). The lawsuit is also alleging
that Robinhood was recently fined $1.5M by the SEC, and a monitor
has been assigned to watch their activities closely.

This class action is the first and only one to include all six
hedge funds, all ten brokers, and all thirteen stocks.

The case is 3:21-cv-00167, Nordeen et al v. Robinhood Financial LLC
et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Gary R Carlin
APC, a Long Beach based law firm.

If you have suffered losses or damages related to this event and
would like to join the class action, or if you have any questions,
please contact the Law Offices of Gary R Carlin APC by e-mail at
info@garycarlinlaw.com or through their website at:
classactionlawsuitrobinhood.com [GN]


ROBINHOOD: Gary R. Carlin APC Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Gary R Carlin APC disclosed that a class action
lawsuit filed in California Southern District Court on January 28,
2021 alleges that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly
deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open
market during an unprecedented stock rise. Robinhood is also
alleged to have manipulated the open market to the detriment of
retail investors.

The lawsuit continues to allege that Robinhood failed to provide
duty of care to their customers, violated consumer protection laws,
and that they purposefully harmed their customers positions in
GameStop Corp and other associated stock, such as Blackberry, LTD,
AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., Nokia Oyj, and Naked Brand Group
Ltd.

The case is 3:21-cv-00167, Nordeen et al v. Robinhood Financial LLC
et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Gary R Carlin
APC, a Long Beach based law firm.

If you have suffered losses or damages by Robinhood's practices and
would like to join the class action, or if you have any questions,
please contact the Law Offices of Gary R Carlin APC by e-mail at
info@garycarlinlaw.com or through their website at:
classactionlawsuitrobinhood.com

http://classactionlawsuitrobinhood.com[GN]


ROBINHOOD: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm filed an antitrust class action lawsuit
on Feb. 2 disclosed that on behalf of a class of retail investors
in federal court against 35 defendants, including Robinhood,
E*TRADE, TD Ameritrade, Melvin Capital, Citadel, Sequoia Capital,
and others. The plaintiffs allege that they and other retail
investors continue to be injured due to a large, overarching
conspiracy among the defendants to stop them from buying stocks in
open and fair public securities markets. Plaintiffs contend that
the purpose and effect of the scheme was to shield hedge funds,
venture capitalists, and institutional investors from massive
losses they had exposed themselves to due to their highly
speculative short selling strategies. Plaintiffs bring claims under
the federal and state antitrust laws as well as other state laws
and common law.

The retail investors held shares in twelve companies: GameStop
(GME), AMC Theaters (AMC), American Airlines (AAL), Bed, Bath and
Beyond (BBBY), Blackberry (BB), Express (EXPR), Koss (KOSS), Naked
Brand Group (NAKD), Nokia (NOK), Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL),
Tootsie Roll Industries (TR), and Trivago N.V. (TRVG).

Several large hedge funds and investment firms, including
defendants Citadel and Melvin Capital, possessed massive "short"
positions in these relevant securities. "Short" sellers borrow
shares or other interests in corporate stock, securities, or other
assets. In so doing, they bet that prices of the securities will
decrease. If the stock prices in fact drop, a short seller buys the
stock back at a lower price and returns it to the lender. The
difference between the sell price and the buy price is the profit.
Short sellers essentially bet on a stock's failure or decline
rather than its success or increase.

Retail investors correctly identified that the relevant securities
were undervalued. In fact, as the plaintiffs allege, the short
positions were over-leveraged as much as 140%, such that
institutional investors could not close their positions. These
retail investors then began purchasing "long" positions in these
companies, driving stock prices upward, resulting in great losses
to those invested in short positions.

Short sellers were caught in a classic "short squeeze." When the
price of an asset rises, short sellers normally face pressure to
buy back stock to exit their short positions and mitigate their
losses. Instead, as part of the scheme, hedge funds and others
holding short positions publicized the relevant securities as being
less valuable than retail investors believed. When retail investors
continued to acquire shares and drive prices even higher, hedge
funds and others faced potentially disastrous exposure when
required to cover their short positions.

On January 28, many brokerages abruptly and unilaterally restricted
retail investors' ability to buy long positions—in some cases
removing the option to buy shares of the relevant securities while
openly permitting them to sell their existing shares or prohibiting
users from viewing the tickers for some or all of the relevant
securities. Even those retail investors who had queued orders
overnight to purchase stock when the markets opened on January 28
discovered that their purchase orders had been cancelled without
their consent.

The coordinated prohibition on buying any new shares of the
relevant securities eventually led to a massive sell-off and a
steep decline in share prices. While retail investors continued to
be prohibited from purchasing securities at the reduced price,
institutional investors were permitted to buy securities at the
artificially reduced price, closing their short positions.

"Rather than use their financial acumen to compete and invest in
good opportunities in the market to recoup the losses in their
short positions, or paying the price for their highly speculative
bad bets, these defendants instead hatched an anticompetitive
scheme to limit trading in the relevant securities," says Joseph
Saveri, counsel for the plaintiff retail investors. "It is unlikely
that such a widespread ban among brokerages would have been
achievable without a concerted effort in violation of antitrust
laws."

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, as well as injunctive relief,
on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, from the
defendants. The case is Cheng, et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et.
al., case number 21-cv-00781, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

https://saverilawfirm.com/our-cases/short-squeeze-antitrust-litigation/


                        About the Firm

The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed,
successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class
actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and
international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse
industries. For further information on the Firm's practice and
accomplishments on behalf of its clients, visit
www.saverilawfirm.com. [GN]


ROYAL SEA: Trial Unnecessary in McCurley & Deforest Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCURLEY and DAN
DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No.
3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant
entered an order granting the defendant's amended motion for
summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Bashant says that because the calls at issue were placed by a
third-party caller at the behest of Prospect, not Royal Seas, and
because Royal Seas has no evidence that would support its theory
that Royal Seas is vicariously liable for the calls placed by
Prospect, thus the Court grants the Defendant's motion and denies
the Plaintiff's motion. She adds that in light of this decision,
the Court finds the remaining motions are all moot. The clerk is
directed to enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant and against
the Plaintiffs and to close the case.

The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against
Royal Seas alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), 47 and California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The
Court certified a class with respect to the TCPA only of:

   "all persons within the United States who received a
   telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of
   Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular
   telephone (3) made through the use of any automatic telephone
   dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4)
   between November 2016 and December 2017, (5) where such calls
   were placed for the purpose of marketing, (6) to non-
   customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the time of the
   calls, and (7) whose cellular telephone number is associated
   in Prospects DM's records with either diabeteshealth.info or
   www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com.

The Court also certified a Transfer Subclass of:

   "[a]ll members of the Class whose call resulted in a transfer
   to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc." At Plaintiffs' request, the
   Court later decertified the class in part and allowed
   Plaintiffs to proceed solely on the Transfer Subclass.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q5kTut at no extra charge.[CC]

SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI)
from February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased SolarWinds securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit SWI Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had
a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon
which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily
accessible password of 'solarwinds123′; (3) consequently,
SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal
Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to
hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant
reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed on Form 8-K that it had
become "aware of a cyberattack that inserted a vulnerability within
its Orion monitoring products which, if present and activated,
could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the server on
which the Orion products run." The Company further stated that it
believed the attack was "the result of a highly sophisticated,
targeted and manual supply chain attack by an outside nation
state."

On this news, SolarWinds's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
16.69%, to close at $19.62 per share.

Then, on December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating
that, last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the
company that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using
the password 'solarwinds123.'"

On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to
close at $18.06.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased SolarWinds securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/solarwindscorporation-swi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-343/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or "the
"Company") (NYSE:SWI) between February 24, 2020 and December 15,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 5, 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.

SolarWinds 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 SolarWinds Securities Class Litigation

SolarWinds, headquartered in Austin, Texas, provides information
technology infrastructure management software products in the
United States and internationally.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since at least mid-2020, SolarWinds's Orion monitoring
products possessed a vulnerability that allowed hackers to
compromise the server on which these products ran; (2) SolarWinds's
update server could be easily accessed with a password of
'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds's customers,
including, the United States federal government, Microsoft, Cisco,
Nvidia, and others, were vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result of
these vulnerabilities, the Company would incur serious damage to
its reputation; and (5) consequently, Defendants' statements
concerning SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers who were
allegedly working for the Russian government had monitored email
traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments and gained
access to the agencies' email traffic by interfering with
SolarWinds updates.

On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed that it had been the
subject of a hack of its Orion monitoring products. On this news,
the price of SolarWinds's stock fell $3.93 per share, or 16.69%,
from its closing price of $23.55 on December 11, 2020, to close at
$19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, on extremely elevated
trading volume.

On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that during the previous
year, a security researcher had "alerted the company that anyone
could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password
'solarwinds123.'" The report also noted that "days after SolarWinds
realized their software had been compromised, the malicious updates
were still available for download." On this news, the price of the
Company's stock fell $1.56 per share, or 7.95%, from its closing
price of $19.62 on December 14, 2020, to close at $18.06 per share
on December 15, 2020, on 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.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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


ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Judge Dismisses Patients' Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Drake, writing for KPVI, reports that a District Court judge
has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by patients of a fired
oncologist against St. Peter's Health in Helena.

The judge said he lacked the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at
this time, and the claims must first be filed with the Montana
Medical Legal Panel.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, who are patients of Dr. Thomas
Weiner, said he received Montana 1st District Court Judge Michael
Menahan's Feb. 1 decision that the case against St. Peter's Health
and its chief executive officer, Wade Johnson, would be dismissed
without prejudice, meaning they could file again.

The judge is simply telling the plaintiffs to go through the legal
panel first, which is not unusual, their attorney, John Doubek,
said.

"I do not think that was the intent of the statutes, but the
wording is both vague and broad," Doubek said. "I really do not
think that the hospital and its medical malpractice insurer wants
to have hundreds of cases go to the panel, which only handles about
165 total in one year."

St. Peter's said it was pleased with the judge's decision, and
stood by an earlier response in which it said it "felt strongly
about the steps we're taking to protect the safety of patients.
This matter is now pending litigation and as such, we are not able
to provide comment specific to legal proceedings."

The Montana Medical Legal Panel was created to prevent court
actions against health care providers and their employees for
professional liability in situations where the facts do not show a
reasonable inference of malpractice. Doubek said he plans to file
the case with the panel soon.

On Dec. 10, Weiner filed another suit against St. Peter's Health,
demanding a jury trial and saying suspending his clinical
privileges violated due process, was done without good cause and
damaged his reputation. Johnson has said Weiner was removed after
the hospital learned that he had been harming patients for years,
and that the investigation was continuing.

Weiner's lawsuit against the hospital is still pending.

The class-action suit dismissed recently was filed Nov. 13 by Tonya
Hauck and others after Weiner had been removed from the hospital.
Hauck and the other plaintiffs alleged that St. Peter's Health
failed to notify them when it removed Weiner and did not assign
other doctors to care for them.

They said his removal caused canceled appointments, stress, anxiety
and depression, among other damages. Weiner is not a party in this
suit. No punitive damages are sought, but the plaintiffs reserved
the right to seek punitive damages should the "requisite elements
be proven through the course of discovery."

"At the heart of each of Hauck's claims is her allegation St.
Peter's Health violated acceptable standards of health care by
dismissing Dr. Weiner and by failing to reasonably accommodate his
patients," Menahan wrote. "These claims, both in contract and tort,
are the purview of the Montana Medical Legal Panel as they fall
under the statutory definition of medical malpractice claims."

Doubek said more than 200 of Weiner's patients had expressed
interest in becoming plaintiffs in the suit. [GN]


STAFF PRO INC: Eliacin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mireille Eliacin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Staff Pro, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00440 (E.D. N.Y., January 26, 2021), seeks to recover
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York labor laws, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Staff Pro is a California-based corporation registered to do
business in New York, and does business nationwide as a security
company providing on-site security guards to various businesses and
residences where Eliacin was employed as a security guard in East
Elmhurst, New York, from January 2018 through August 15, 2019. She
claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week
without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


STATE FARM: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition in Vogt Suit to S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
matter styled State Farm Life Insurance Company, Petitioner vs.
Michael G. Vogt, Respondent, Case No. 20-1008.

Response is due February 26, 2021.

State Farm Life Insurance petitions for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eight Circuit in the case titled Michael G. Vogt Plaintiff-Appellee
v. State Farm Life Insurance Company Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
18-3419. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and
remanded in part to the District Court for reconsideration Vogt's
motion for an award of prejudgment interest. Vogt's motion to file
a supplemental appendix was denied.

As previously reported in the Class Action reporter, the lawsuit is
brought as a class action by over 25,000 life insurance
policyholders who allege that State Farm Life Insurance Company
impermissibly included non-listed factors in calculating Cost of
Insurance (COI) fees assessed on life insurance policies.

Mr. Vogt contends that the case presents overarching common
questions, the answers to which will resolve tens of thousands of
claims without the need for individualized testimony: whether State
Farm deducted cost of insurance and expense charges from each
policy owner's Account Value in amounts greater than those
authorized by the Policy. He asserts that the Policy is a
"universal life" insurance policy. Universal life insurance is a
type of "permanent" life insurance that, unlike standard "term"
insurance, is intended to provide lifetime.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner State Farm Life Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

STATE FARM: Singh Sues Over Deductions on Insureds' Account Values
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA B. SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00190-AC (D. Or., February 4, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
conversion.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deduction of charges
from the account values of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated insurance policy owners in excess of amounts authorized by
the express terms of their policies. The Defendant is contractually
bound to deduct only those charges explicitly identified and
authorized by the terms of its life insurance policies, which are
fully integrated agreements. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class are damaged by
improper deductions made in the account values of their policies.

State Farm Life Insurance Company is a life insurance firm, with
its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         David F. Sugerman, Esq.
         Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
         SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
         707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600
         Portland, OR 97205
         Telephone: (503) 228-6474
         Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
         E-mail: david@sugermanlawoffice.com
                 nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com

                - and –

         John J. Schirger, Esq.
         Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
         Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
         Samuel N. Sherman, Esq.
         MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
         4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Telephone: (816) 561-6500
         Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
         E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                 mlytle@millerschirger.com
                 jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

                - and –

         Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
         Ethan Lange, Esq.
         Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
         E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                 lange@stuevesiegel.com
                 perkins@stuevesiegel.com

STATE STREET: Lieff Cabraser Appeals Order in ATRS Suit to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ARKANSAS
TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, Defendant; ARNOLD HENRIQUEZ, MICHAEL T. COHN, WILLIAM R.
TAYLOR, RICHARD A. SUTHERLAND, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, STATE STREET
GLOBAL MARKETS, LLC and DOES 1-20, Defendants; THE ANDOVER
COMPANIES EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, and JAMES
PEHOUSHEK-STANGELAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant, Case Nos. 1:11-cv-10230-MLW, 1:11-cv-12049-MLW,
1:12-cv-11698-MLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuits
expand the investigation into whether banks overcharged public
pension funds by tens of millions of dollars for foreign-exchange
transactions. The suits allege that Boston-based State Street for
more than a decade violated state law by overcharging many
customers for currency trades.

Interested Party Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is now
seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated January 27,
2021 on motion to stay execution on judgment. Under the Order, the
Court states that (1) By February 3, 2021, the Special Master shall
respond to the motion by filing a memorandum and affidavit that
address, among other things, whether Lieff is likely to be
irreparably harmed if it prevails on appeal, (2) By February 3,
2021, Labaton Sucharow LLP, The Thornton Law Firm, Keller Rohrback
LLP, McTigue Law LLP, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and the Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute Center for Class Action Fairness shall
respond to the motion if they wish to do so, and (3) Any reply by
Lieff shall be filed by February 8, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berns
v. Labaton Sucharow LLP, et al., Case No. 21-1069, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, dated February 1,
2021.[BN]

Interested Party-Appellant LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
is represented by:

          Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq.
          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson St. 8th Flr.
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 335-9500
          E-mail: dchiplock@lchb.com
                  sfineman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Flr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com   

Interested Parties-Appellees LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, THORNTON LAW
FIRM LLP, KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, MCTIGUE LAW, LLP, and ZUCKERMAN
SPAEDER LLP are represented by:

          Stuart M. Glass, Esq.
          CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
          2 International Pl
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 248-4804

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Flr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com  

               - and -

          Joan A. Lukey, Esq.
          Justin Joseph Wolosz, Esq.  
          CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
          2 International Pl
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 248-5000
          E-mail: joan.lukey@choate.com
                  jwolosz@choate.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Kelly, Esq.
          Joshua Charles Honig Sharp, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          Exchange Place, 53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-2835
          Telephone: (617) 345-1000  

               - and -

          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


               - and -

          James A. Moore, Esq.
          MCTIGUE LAW LLP
          4530 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 364-6900

STOCKX LLC: I.C. Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs I. C., a minor by and through his natural parent, Nasim
Chaudhri, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled In re StockX Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-12441, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, eight
individuals bring the putative class action against StockX seeking
to represent a nationwide class and several subclasses of
individuals who allegedly have been harmed by StockX's failure to
protect their confidential and personal information from a data
breach.

StockX is an e-commerce platform where users can purchase and sell
luxury goods, fashion clothing, rare sneakers, and accessories.
The eight named Plaintiffs are registered users of StockX: (1)
Kansas resident I.C., a minor by and through his natural parent,
Nasim Chaudhri; (2) New Jersey resident M.S., a minor by and
through his natural parent, Shuli Shakarchi; (3) Kansas resident
Adam Foote; (4) New York resident Anthony Giampetro; (5) Georgia
resident Kwadwo Kissi; (6) New York resident Richard Harrington;
(7) Florida resident Johnny Sacasas; and (8) California resident
Chad Bolling.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dated December
23, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and compel
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as I.C., a Minor through parent, et
al. v. StockX, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-1089, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, dated January 27, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant brief is due on March 8, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on April 7, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants I. C., a minor by and through his natural
parent, Nasim Chaudhri; M. S., a minor by and through his natural
parent, Shuli Shakarchi; ADAM FOOTE; ANTHONY GIAMPETRO; KWADWO
KISSI; RICHARD HARRINGTON; JOHNNY SACASAS; and CHAD BOLLING,
individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

Defendants-Appellees STOCKX, LLC and STOCKX, INC. are represented
by:

          Jeffrey B. Morganroth, Esq.
          MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH
          344 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 864-4000
          E-mail: jmorganroth@morganrothlaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Poe, II, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6349

SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class lawsuit related to is
natural gas and electricity business in New York.

The Partnership's operations are subject to operating hazards and
risks normally incidental to handling, storing, and delivering
combustible liquids such as propane.  

The Partnership has been, and will continue to be, a defendant in
various legal proceedings and litigation as a result of these
operating hazards and risks, and as a result of other aspects of
its business.  

In this regard, the Partnership's natural gas and electricity
business is currently a defendant in a putative class action suit
in the Northern District of New York.  

The complaint alleges a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states.  

The complaint was dismissed in part by the district court, but
causes of action based on the New York consumer statute and breach
of contract were allowed to proceed.

Based on the nature of the allegations in the suit, the Partnership
believes that the suit is without merit and is defending against it
vigorously. With respect to this pending suit, the Partnership has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no
reserve for a loss contingency is required.

Suburban said, "The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from the
action. Although any litigation is inherently uncertain, based on
past experience, the information currently available to the
Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance liabilities,
the Partnership does not believe that currently pending or
threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known contingent
claims, will have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flow."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and
is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.

SUMMIT PIZZA: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC
and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Summit Pizza West, LLC violated the California Labor Code. The
Summit Pizza West, LLC, class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2021-00001288-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint
can be read here.

The complaint alleges Summit Pizza West, LLC engaged in unfair
competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 by
failing to: (1) pay minimum and overtime wages; (2) provide meal
and rest breaks; (3) reimburse employees for business expenses; (4)
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (5) provide wages
when due.

The lawsuit also alleges Summit Pizza West, LLC violated the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil
penalties as a result of Summit Pizza West, LLC's conduct. PAGA
authorizes aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil
penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State
of California for Labor Code violations. PAGA allows aggrieved
employees to step into the shoes of California state regulators to
recover civil penalties, which means ordinary citizens are
"deputized" as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor
Code.

If you would like to know more about the Summit Pizza West, LLC
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling
(619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment law
firms with offices located in San Diego and Los Angeles that
dedicate their practices to helping employees and consumers fight
back against employers and corporations for unfair employment
practices. If you need help regarding wage and hour, wrongful
termination, discrimination, and harassment issues in the
workplace, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]



SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Williams Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET E. WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00560 (E.D.N.Y., February 2,
2021) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant seeking injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
caregiver from in or about September 2009 to January 19, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated manual workers "on a weekly basis and not
later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which
wages are earned." Instead, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly
or semi-monthly basis, the suit says.

Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. operates 17 assisted living
facilities located throughout New York State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on
February 4, 2021, that the company is facing several complaints
including putative class action complaints in relation to its
merger with ChargePoint, Inc.

On September 23, 2020, Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Lightning Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Switchback, and
ChargePoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into a Business
Combination Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, pursuant to
which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged with and into
the Company, with the Company surviving the Merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Switchback.

On October 19, 2020, Switchback filed a registration statement on
Form S-4 (File No. 333-249549) (as amended, the "Registration
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transactions.

On January 8, 2021, the Registration Statement was declared
effective by the SEC and Switchback filed a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus/consent solicitation statement for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with a special meeting of
Switchback's stockholders to be held on February 11, 2021 to
consider and vote on, among other proposals, a proposal to approve
the Business Combination Agreement and the Proposed Transactions.

Following the initial filing of the Registration Statement, four
purported Switchback stockholders filed separate complaints,
including putative class action complaints, against Switchback and
current members of the board of directors of Switchback.

The four complaints are captioned as follows: Bulsa v. Switchback
Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No. 655800/2020 (Sup.
Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (Oct. 29, 2020), Bushansky v. Switchback Energy
Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No. 656119/2020 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cnty.) (Nov. 6, 2020), Ward v. Switchback Energy Acquisition
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10577 (S.D.N.Y.) (Dec. 15,
2020), Baker v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al.,
Index No. 657063/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (Dec. 16, 2020).

The Complaints allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty
claims against the Switchback Board in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Complaints also allege that the Registration
Statement is materially misleading and/or omits material
information concerning the Proposed Transactions in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The Complaints generally seek injunctive relief,
unspecified damages and awards of attorneys' and experts' fees,
among other remedies.

It is possible that additional, similar complaints may be filed or
the Complaints described above may be amended. If this occurs,
Switchback does not intend to announce the filing of each
additional, similar complaint or any amended complaint unless it
contains materially new or different allegations. Although
Switchback cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from these matters, Switchback and the
Switchback Board believe that the Complaints are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend them.

Switchback believes no supplemental disclosures are required under
applicable law; however, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, Switchback has determined to
voluntarily supplement the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus/consent solicitation statement.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3a5ZagB.

Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company
formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock
exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or
similar business combination with one or more businesses. The
company is based in Dallas, Texas.

TAPESTRY INC: Butler Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Tapestry, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Butler
v. Leavitt, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0343-JTL.

The Company is currently addressing a putative class action
complaint filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on May 7, 2020,
naming the former chief executive officer and director of Kate
Spade & Company and the other former directors of Kate Spade &
Company, which the Company acquired on July 11, 2017, as
defendants, and captioned Butler v. Leavitt, et al., C.A. No.
2020-0343-JTL.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of former Kate Spade &
Company shareholders alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Acquisition, including with respect to the
defendants' decision to pursue the Acquisition and Kate Spade &
Company's disclosures to stockholders in connection with the
Acquisition.

Under the terms of the agreement pursuant to which the Company
acquired Kate Spade & Company, the Company is required to indemnify
the defendants under this claim.

Tapestry said, "The Company vigorously disputes the allegations of
the complaint, believes it has strong defenses against the claims
and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The
ultimate outcome of this matter, including the amount or range of
possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this
time."

Tapestry, Inc. is a leading New York-based house of modern luxury
accessories and lifestyle brands. Tapestry is powered by optimism,
innovation and inclusivity.

THE 1 DELIVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Dickinson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DICKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE 1 DELIVERY SERVICE INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00813 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

The 1 Delivery Service Inc. is engaged in the delivery service
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               -and-

          Joshua Moyer, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          401 W A Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com


TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Sues Over Sale of PHO-Containing Tootsie Pops
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXINE BEASLEY on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. RG21086723
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Jan. 25, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant continued to incorporate the illegal, dangerous additive
partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO") in Tootsie Pops ("Tootsie
Products"), even after the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
tentatively (in 2013), and then finally declared it unsafe for use
in food, rendering products made with PHO unlawful and
adulterated.

On June 17, 2015, the FDA determined that PHO is unsafe for use in
food. Final Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils, 80
Fed. Reg. 34650 (June 17, 2015).

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, and sells Tootsie Rolls and Tootsie Pops ("Tootsie
Products"), which contained partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO").
Artificial trans fat is a toxin and carcinogen for which there are
many safe and commercially viable substitutes. During the class
period, the Defendant added artificial trans fat to Tootsie
Products in the form of partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO")

Even before the FDA's Final Determination, however, PHO was an
unlawful food additive under both California and federal law.
Although safe, low-cost, and commercially acceptable alternatives
to PHO existed throughout the class period, the Defendant unfairly
elected not to use these safe alternatives in Tootsie Products in
order to increase profit at the expense of the health of consumers,
the suit says.

Ms. Maxine Beasley purchased Tootsie Products from California
grocery stores during the Class Period, for her personal and
household consumption.

This action is brought to remedy the Defendant's unfair and
unlawful conduct. On behalf of the class, the Plaintiff seeks an
order compelling Defendant to award the Plaintiff and the Class
members restitution and pay costs, expenses, and reasonable
attorneys' fees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          111405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


TRITERRAS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below 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, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRIT, TRITW)
Class Period: August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020
Deadline: February 19, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/trit

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on
Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos
platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities
that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3)
that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the
Company's Kratos platform; 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.

CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY)
Class Period: January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020
Deadline: February 22, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/otgly

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) 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.

SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)
Class Period: February 24, 2020 - December 15, 2020
Deadline: March 5, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/swi

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had
a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon
which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily
accessible password of ‘solarwinds123'; (3) consequently,
SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal
Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to
hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant
reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Contact:

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


TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 2
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)
between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Tyson investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly
contagious coronavirus was spreading throughout the globe; (2)
Tyson did not in fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect
its employees in its facilities; (3) as a result, Tyson employees
contracted and spread the coronavirus within the facilities; (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its
production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (5)
due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer
financial harm related to its lowered production; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 5,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN].


UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Perez Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas Decker, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled URIEL VAZQUEZ PEREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THOMAS DECKER, in his official capacity as Field
Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; RONALD
D. VITIELLO, in his official capacity as the Acting Director for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her
official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; JAMES MCHENRY, in his official capacity as Director of
the Executive Office For Immigration Review; MATTHEW G. WHITAKER,
in his official capacity as the Acting Attorney General of the
United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; and
CARL E. DUBOIS, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Orange
County and the official in charge of the Orange County Correctional
Facility, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10683, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

Petitioner-Plaintiff Uriel Vazquez Perez brings this class petition
for habeas corpus relief and class complaint against
Respondents-Defendants Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as
New York Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and others, alleging that ICE's practice of failing to
provide prompt initial appearances before an Immigration Judge
violates the Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure
Act.

The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Judgment
dated November 30, 2020, stating that Vazquez Perez has satisfied
the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and thus certification of a class is appropriate.
The Court granted Vazquez Perez's unopposed class certification
motion and certified the Rule 23(b)(2) class comprised of all
individuals who have been, or will be, arrested by ICE's New York
Field Office and detained; under Section 1226 of Title 8 of the
United States Code for removal proceedings before an Immigration
Judge and who have not been provided an initial hearing before an
Immigration Judge. The Order further stated that Vazquez Perez's
motion for summary judgment was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.


The appellate case is captioned as Vazquez Perez v. Decker, Case
No. 21-192, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, dated February 1, 2021.[BN]

Petitioner-Appellee Uriel Vazquez Perez, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jennifer Rolnick Borchetta, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          360 East 161st Street
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 838-7878
          E-mail: jennb@bronxdefenders.org

               - and -

          Christopher Thomas Dunn, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-3005
          E-mail: cdunn@nyclu.org   

               - and -

          Peter L. Markowitz, Esq.
          BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW
          55 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 790-0340
          E-mail: pmarkowi@yu.edu  

Respondents-Appellants Thomas Decker, in his official capacity as
Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Tae Johnson, in his official capacity as Acting Director for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Pekoske, in his official
capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; James McHenry, in his official capacity as Director of
the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Monty Wilkinson, in
his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United
States; United States Department of Homeland Security; United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States
Department of Justice; Executive Office For Immigration Review; and
Carl E. Dubois, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Orange
County and the official in charge of the Orange County Correctional
Facility, are represented by:

          Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR
           THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          86 Chambers Street
          New York, NY 10007

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Beck Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BECK and BIENVENIDA SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a
California Corporation, Case No. CGC-21-589177 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks damages for unpaid overtime
wages and unpaid premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks,
un-reimbursed expenses, restitution, statutory penalties,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Salazar has taught clinical courses in Defendant's Sacramento
Nursing program in 2018, 2019, and 2020 while Beck has taught
Behavioral Finance for Defendant in the Spring semesters in 2018,
2019, and 2020.

USF is a private not-for-profit Jesuit Catholic university. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMOND LAW, P.C.
          11780 W. Sample Road, Suite 103
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

VAXART INC: Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Barker Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VAXART, INC., WOUTER W. LATOUR, M.D., ANDREI
FLOROIU, TODD DAVIS, MICHAEL J. FINNEY, Ph.D., KAREN J. WILSON, and
ROBERT A. YEDID, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0098 (Del. Ch., February
4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common
law.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment to make the Removal
Provision adopted and maintained by Defendants, which provides that
Vaxart Inc.'s directors may be removed from office only by a
supermajority vote, as invalid and contrary to the law.

Vaxart, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its principal
executive offices located at 170 Harbor Way, Suite 300, South San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         Dean R. Roland, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         The Nemours Building
         1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3800
         Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
         E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                 droland@coochtaylor.com

               - and –
         
         Brian P. Murray, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         230 Park Ave., Suite 530
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 682-5340
         E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and –
         
         Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
         KRANENBURG
         80-83 Long Lane
         London EC1A 9ET
         United Kingdom
         Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365

VESPER HEALTHCARE: Purvance Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
JON PURVANCE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp., Brenton L. Saunders, Manisha
Narasimhan, Michael D. Capellas, Julius Few and Barry S.
Sternlicht, Case No. 650365/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan.
19, 2021) is a stockholder class action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Vesper Healthcare
Acquisition Corp. against Vesper and Vesper's Board of Directors
for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts
to sell the Company, through certain merger vehicles, (Hydrate
Merger Sub I, Inc., Hydrate Merger Sub II, LLC, wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Company), to LCP Edge Intermediate, Inc.
(HydraFacial).

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote through which
HydraFacial will merge with Vesper, via a reverse merger where,
when completed, Vesper's shareholders interests will be
significantly diluted -- they will own only 37% of the combined
company, while existing HydraFacial shareholders, PIPE investors,
and Vesper management will own the vast majority, or 63%, of the
go-forward company.

According to the complaint, the Preliminary Proxy that Vesper filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the
proposed transaction describes an insufficient sales process in
which the Board failed to create a disinterested committee of
independent directors to maximize public stockholder value. The
complaint further contends that Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to Vesper's stockholders by agreeing to the
proposed transaction which undervalues Vesper and is the result of
a flawed sales process.

Vesper is a special purpose acquisition company, or "SPAC," an
entity that is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial
public offering for the purpose of acquiring an existing company,
and merging with it to take that entity public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626

VF OUTDOOR: Alcazar Files Suit in California Over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VF Outdoor, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. VF Outdoor, LLC, doing business as
Icebreaker a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:21-cv-00443-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case is assigned to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

VF Outdoor, LLC is a California-based company which offers outdoor
and activity-based lifestyle and workwear brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VON BRIESEN: Faces Lenzner Suit Over Failure to Pay Paralegals' OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA LENZNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C., Defendant, Case
NO. 2:21-cv-00133 (E.D. Wis., February 2, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a paralegal,
asserts that the Defendant classified her and other paralegals as
exempt from overtime wages. Although they were customarily and
regularly suffered and permitted to work hours over 40 in a
workweek, the Defendant did not pay them they lawfully earned
overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages at the applicable
overtime rate, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.

Von Briesen & Roper, S.C. is a Wisconsin based law firm that
provides legal innovations and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Tel: (608) 257-0040
          Fax: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: cmadden@hq-law.com
                  dzoeller@hq-law.com


WESBANCO BANK: Faces Stillgood Products Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WesBanco Bank, Inc.
The case is captioned as STILLGOOD PRODUCTS, LLC v. WESBANCO BANK,
INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00018-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., Jan. 25, 2021).

The case arises from alleged breach of contract and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

WesBanco is a bank holding company headquartered in Wheeling, West
Virginia. It has over 200 branches in West Virginia, Ohio, Western
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Maryland and Southern Indiana. WesBanco is
the second-largest bank headquartered in West Virginia, after
United Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch , IV
          Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue,  Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Lisa Marie La Fornara, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler Brenden Ewigleben, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: tewigleben@cohenandmalad.com

WESCO INSURANCE: MSP Class Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1,
LLC, and MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series
of MAO-MSO II LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, AMTRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST NONPROFIT INSURANCE
COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES
INSURANCE CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24048, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
February 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01011-VEC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged systematic and uniform
failure to reimburse conditional payments made by the Plaintiffs'
assignors and the Class Members on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled under Part C of the Medicare Act for accident-related
medical expenses pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act (MSP Law).

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a Delaware series limited
liability company with a principal place of business located at
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a Florida limited liability company, with its
principal place of business at 2701 S. LeJeune Road, Tenth Floor in
Coral Gables, Florida.

MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, Series PMPI, a segregated series of
MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business at 45 Legion Drive in Cresskill,
New Jersey.

Wesco Insurance Company is a company that issues property and
casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 59
Maiden Lane 43rd Floor, New York, New York.

Security National Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 900 S. Pine Island Road Suite 600, Plantation,
Florida.

AmTrust Insurance Company is a company that issues property and
casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 59
Maiden Lane 43rd Floor, New York, New York.

First Nonprofit Insurance Company is a company that issues property
and casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 59
Maiden Lane 43rd Floor, New York, New York.

Technology Insurance Company, Inc. is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 59 Maiden Lane 43rd Floor, New York, New York.

Associated Industries Insurance Co., Inc. is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at 903 NW 65th ST Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         John H. Ruiz, Esq.
         MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
         2701 S. Le Jeune Rd, 10th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 614-2222
         E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com

               - and –

         Francesco Zincone, Esq.
         ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
         4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
         Miami, FL 33155
         Telephone: (305) 461-5100
         E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com

WHOLE FOODS: Workers Punished Over BLM Masks Lose Bias Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com Inc. and Whole Foods Market Inc. workers lack
discrimination claims based on a work policy prohibiting them from
wearing face masks or other attire bearing Black Lives Matter
messaging because they acknowledge the rule applies regardless of a
worker's race, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled.

The decision dismisses the race bias allegations of all 28 lead
plaintiffs in the proposed class action under Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, 27 of whom work or worked for Whole Foods, an
Amazon subsidiary. They and Alice Tisme, who is a Prime shopper at
a Whole Foods in Cambridge, Mass., failed to state viable claims
under Title VII because they only alleged they were disciplined for
wearing BLM clothing, the court said.

All of the workers, except for one, also failed with their Title
VII retaliation claims, the court said.

Being disciplined for wearing BLM clothing doesn't describe a
violation of job discrimination law because Title VII "does not
protect free speech in a private workplace," the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts said. That was so even
though the policy wasn't always enforced with regard to LGBT and
other messaging, the court said.

The lawsuit, filed in July, followed protests and demonstrations
around the world sparked by the death of George Floyd in police
custody in Minneapolis.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs was not convinced that the case raised
race discrimination claims, even "assuming the truth of the
allegations in the complaint."

"Rather, at worst, they were selectively enforcing a dress code to
suppress certain speech in the workplace. However unappealing that
might be, it is not conduct made unlawful by Title VII," she
concluded.

Other companies, including Costco Wholesale Corp., Taco Bell, and
Chick-fil-A, have also reportedly prohibited workers from wearing
BLM masks and attire. Starbucks Corp. reversed its policy after an
outcry.

Appeal Likely
The workers' attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, said she expects they
will appeal the decision and is disappointed at the "narrow" view
the court took on race discrimination claims under Title VII.

"The court adopted a very narrow frame for analyzing race
discrimination, which goes against the tide of caselaw recognizing
the critical importance of eradicating race discrimination from
worksites across our country," Liss-Riordan said. "Whole Foods and
Amazon's decision to punish employees from expressing that Black
Lives Matter, while allowing employees to express many other
messages, is extremely troubling."

Attorneys and media representatives for Amazon didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

A Whole Foods spokesperson said in a statement, "We remain
dedicated to ensuring our Team Members feel safe and free from
discrimination and retaliation at Whole Foods Market. We agree with
the court's decision and appreciate their time and attention."

Analogy to LGBT Ruling
The court further ruled that the race bias claims even fail under
the rationale the U.S. Supreme Court recently adopted in finding
that Title VII's sex bias provision covers LGBT workers because the
plaintiffs didn't allege that Amazon or Whole Foods would have
treated their BLM-mask wearing more favorably if they had been of a
different race, the court said.

The nature of their underlying allegation is made clear by the
class they proposed to represent, which included all employees of
either company who were prohibited from or disciplined for wearing
BLM messaging in the wake of Floyd's killing, Burroughs said.

The workers also failed with their alternative theory of
associational discrimination, the judge said.

Though apparently an open issue in the First Circuit, other
circuits and lower courts within the circuit have recognized the
viability of the association bias theory in the race discrimination
context, Burroughs said. But such claims have typically involved
workers who were allegedly discriminated against because of their
relationship with a member of another race, she said.

That's not what the workers here allege, she said. And they "cited
no case where a court sanctioned a Title VII claim" based on
discipline for wearing attire to advocate for a cause, the judge
said.

Savannah Kinzer did state a viable retaliation claim because she
alleged three possible Title VII-protected activities, Burroughs
said.

Kinzer says before she was fired she led employee protests in
opposition to Whole Foods' enforcement of the policy, which she
viewed to be discriminatory; wore a BLM mask in opposition to
enforcement of the policy; and filed discrimination and retaliation
charges with two federal agencies, the judge said.

BLM attire is worn to protest police brutality and nationwide
racism. It isn't the type of opposition to workplace discrimination
that Title VII shields from employer, the court said.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represents Whole Foods and Amazon.

The case is Frith v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., D. Mass., No.
1:20-cv-11358, 2/5/21.

(Updated with additional reporting and comment.)
To contact the reporters on this story: Patrick Dorrian in
Washington at pdorrian@bloomberglaw.com; Erin Mulvaney in
Washington at emulvaney@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Nicholas Datlowe at
ndatlowe@bloomberglaw.com; Jay-Anne B. Casuga at
jcasuga@bloomberglaw.com [GN]


ZOOSK INC: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN FLORES-MENDEZ, et
al., v. ZOOSK, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04929-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered a case management order
pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

   1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by
      February 5, 2021, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c),
      including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 22 26(a)
      (1)(A)(iii);

   2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be
      sought by April 29, 2021;

   3. The motion for class certification must be filed by
      September 9, 2021, to be heard on a 49-day track;

   4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be March 4,
      2022;

  5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and
      disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as
      to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof
      (opening reports) shall be March 4, 2022;

   6. The last date to file dispositive motions shall be April
      7, 2022.

   7. The final pretrial conference shall be held on June 8,
      2022;

   8. A jury trial shall begin on June 13, 2022; and

   9. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
      for Settlement Conference.

Zoosk is an online dating service available in 25 languages and in
more than 80 countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2N62Eqm at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Parking Heaters Price-Fixing Class Action Certified in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foreman & Company on Feb. 3 disclosed that an Ontario class action
has been certified to proceed to trial. The case alleges that
certain manufacturers of Parking Heaters for trucks and commercial
vehicles participated in an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of those Parking
Heaters and certain related kits, parts and accessories. The action
has been certified by the Court on behalf of all Canadian
residents, excluding Quebec, who purchased a Parking Heater or
purchased, leased or sub-leased a vehicle containing a Parking
Heater between September 13, 2001 and December 31, 2012 (the "Class
Period"). Separate actions were commenced in British Columbia, but
those actions have been stayed and the BC class members will be
represented in the Ontario action. A separate action has also been
commenced in Quebec on behalf of Quebec resident class members.
That action has previously been authorized to proceed to trial as a
class action. The Ontario and Quebec actions will move forward on a
coordinated basis under the guidance of the Courts in both
Provinces.

A settlement has also been reached with the individual defendant
Volker Hohensee, a former executive of the defendant Espar Inc. Mr.
Hohensee has agreed to provide the plaintiff with early cooperation
and evidence in respect of the alleged conspiracy by the defendants
in exchange for a release from the claims made against him. The
settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes
effective.

A "Parking Heater" means a parking heater, accessories and parts
sold for use with heaters, packages containing heaters and
accessories and/or parts for parking heaters which were
manufactured or sold by the defendants for use in a commercial
vehicle during the Class Period.

The parties will now engage in a process known as "discovery" where
they exchange relevant documents and examine representative
witnesses for each side regarding the allegations made in the case.
The matter may then proceed to trial. At trial, a judge will
decide, whether or not the claims will be successful and whether
remedies should be ordered in favour of class members.

For more detailed information about the case, including the
certification orders, the settlement agreement, the court-approved
notices, and an explanation of the rights of class members at this
juncture of the case, please visit
www.foremancompany.com/parking-heaters-price-fixing.

Class Members are represented by:

Foreman & Company
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP

For further information: Media Contact: Jonathan Foreman -
classactions@foremancompany.com [GN]


[*] Securities Class Action Filings Down 22% in 2020, Report Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Declines in state court filings and filings related to M&A
contributed to a 22% decrease in the number of securities class
actions filed in 2020. Plaintiffs filed complaints against fewer
than 400 issuers for the first time since 2016, according to a
report released on Feb. 3 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford
Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The total dollars
at risk in the 2020 cohort, measured by Maximum Dollar Loss and
Disclosure Dollar Loss, was, however, comparable to 2019 exposure
levels.

The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2020 Year in Review,
found that plaintiffs filed 334 new securities class action cases
in federal and state courts in 2020, compared to a record 427
filings in 2019. There were 234 core filings -- those excluding M&A
activity -- down 12% from 2019 levels. Federal M&A filings fell 38%
from the previous year.

Despite the smaller number of companies sued, market capitalization
losses were comparable to the elevated levels seen over the past
three years. There were 30 filings with a Maximum Dollar Loss of at
least $10 billion in 2020, more than twice the historical average.

The number of state court filings alleging claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 fell sharply, possibly due to the Delaware
Supreme Court's March 2020 decision in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi
upholding the validity of federal forum-selection provisions in
corporate charters.

"This decline contrasts sharply with the substantial increase in
state 1933 Act securities filings in the last few years, which
reached a historic high in 2019," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, a
report coauthor and Cornerstone Research senior vice president. "In
the last six months, four trial courts in California have enforced
these federal forum-selection provisions; no trial court has ruled
that they are unenforceable. In the future, other courts will
likely consider this issue."

Two trends that may persist emerged during the year. Plaintiffs
filed 19 complaints relating to COVID-19. These complaints included
allegations that companies negatively impacted by the virus failed
adequately to disclose the virus's adverse effects on their
financials, and that misleading statements were made about products
produced or in development by the issuer.

The year also witnessed an explosion in special purpose acquisition
company (SPAC) activity. More than half of all IPOs in 2020
involved SPACs, with over $75.3 billion raised across 248 SPAC IPOs
in the United States. Five SPAC-related complaints were filed in
2020.

"There is every reason to believe that plaintiffs will be carefully
examining the SPAC market, and no one should be surprised if 2021
witnesses a sharp uptick in claims against SPAC issuers," said
Professor Joseph A. Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, and a former commissioner of
the Securities and Exchange Commission. "I also expect a continued
decline in state-based litigation of 1933 Act claims as courts
continue to embrace federal forum provisions."

Key Trends

* The percentage of U.S. exchange-listed companies subject to
securities class action filings fell for the first time in eight
years, from nearly 9% in 2019 to 6.3% in 2020 but remained well
above historical averages.

* Disclosure Dollar Loss: This measure of litigation activity
decreased by 13% to $245 billion in 2020. DDL is the dollar value
change in the defendant firm's market capitalization between the
trading day immediately preceding the end of the class period and
the trading day immediately following the end of the class period.

* Maximum Dollar Loss: This measure of litigation activity rose by
33% to nearly $1.6 trillion, driven by several mega filings with
MDL of at least $10 billion. MDL is the dollar value change in the
defendant firm's market capitalization from the trading day with
the highest market capitalization during the class period to the
trading day immediately following the end of the class period.

* Among S&P 500 companies, 4.4% were targeted in a core federal
filing in 2020, the lowest percentage since 2015.

* There were 31 core federal filings against Asia-based firms, the
highest since a spike in Chinese reverse merger filings in 2011.

* The 79 core federal filings in the Ninth Circuit marked the
highest number on record, while the 77 core federal filings in the
Second Circuit fell from their record high in 2019 but were still
the third highest on record.

                    About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and
expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory
proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent
faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified
expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a
reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by
delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for more than 30
years. The firm has over 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago,
London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and
Washington.

See Cornerstone Research's website for more information about the
firm's capabilities in economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony.

http://www.cornerstone.com
Twitter: @Cornerstone_Res

          About the Stanford Law School Securities
                 Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 5,900
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases.
securities.stanford.edu [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 ***