/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210224.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 34

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Engel Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisees Want 9th Circuit to Rule on Class Action
9F INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: Certiorari Petition Filed in Waithaka Labor Suit

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Swearingen Class Suit Stayed Until April 21
AMERICAN LUGGAGE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN PROTECTION: Faces Scott Employment Suit in California
ARIZONA: Prison Inmates Seek Action in Health Care Dispute
AROMA MARKET: Faces Haon Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 29 Deadline
B & JCM: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Longhini Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Georges Class Suit
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Jones Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
BAYSIDE, DE: Homeowners File Class Action Suits Against Developer

BELDEN INC: Faces Macket Suit Over Data Breach in E.D. Missouri
BET STREAMING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE APRON: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Leung Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BLUEBIRD BIO: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline

BLUEBIRD BIO: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BLUEBIRD BIO: Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BNP PARIBAS: Claims in Second Amended Kashef Complaint Narrowed

CAPTIVA MVP: Court Refuses to Approve Data Privacy Settlement
CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Valentine Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CERNER CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Its Retirement Plan for $4MM
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bids to Seal Docs in Harper Suit Denied
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harper Partly OK'd

CHW GROUP: Adam Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Iowa
CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lee Partly OK'd
CLEANSPARK INC: Klein Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Klein Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Kaul Alleges

COMPASS INC: Maffei Suit Removed from Cal. State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cafe Plaza Suit
DOORDASH INC: Saunders Suit Moved to San Francisco Superior Court
DOSE OF COLORS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FALONI LAW: Lugo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

FIRST CREDIT: Faces Jones FDCPA Suit in New Jersey Federal Court
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Reynolds Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Willis Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Wray Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes

FLORIDA: Unemployment Compensation System Class Action Pending
GARDEN FRESH: Lopez-Aguilar Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
GARDENS ALIVE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Allowed to File First Amended Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Sproles Files Suit in W.D. Virginia

GENERALI US: Dziagwa Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GILBERT H. WILD: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GLOBAL APPAREL: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
GOOGLE INC: Calif. Court Tosses Class Action Over Loot Boxes
GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Stadia 4K Game Quality

GOOGLE LLC: Vance BIPA Suit Stayed Until Resolution of IBM Suit
GTS TRANSPORTATION: Equitable Claims in Plestsov Suit Dismissed
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Heavy Metals, Mays Suit Says
HEARST MAGAZINE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Faces Gregorio Suit Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN: Bais Yaakov Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Suit Removed from Cal. State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
ICEBOX BRANDS: Faces Lopez Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
IIWII GARDENS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in McDermid Securities Suit Narrowed

INTERACTIVE LIFE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 19 Deadline

JR CITY PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rodriguez Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: School Boards Sue Over Unlawful Sales of E-Cigarettes
KRAFT HEINZ: Bagels Don't Contain Mozzarella Cheese, Suit Says
KRG KINGS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in McDonnell Suit
LIBERTY HEALTCARE: Underpays Investigators, Williams Suit Claims

MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2989: 41 Short Squeeze Class Suits Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MENTED COSMETICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Slade Says
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Suit
MONARCH INVESTMENT: Turner Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Compel Ruling

MRS BPO: Milam Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls & Text Messages
NAGOYA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Jiang Suit Alleges
NATURE HILLS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
NESTLE USA: Coubaly Suit Alleges Child Labor and Trafficking

NEW HO WAH: Juracan Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Alford
NIAGARA BOTTLING: Awarded $98K in Counsel Fees, Costs in Frompovicz
OATH INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

PARDHAR LLC: Perkey Suit Seeks OT Premiums for Home Care Providers
PEACOCK TV: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PENUMBRA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
PICSART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PILLPACK LLC: Class & Subclass in Williams TCPA Suit Certified
PREFERRED PHYSICIANS: Sharfman Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Dismisses First Amended Davis Class Suit
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Must Pay Davis ACV Under Policy, Court Says
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Gregg Remanded to California Superior Court

QEP ENERGY: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
QUANTUM GLOBAL: $175K Settlement in Taafua FCRA Suit Gets Final Nod
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Robbins LLP Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline

RAPID PASADENA: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in California State Court
SAN DIEGO GAS: Remand of Radcliff to California Super. Ct. Denied
SCOTT CREDIT: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Toth Class Suit
SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces DualSense Controller Drifting Class Action

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Zenoff Named Lead in Wasa Securities Suit
SPRAGUE OPERATING: Cruz Suit Seeks Prevailing Wages for Drivers
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Partly Affirmed
TENNESSEE WHOLESALE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TENNESSEE: Bid to Certify Class in Green Prisoners Suit Denied

TFC PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked, Jones Says
TV GUIDE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TYSON FOODS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
UBS AG: Tel Aviv Court Tosses LIBOR Manipulation Class Action

UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots & Attendants Classes Certified in Ward Suit
UNITED STATES: Banks Files Appeal in Martinez-Brooks Suit
UNITED STATES: Evans Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
VIACOMCBS INC: Stockholder Class Action Over Merger Can Proceed
WALGREENS CO: Forth Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

WEDDERSPOON ORGANIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELD COUNTY, CO: Settlement in Martinez Suit Wins Final Approval
WESTCHESTER METAL: Suit Seeks Prevailing Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
WHAM-O INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: $445K Settlement in Delijanin Gets Final Nod

WORLDWIND SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ZERO SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Engel Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ENGEL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00382-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 5,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Engel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisees Want 9th Circuit to Rule on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loh, Esq. -- ploh@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that on Wednesday, February 10,
California 7-Eleven franchise owners asked U.S. District Court
Judge Dale Fischer to allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
rule on the district court's previous denial of the franchisees'
application for class certification. The franchise owners filed a
class action against 7-Eleven, claiming they are actually employees
of the franchisor and not independent contractors. The impetus for
the franchisees' motion is a previous ruling from Judge Fischer,
that the court should evaluate the franchisees' claims of
California labor code violations under the eleven-factor test set
forth in the 1989 holding in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department
of Industrial Relations, while claims for violation of California's
wage orders would be subject to decision under the so-called "ABC
test." The California Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Dynamex
Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
established the much-discussed ABC test. This space has extensively
covered the Dynamex litigation and the potential impacts of the ABC
test.

The 7-Eleven franchisees unsurprisingly argue that the ABC test,
which makes it harder for companies to classify workers as
independent contractors, should apply to their case. The
franchisees point to a once stayed, now pending, case before the
Ninth Circuit involving a GrubHub driver, Raef Lawson, in which the
court will decide whether Dynamex should apply retroactively to
Lawson's claims of misclassification. In January 2021, the
California Supreme Court held that its Dynamex ruling indeed
applied retroactively, and in response the Ninth Circuit lifted a
stay in Lawson's case presumably to proceed in light of the
California court's action. The 7-Eleven franchisees now seek to
seize whatever advantage might come from the Ninth Circuit's
action, as it relates to Lawson's claims against GrubHub.

The 7-Eleven franchisees originally brought suit in October 2017,
alleging they were employees of the franchisor due to the level of
control 7-Eleven exercised over their individual store operations.
In March 2018, U.S. District Court Judge John Walter ruled the
controls 7-Eleven imposed did not make the franchisees employees.
The franchisees appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and in the interim
the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex. The
Ninth Circuit then vacated the judgment in favor of 7-Eleven and
remanded the case to the district court. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit
certified the question of Dynamex's retroactivity to the California
Supreme Court, leading to its recent ruling on that question.

This litigation remains ongoing but represents a preliminary
victory for 7-Eleven to the extent plaintiffs' efforts to certify a
class have been unsuccessful. This litigation is also another
example of the far-reaching impact of Dynamex. [GN]


9F INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
9F Inc. ("9F" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:JFU) for violations of the
federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), or between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 22, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. 9F touted value and benefits to its
financial institution partners and tri-party cooperation business
model that did not exist. In fact, the Company and Property and
Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") were engaged in an ongoing
dispute regarding payment of service fees. The Company's
collectability of service fees from PICC was at serious risk of
non-payment. There was also significant risk that PICC would
discontinue credit insurance and guarantee protection to investors
and institutional funding partners. 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 9F, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


AGEAGLE AERIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS) resulting
from allegations that AgEagle may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased AgEagle securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2037.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.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that AgEagle "was
a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by Alpha Capital Anstalt ('Alpha
Capital'), AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and
other UAVS insiders to defraud US investors." The report also
alleged that "in April 2020 rumor of a partnership between Amazon .
. . & AgEagle was started by a promotional video uploaded to
AgEagle's founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott's daughter's
personal website and youtube account" but that "we have found no
evidence of any ‘major e-commerce customer.'" In mid-2020,
AgEagle received over $23 million in proceeds from registered
direct offerings. Then, in fourth quarter 2020, an Amazon
spokesperson stated that the company does not have any dealings
with AgEagle whatsoever. On this news, AgEagle's stock price fell
$5.13, or 36.4%, on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Certiorari Petition Filed in Waithaka Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Amazon.com Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Petitioners vs. Bernard Waithaka,
Respondent, Case No. 20-1077.

Response is due on March 10, 2021.

Amazon.com Inc. filed a writ of certiorari to review the judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the
case titled BERNARD WAITHAKA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-1848. A
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellants' motion to
compel arbitration.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 9,
2020, Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez issued an order
granting the Defendants' motion to extend stay in the lawsuit
captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
Case No. C19-01320-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Defendants moved to extend stay pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision on their petitions for writ of certiorari.

Plaintiff Waithaka is an Amazon Flex ("AmFlex") delivery driver for
Amazon. Amazon historically used third-party delivery providers
like FedEx and UPS to deliver its products but recently began using
independent contractors for delivery services for the last mile of
the order. These "last mile" delivery drivers, like the Plaintiff,
use the AmFlex smartphone application to sign up for delivery
shifts and use their own methods of transportation, such as a
private vehicle, to deliver products subject to Amazon's service
standards. Contractors are paid an hourly rate for their shifts but
are not compensated for additional time needed to complete all
their deliveries, nor are they reimbursed for gas, vehicle
maintenance, or cellphone data expenses.

To work as an AmFlex driver, contractors like the Plaintiff must
download the AmFlex app and agree to the AmFlex Independent
Contractor Terms of Service ("Agreement"). Section 11 of the
Agreement provides, in part, that the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") and applicable federal law "will govern any dispute that
may arise between the parties." In a separate section, the
Agreement states that "interpretation of this Agreement is governed
by the law of the state of Washington without regard to its
conflict of laws principles, except for Section 11 of this
Agreement, which is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and
applicable federal law."

The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants in
Massachusetts state court alleging (1) misclassification of AmFlex
drivers as contractors; (2) violation of the Massachusetts Wage
Act; and (3) violation of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.
Amazon removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. Amazon then moved to compel arbitration
or, in the alternative, to transfer or stay the case.

On August 20, 2019, Judge Hillman of the District of Massachusetts
granted in part and denied in part Amazon's motion, concluding that
a transfer to the Western District of Washington was proper but
denying Amazon's motion to compel arbitration. On the arbitration
issue, Judge Hillman concluded that the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated fall within the FAA's transportation worker
exemption, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, that Massachusetts law therefore
governed the enforceability of the arbitration provision, and that
the provision was unenforceable based on Massachusetts public
policy. Amazon appealed Judge Hillman's ruling on the FAA
transportation worker exemption to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

On July 17, 2020, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's
holding as to the scope of 9 U.S.C. Section 1, agreeing that the
FAA transportation worker exemption encompasses the contracts of
transportation workers, like Plaintiff, "who transport goods or
people within the flow of interstate commerce, not simply those who
physically cross state lines the course of their work." Waithaka v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2020). On September 1,
2020, the First Circuit denied Amazon's petition for rehearing en
banc.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., et al. are
represented by:

          David B. Salmons, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 373-6283
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: david.salmons@morganlewis.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Swearingen Class Suit Stayed Until April 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon stayed until April 21, 2021, the proceedings in
the cases, KRISTIN SWEARINGEN, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
INC. and AMAZON.COM INC., Delaware corporations, and
AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants; and CANAN SCHUMANN, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a foreign
corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a foreign corporation,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:19-cv-1156-JR, 3:20-CV-1751-JR (D. Or.).

In Case No. 19-CV-1156-JR, Plaintiff Swearingen brings an action
under state wage and hour laws against Defendant Amazon arguing she
is entitled to recover unpaid wages and penalty wages.  The
Plaintiff seeks to bring the claim on behalf of herself, as well as
similarly situated employees of the Defendant Amazon.

Generally, the Plaintiff alleges Amazon rounded time clock punches
resulting in a consistent net underpayment to her and the purported
class members.  She also alleges Amazon failed to pay for breaks of
fewer than 30 minutes resulting in further underpayment.  In
addition, the Plaintiff asserts Amazon failed to pay all earned
wages within the statutory deadline upon her employment termination
as well as that of the purported class members.

The proceedings are currently at the precertification stage.
However, the parties have briefed the motion to certify the class.
The proposed classes consist of:

      1. The Rounding Class, consisting of all current and former
Amazon employees who performed work in Oregon "fulfillment center"
facilities (i.e., excluding data center employees), in any workweek
the regular payday for which was on or after Dec. 20, 2012 and on
or before April 15, 2019, during which they lost time due to
Amazon's rounding policy, who do not file a timely request to
opt-out of the Class; and

      2. The Unpaid Break Class, consisting of all current and
former Amazon employees who performed work at any Oregon facility
in any workweek the regular payday for which was on or after Dec.
20, 2012 and on or before April 15, 2019, during which they had a
clocked-out break (i.e., either a rest period or a meal period) of
fewer than 30 minutes, who do not file a timely request to opt-out
of the Class.

Contemporaneous with the completion of briefing on the motion to
certify, the Amazon Defendants moved to stay the proceedings until
April 21, 2021, which is the day after a scheduled mediation.

Magistrate Judge Russo finds that at this stage, merits discovery,
as a practical matter, will not proceed until the issue of class
certification is resolved.  The certification issue went under
advisement on Feb. 8, 2021.  The parties have not consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction.  Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Russo
will need to issue a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") which will
then place the matter before a district judge for final
disposition.  That process may very well result in a decision on
class certification after the mediation scheduled for April 20,
2021.

Accordingly, the Defendants move the Court to stay these
proceedings to essentially preserve the status quo heading into
mediation and to allow the parties to fully invest their energies
in preparing for the mediation rather than potentially preparing
objections to an F&R.  Further complications involve whether the
case would subsume the Schumann case should the Court certify the
proposed classes.

The Plaintiff speculates that the true purpose of the motion is to
stall the case as long as possible.  However, a delay of two to
three months before the Court considers a fully briefed motion
results in little prejudice to her given the circumstances of the
case. As Magistrate Judge Russo noted, even merits discovery is
mostly complete with the exception of a motion to compel the
Plaintiff may seek to file before responding to an already stayed
motion for partial summary judgment filed by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff asserts she is confident that her motion for
certification as to both classes will be certified and assumes,
therefore, the case will not settle until "Amazon has the bad news
in writing."  However, the parties are equally capable of assessing
the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases absent a
ruling from the Court and negotiate accordingly in mediation.

Te Plaintiff also digresses into the profitability of Amazon during
the pandemic in an attempt to negate any hardship the Defendant may
suffer if the stay is not granted.  Amazon's profitability (or lack
thereof) is not considered by the Court when assessing whether to
exercise its discretion.  The Court primarily considers judicial
economy particularly with respect to the time and effort that may
be saved by the parties and the Court.

At this stage of the litigation, Magistrate Judge Russo finds that
the proposed classes resemble the existence of Schrödinger's cat,
they are both certified and not certified.  Neither party is
prejudiced by this paradox any more than the other.  However, if
she denies the stay and proceeds to recommend a ruling on the
motion, then both parties will expend their energies on any
objections that will result with a significant chance that the
motion will not be fully resolved prior to mediation.  In addition,
the Court will have to spend time and effort on a motion that may
become moot depending on the success of mediation.

Magistrate Judge Russo holds that the only hint of prejudice in
granting a stay is the Plaintiff's belief that her position in
mediation will be strengthened by the success of her certification
motion.  However, this merely puts the Plaintiff on an equal plane
with defendant going into mediation.  The Judge presumes the
parties will act in good faith in assessing the likelihood of
success both as to the certification issue and the merits of the
underlying claims while undertaking efforts to mediate.

The Plaintiff, in her sur-response, asserts she would rather
postpone mediation than postpone class certification.  However, she
not only disregards the utility of mediation with respect to the
economy it affords the parties, but she also disregards the impact
mediation has on judicial economy for the Court.  The parties both
agreed mediation would be useful, and, despite the ongoing
pandemic, successfully scheduled a date with a mediator that may
very well precede a final ruling on the motion to certify.  It is
in the interest of all concerned that the parties undertake this
effort in good faith.  Moreover, the Court has every reason to
believe that both parties, after assessing the respective strengths
and weaknesses of their cases, will do exactly that.  
For these reasons, the motion to stay is granted and the
proceedings in the case are stayed until April 21, 2021.  In
addition, Magistrate Judge Russo encourages consultation with the
counsel in Schumann v. Amazon.com, Inc, Case No. 20-CV-1751 as to
any impact mediation may have on that case and, if necessary,
invite Schumann to participate in the mediation as well.
Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion stays the proceedings in
Case No. 20-CV-1751-JR until April 21, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb9q2oz2 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN LUGGAGE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Luggage
Group LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. American
Luggage Group LLC doing business as: Roam, Case No.
1:21-cv-01461-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

ROAM -- https://roamluggage.com/ -- is the world's first premium
customizable luggage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


AMERICAN PROTECTION: Faces Scott Employment Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Protection
Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Steven Scott vs. American
Protection Group, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00293969-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 4,
2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

American Protection Group is a national security company based in
Sun Valley, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

ARIZONA: Prison Inmates Seek Action in Health Care Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------
ktar.com reports that attorneys representing inmates in a legal
settlement over the quality of health care in Arizona's prisons
have asked a judge to hold a hearing soon to discuss her threats to
impose contempt-of-court fines against the state for not complying
with the deal and others matters.

The lawyers said in a filing that U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver
hasn't held a status conference in the class-action lawsuit since
December 2018, though another judge who was assigned by Silver to
mediate disputes in the case held a video teleconference nearly six
months ago to talk about compliance with the settlement during the
coronavirus pandemic.

In any case, the prisoners' lawyers want a hearing to discuss
Silver's threats to impose contempt fines as high as $100,000 per
violation against the state for not adequately following through on
its promises in the 2014 settlement to improve care for inmates.
The attorneys have estimated in court filings that those fines
could reach as high as $13.9 million.

It wouldn't mark the first contempt fine the state would face in
the case. The state and then-Corrections Director Charles Ryan were
fined $1.4 million in the summer of 2018 for noncompliance with the
settlement. Though the state paid the fine, the company that at the
time provided health care services within the prisons had
reimbursed the state for that amount.

Silver also has raised the possibility of throwing out the
settlement and bringing the case to trial. The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the 30,000 inmates in Arizona's 10 state-run prisons and
doesn't challenge health care in private prisons in the state.

Attorneys for the prisoners also want to hear about the state's
plans to offer the coronavirus vaccine to inmates.

No dates have been set for when inmates will receive the vaccine,
which has already been offered to corrections officers and people
who work in health care operations within state prisons.

The first inmates who will be offered vaccinations are those who
are 65 or older, followed by inmates who have high-risk medical
conditions. Vaccinations will be offered to the remainder of state
prisoners in a later phase.[GN]

AROMA MARKET: Faces Haon Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZOILA HAON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AROMA MARKET AND CATERING, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation; AROMA BOCA, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, MEIR
YALOZ, individually, and GIL RIBAK, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 0:21-cv-60354-XXXX (S.D. Fla, February 15, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated persons as non-exempt hourly paid
employees to positions, such as cashier, stocker, bagger, kitchen
staff and cleaning personnel, at the Defendants' grocery market and
catering store locations throughout South Florida. The Plaintiff
was hired from January 2017 through December 11, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly pay her
and other similarly situated employees because the Defendant
manipulated their payroll documents by automatically deducting a 30
minutes meal break from their hours worked although they did not
actually take breaks. As a result, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees worked more than 40 hours in a week,
they were not paid for all hours they worked, including overtime at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a week, the Plaintiff
added.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated employees seeking to recover all unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages in the amount calculated,
reasonable attorney's fees, litigation costs and expenses,
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems to be
just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate grocery market and catering store.
The Individual Defendants are/were supervisors and/or
manager/owners who were involved in the day-to-day operations
and/or were directly responsible for the supervision of the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated members. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Tel: (866) 344-9243
          Fax: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ:AZN) investors to
submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been
filed and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: May 21, 2020 - Nov. 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/AZN
Contact An Attorney Now:AZN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

AstraZeneca PLC (AZN) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and omitted to
disclose widespread flaws in the design, execution, and results of
the company's clinical trials of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate (AZD1222).

Specifically, Defendants concealed that: (1) a critical
manufacturing error resulted in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (2) clinical
trials consisted of an improper patient makeup that received subtly
different treatments undermining any conclusion that could be drawn
from the clinical data; (3) certain clinical trial participants had
not received a second dose at the designated time points; and (4)
the Company failed to include a substantial number of patients over
55 years of age.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Nov. 23, 2020, when
AstraZeneca announced an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for
AZD1222, which revealed that the company used two different dosing
regimens in two trials conducted in the UK and Brazil. In one
trial, patents received a half dose followed by a full dose
(resulting in 90% efficacy). In the other, patients received two
full doses (resulting in 62% efficacy).

Thereafter, investors learned through a series of disclosures that:
(1) the differing dosing regimens were due to a known manufacturing
error discovered early in the process, (2) the half dose had not
been tested in patients over 55, (3) certain trial participants did
not timely receive the second dose, and (4) U.S. regulators stated
that, absent a clear explanation of discrepancies in the trial
results, approval for commercial sale of AZD1222 in the U.S. was
unlikely.

In response to this news, the price of AstraZeneca American
Depositary Receipts significantly fell.

"We're focused on investor losses and proving AstraZeneca knowingly
took undisclosed shortcuts in its rush to commercialize AZD1222,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are an AstraZeneca investor, click here to discuss your
legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
AstraZeneca should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email AZN@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

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

B & JCM: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Longhini Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI, Individually v. B & JCM DORAL DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-20505-JAL (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 5, 2021) is a class action complaint brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other mobility impaired
individuals similarly situated suing the Defendant for injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Longhini qualifies as an individual with disabilities as
defined by the ADA. He has cerebral palsy and requires the use of a
wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and
cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or
twisting of the wrist. Mr. Longhini regularly goes to the subject
property to bank at First Bank Florida -- Doral Branch, to eat and
shop there, to enjoy the Doral area and as part of his advocacy to
ensure public accommodations comply with the ADA.

Mr. Longhini definitely intends to return to the subject property
in the near future to avail himself of the goods and services
offered to the public at the subject property, and will in the
future continue to encounter architectural barriers at the subject
property, until the barriers are corrected. The barriers to access
have endangered his safety, he says.

The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations
implementing the ADA. The Defendant is responsible for complying
with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public  accommodation
that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to is known as
Doral Park Centre, and is located at 3905 NW 107th Avenue, Doral,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891-5199
          Facsimile: (305) 893-9505
          E-mail: jpf@fullerfuller.com

BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Georges Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEKSANDER GEORGES; IDA JELVEH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55499 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the putative class action brought in
diversity against Bank of America.

Plaintiffs Georges and Jelveh, who are at least 24 years old, are
accountholders at BOA and allege that BOA's student-fee waiver
constitutes illegal age discrimination under the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 51 et seq.,
and the "unlawful" prong of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

The Ninth Circuit reviews novo the district court's order granting
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Like most banks, BOA offers various banking products, including
personal bank accounts, to its customers.  One type of personal
bank account BOA offers is called "Bank of America Advantage Plus
Banking."  BOA imposes a monthly $12 "maintenance fee" on this
account unless the account holder: (1) makes at least one direct
deposit of $250 or more per month; (2) maintains a daily minimum
balance of at least $1,500; (3) enrolls in a specified rewards
program and qualifies for a certain tier of rewards; or (4)
qualifies for a student waiver.  To qualify for the student waiver,
accountholders must show that they (1) are enrolled in a high
school, college, university, or vocational program and (2) are
under 24 years old.

The Plaintiffs contend that BOA's age-based student-fee waiver
constitutes illegal age discrimination under the Unruh Act because
the waiver ceases to apply to student accountholders--like
them--when they turn 24 years of age.

The Ninth Circuit finds an insufficient basis to conclude that
BOA's age-based maintenance fee violates the Unruh Act.  It says
the Unruh Act does not prohibit all preferential treatment based on
age, but "prohibits only arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable
discrimination."  Such discrimination "emphasizes irrelevant
differences or perpetuates irrational stereotypes.  This is
consistent with the "fundamental purpose" of the Unruh Act, which
is the elimination of antisocial discriminatory practices--not the
elimination of socially beneficial ones.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the overwhelming majority of
California courts to address age-based discrimination under the
Unruh Act have upheld reasonable age-based discrimination so long
as the age-based discrimination is justified by public-policy
considerations.

The Plaintiffs' reliance on Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 228
Cal.Rptr.3d 336 (Ct. App. 2018) is unpersuasive, the Ninth Circuit
further holds.  Unlike in Candelore, where the defendant made no
attempt to identify any public interest in its age-based pricing
differences, BOA's age-based student fee waiver is supported by
public-policy considerations, as evidenced by statutes and federal
reports that favor assistance to young adults--and in particular
those under 24--as they transition to financial independence and
into the banking system.  Because BOA's age-based maintenance fee
is supported by public-policy considerations, the Ninth Circuit
cannot conclude it constitutes "arbitrary, invidious or
unreasonable discrimination."

Finally, the Plaintiffs assert a derivative claim under the
"unlawful" prong of California's UCL, which prohibits "any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."  But
because there is no violation of the Unruh Act, the Ninth Circuit
finds that the Plaintiffs' UCL claim also fails.

Accordingly, it affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3bc9ycv7 from Leagle.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Jones Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONES PLANTING CO. III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF
CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and
TENKOZ INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00173-GCS (S.D. Ill.,
Feb. 12, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by impairing
competition in the retail sales market for seeds and crop
protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides ("Crop Inputs"), and by excluding electronic platforms
from competing in that market, the Defendants have artificially
raised the prices paid by farmers for Crop Inputs, and ultimately
the prices paid by consumers for farm products, including corn and
grain.

Allegedly, the Defendants' conduct in boycotting and preventing
electronic platforms from competing in the retail sales market for
Crop Inputs lacks any procompetitive justification. Moreover, the
harm to competition and the resulting antitrust injury, suffered by
both farmers and other consumers of Crop Inputs, more than offsets
any procompetitive justifications the Defendants may offer, the
suit adds.

Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The
Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides,
traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

               -and-

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  kgarvey@labaton.com
                  jcrevier@labaton.com

               -and-

          Jonathan P. Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW, PLLC
          121 Colony Crossing, Suite D
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 790-1505
          E-mail: jpb@barrettlawms.com


BAYSIDE, DE: Homeowners File Class Action Suits Against Developer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavity at capegazette.com reports that homeowners in the
Bayside community near Selbyville have filed a pair of class-action
lawsuits in Delaware Court of Chancery against developer Carl M.
Freeman Communities alleging the developer withheld information
that would have allowed the homeowners to control their own
community association.

Judge Sam Glasscock denied the plaintiffs' request for a status quo
order Feb. 15, and ordered a trial to be held in early May.

In a nutshell, the Bayside homeowners who filed suit believe they
should have the controlling interest on the board of directors of
the Bayside Community Association. Freeman Communities has said the
homeowners are misinterpreting the state's common interest law, and
there is an intention to transition the association to the
homeowners by 2024. The homeowners believe that isn't soon enough,
and Freeman Communities is obligated by law to make the transition
now.

Bayside homeowner Don Picard said, "I have owned a home in Bayside
since 2006. I really like Bayside; it's a wonderful community. But
it's been difficult working through the homeowners association with
the developer."

Fellow homeowner Greg Merrill said, "I don't have a complaint about
the community. People support Bayside. But the transition needs to
take place. The majority of the board is employed by Freeman. The
homeowners do not have control and do not have a say."
In a statement, Freeman Companies President and CEO Michelle
Freeman said, "We will vigorously defend ourselves against these
legally and factually baseless lawsuits, which we believe portray
the Carl M. Freeman Companies in an unfair and inaccurate light. We
take enormous pride in the quality of how we have developed
Bayside, how we operate its amenities in a world-class manner, and
how our vision to be the premier development in Sussex County and
the entire Delmarva has become a reality."

The two suits are related to each other in that they both make
allegations that Freeman Communities, the residential real estate
development arm of Carl Freeman Companies, did not turn over
control of the board of directors of the Bayside Community
Association to Bayside residents when more than 75 percent of the
lots in Bayside were sold, as required in Delaware's Uniform Common
Interest Ownership Act.

The first suit, filed in November by attorney Robert Valihura on
behalf of Bayside resident Nancy Green, asks for Bayside residents
to be appointed to the majority of seats on the association board.
The Green suit has since been amended to be a class-action suit.

The second suit, filed Jan. 28 by Valihura as a class-action on
behalf of Bayside resident David Williams, asks for financial
compensation based on disclosure documents for all home sales in
Bayside since 2009.

The Green lawsuit says that Bayside, created in 2005, has been a
common interest ownership community controlled by Freeman Companies
President and CEO Michelle Freeman. The suit says the board of
directors members were appointed by Freeman Communities, the
property developer.

Plaintiffs argue that according to the state's uniform common
interest law, after 75 percent of the units in a common interest
community are sold, the developer's control period ends, and the
majority of the board of directors must consist of homeowners. They
say that 83 percent of the lots in Bayside have been sold.

Green's suit says when she learned in July that control of the
board must go to residents, she and other homeowners tried to
negotiate a transition, which would include an election of new
board members. Green's suit alleges those attempts were rejected by
Freeman Communities. They argue that while Freeman Communities only
owns 20 percent of the remaining lots in the development, the
developer still controls the finances and has authority over the
community.

The Green suit asks for a judgment declaring that Freeman
Communities is violating state law and seeks an order directing an
election with homeowners holding the majority of the board seats.

In response, Freeman Communities, represented by Rehoboth Beach
attorney Mark Dunkle, argued that Green had misread the common
interest law and stated that Bayside was a master planned
community, which is defined in Delaware law as a community
consisting of at least 400 acres with at least 400 units.

In practice, a master planned community usually consists of
multiple neighborhoods with shared amenities like a golf course,
swimming pool and clubhouse. Dunkle argued that Delaware law allows
the developer of a master planned community to set its own terms
for how control of a board of directors is conveyed to unit owners,
and the MPC is not subject to the 75 percent rule. He argued that
Bayside requires 90 percent ownership of the units to be sold
before the board can be controlled by the homeowners. Freeman
Communities has asked for the Green suit to be dismissed.

In its legal filings, Freeman Communities also argues that while
the board of directors is appointed by the developer, the
committees, such as the finance committee, which comes up with the
community budget, and the grounds and operations committee, which
handles much of the day-to-day operation of Bayside, are controlled
by homeowners. While the board has the final say, the committees
make recommendations on how the community moves forward.

"The current structure of decision-making of the HOA favors the
homeowners," Dunkle wrote. "Opting to turn over control of the HOA
board earlier than prescribed in the Delaware Uniform Common
Interest Ownership Act and the charter would put the developer and
its interests at risk after investment of over 20 years and
$100,000,000 in Bayside, its master plan and amenities."

Dunkle also wrote that a possible motivation behind the Green suit
is to prevent completion of the community's master plan, including
the Freeman Arts Pavilion, a planned amphitheater to be located
next to the current Freeman Stage.

In response to Dunkle's motion to dismiss, Valihura filed a second
lawsuit, this one a class-action suit with Williams as the lead
plaintiff. Valihura argues that if Bayside is a master planned
community, it must provide disclosure documents stating such to
homeowners when they purchase their homes. He said this was not
done. The Williams suit alleges Freeman Communities committed fraud
by failing to provide this information, and is seeking damages and
attorneys fees.

A response brief to the Williams suit has not yet been filed. [GN]

BELDEN INC: Faces Macket Suit Over Data Breach in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIA MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BELDEN, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00149 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 4,
2021) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused
to the Plaintiff and the other Class members in the large and
preventable data breach that was discovered by Belden on November
12, 2020 and announced publicly by Belden on November 24, 2020, in
which unauthorized users accessed Belden servers that contained
personal information of current and former employees and business
partners ("Data Breach").

Grass Valley USA, LLC, a former subsidiary of Belden, was made
aware of the Data Breach on November 18, 2020. According to the
Notice of Data Incident disseminated by Belden, Grass Valley was
owned by Belden until July 2020. Belden continues to provide IT, HR
and other services for Grass Valley pursuant to the terms of Grass
Valley's divestiture.

According to the complaint, Belden, a provider of networking,
connectivity, and cable products, which designs, manufacturers, and
markets signal transmission products for applications, has failed
to meet its obligation to protect the sensitive personal
identifying information entrusted to them by current and former
employees, or current and former employees of Belden's
subsidiaries.

Belden has not yet disclosed when the Data Breach occurred, but on
November 24, 2020, it announced that an unknown third party gained
unauthorized access to its servers that were used to store certain
employee data. Data including names, birthdates, government-issued
identification numbers (e.g. Social Security numbers), bank account
information (for North American employees on Belden/Grass Valley
payroll), home addresses, email addresses, and other general
employment-related information ("PII") was accessed, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendant's failure
to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the she and the
Class members' PII has been exposed to those who should not have
access to it. The Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher
risk of identity theft and for cybercrimes of all kinds, especially
considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here, added the suit.

Plaintiff Kia Mackey is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana. In
December 2020, she received notice from Belden by letter dated
December 11, 2020 that it improperly exposed her PII to
unauthorized third parties. She worked for Belden from
2019-2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Schmitt, Esq.
          Katherine M. Flett, Esq.
          DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C.
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 726-1000
          Facsimile: (314) 725-6592
          E-mail: jschmitt@dmfirm.com
                  kflett@dmfirm.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

BET STREAMING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BET Streaming LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BET Streaming LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01436-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Black Entertainment Television (BET) -- https://www.bet.com/ -- is
an American pay television channel targeting African American
audiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


BLUE APRON: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 17-cv-04846-NGG-PK

This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BLUE APRON
HOLDINGS, INC. CLASS A COMMON STOCK FROM JUNE 29, 2017, THROUGH
AUGUST 25, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing
will be held on May 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Nicholas G. Garaufis, at the United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York
11201, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $13,250,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than
one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $125,000, and an award of no more than
$40,000, in aggregate, or $10,000 each, to Lead Plaintiffs, should
be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated November 12, 2020 ("Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means.

If you purchased Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. ("Blue Apron") Class A
Common Stock during the period from June 29, 2017, through August
25, 2017, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your
rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release
and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Blue Apron Class A Common Stock. If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to, calling, or
contacting the Claims Administrator: Blue Apron Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173115,
Milwaukee, WI 53217; (Tel) (877) 884-3360;
info@BlueApronSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than March 27, 2021,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than April 19, 2021, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
April 19, 2021, to each of the following:

CLERK OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10007

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: February 1, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Leung Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
PETER LEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEBIRD BIO, INC.; NICK LESCHLY; and CHIP
BAIRD, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00777 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021)
is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased or
otherwise acquired Bluebird securities between May 11, 2020 and
November 4, 2020 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, on May 2020, in the midst of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants announced that they expected to
submit a U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for LentiGlobin, a treatment
for sickle cell disease ("SCD") in the second half of 2021.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for
LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product
comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of
disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA
submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with
respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing,
it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2020, post-market, Bluebird disclosed that it would
no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a
treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. On this
news, the Defendants' stock price fell $9.72 per share, or 16.6%,
to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020, the suit says.

Bluebird Bio, Inc. provides biotechnological products and services.
The Company offers gene therapies for severe genetic disorders.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

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


BLUEBIRD BIO: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of bluebird between May 11,
2020 and November 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) data supporting
bluebird's U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA") submission
for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease ("SCD") was insufficient to
demonstrate drug product comparability; (2) Defendants downplayed
the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19
pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin
for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (3) as a
result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company
would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half
of 2021; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of bluebird
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
13, 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]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, BLUEBIRD SECURITIES
BETWEEN MAY 11, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE
(THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $100,000 ARE
ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676,
EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR
POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

On February 12, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed against
bluebird in United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York.

Throughout the Class Period, according to the class action
complaint, the bluebird Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. The bluebird Defendants, allegedly, made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(i) data supporting bluebird's U.S. Biologics Licensing Application
("BLA") submission for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease ("SCD")
was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii)
Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule
for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, bluebird's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BLUE) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in BLUE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13021&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that bluebird bio, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for
SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;
(ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission
schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until April 13, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the BLUE lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

BLUEBIRD BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE)
between May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 13, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased bluebird securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the bluebird class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2032.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 13, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) data supporting bluebird's U.S.
Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA") submission for LentiGlobin
for sickle cell disease ("SCD") was insufficient to demonstrate
drug product comparability; (2) defendants downplayed the
foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD,
particularly with respect to manufacturing; (3) as a result of all
the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit
the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (4)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the bluebird class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2032.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 15 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 11,
2020 and November 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 13, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Bluebird presented insufficient data to
support its U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA") submission
for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease ("SCD"). The Company
downplayed the risk of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
to its BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, especially
on the topic of manufacturing. 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 bluebird,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


BNP PARIBAS: Claims in Second Amended Kashef Complaint Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Entesar Osman Kashef, et al., Plaintiffs v. BNP
Paribas SA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-3228 (AJN)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The putative class action is brought on behalf of victims of the
Sudanese government's campaign of human rights abuses from 1997 to
2009.  The Plaintiffs bring various state law claims against
Defendant financial institution and its subsidiaries for assisting
the Sudanese government in avoiding U.S. sanctions, which the claim
provided the Regime with funding used to perpetrate the
atrocities.

The Plaintiffs were victims of horrific human rights abuses
undertaken by the Government of Sudan between 1997 and 2009,
including "beatings, maiming, sexual assault, rape, infection with
HIV, loss of property, displacement from their homes, and watching
family members be killed."  The Defendants are BNP Paribas S.A., a
French financial institution, as well as several of its branches
and subsidiaries, as well as individual defendants working for the
bank ("BNPP").

Between 1992 and 1997, in response to the Government of Sudan's
human rights abuses against its own people, the United States
government took a series of steps aimed at stemming the abuses,
including formal condemnation, designation as a state sponsor of
terrorism, and eventually economic sanctions.  In 2002, Congress
passed the Sudan Peace Act, again condemning the ongoing atrocities
in the Sudan and requiring the President to implement additional
sanctions.  Additional legislation and executive orders implemented
further sanctions between 2004 and 2006. S

Beginning in 1997 and continuing through 2007, BNPP became the
primary bank of the Government of Sudan, through which it accessed
U.S. financial markets and circumvented U.S. sanctions.  BNPP
created several schemes to avoid the sanctions, including removing
information from financial documents identifying that a Sudanese
entity was one of the parties involved in the financial
transaction, and using satellite banks in the United States through
which to funnel money.  According to the Second Amended Complaint,
Sudan's access to U.S. financial markets was critical to funding
the government, including its continued atrocities against its
people.

BNPP's actions were investigated by numerous state and federal
agencies in the United States, and in 2014, BNPP pled guilty to
conspiring to violate the laws of the United States in connection
with circumventing U.S. sanctions on behalf of Sudan, Iran, and
Cuba.  It also pled guilty to falsifying business records and
conspiracy under New York law.

The operative complaint alleges 20 state-law claims against the
Defendants, including negligence per se, conspiracy to commit
battery, aiding and abetting assault, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint in its entirety.

On March 30, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
It determined that the Act of State Doctrine barred the Plaintiffs
claims sounding in secondary liability, negligence per se,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.  The Court dismissed the
remaining claims because they were either time-barred or because
the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs
appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the Court's decision, holding that the
Plaintiffs' claims were not barred by the Act of State Doctrine nor
were they untimely.  The Court then ordered supplemental briefing
on the remaining claims in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that
were not addressed in its original opinion, including the issue of
whether New York, Sudanese, or Swiss Law applies to the Plaintiffs'
claims.

In a prior Opinion & Order, the Court held that Swiss Law applies
to the Plaintiffs' claims.  The parties then conducted expert
discovery on the meaning of Swiss law and submitted supplemental
briefing on the issue of whether the Plaintiffs had stated a claim
under Swiss Law.

Judge Nathan concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that BNPP consciously cooperated with the Sudanese regime, either
knew or should have known that its assistance was contributing to
the Regime's human rights abuses, and that this assistance was the
natural and adequate cause of the Plaintiffs' injuries.  The
Plaintiffs have therefore stated a claim for relief under the
Article 50.1 of the Swiss Code of obligations.

The following claims, therefore, survive: Conspiracy to Commit
Battery, Aiding and Abetting Battery, Conspiracy to Commit Battery
in Performance of a Public Duty or Authority, Aiding and Abetting
Battery Committed in Performance of a Public Duty or Authority,
Conspiracy to Commit Assault, Aiding and Abetting Assault,
Conspiracy to Commit False Arrest and False Imprisonment, Aiding
and Abetting False Arrest and False Imprisonment, Conspiracy to
Commit Conversion, Aiding and Abetting Conversion, Conspiracy to
Commit Wrongful Death, and Aiding and Abetting Wrongful Death
Caused by Intentional Murder.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Nathan granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs claims for
failure to state a claim under Swiss law.  This resolves Dkt. No.
65.  Discovery in the case was postponed pending resolution of the
instant motion.  The Court will schedule an initial pretrial
conference by subsequent order and provide instructions for
submitting a proposed case management plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5df6qefb from Leagle.com.


CAPTIVA MVP: Court Refuses to Approve Data Privacy Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. -- kristin.bryan@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that CPW recently covered Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest.
Partners, LLC where the Eleventh Circuit aligned itself with others
that "declined to find standing on an 'elevated risk of identity
theft' theory where the plaintiffs failed to allege any actual
misuse of class members' personal information." Well, Tsao is
already having a significant impact on data breach litigations. A
federal court issued a report and recommendation denying a
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement reached with defendant. Hymes v. Earl Enters. Holdings,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26534, (M.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2021). Why? Based
upon Tsao, the court found there were "substantial questions"
regarding whether Plaintiffs in the case had standing. Because it
is a threshold requirement that a named plaintiff in a putative
class action proceeding in federal court meets the requirements of
Article III standing, the court found it was unable to grant
preliminary settlement approval. Read on below.

There is a long-running Court of Appeals split regarding what
injuries in the data breach context suffice for purposes of Article
III standing. In data breach litigations, plaintiffs will often
allege that they have been harmed by the mere disclosure of their
personal information ("PI"). This is so even when plaintiffs have
not had fraudulent charges placed on their account, been victims of
identity theft, or suffered any other concrete harm. This is
because, plaintiffs (and their lawyers) say, they are at an
increased risk of future harm as a result of their PI being
disclosed in a data breach.

The Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals have held, consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in
Lujan and Clapper, that plaintiffs bringing such claims lack
Article III standing, an essential prerequisite to litigating in
federal court. The Eleventh Circuit recently adopted this approach,
holding in Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest. Partners, LLC, that a
plaintiff in a data breach litigation had failed to allege a
concrete and particularized injury that was actual or imminent.
2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3055 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2021).

At the Eleventh Circuit, the Tsao plaintiff argued that he had
standing because he "could suffer future injury from misuse of the
personal information disclosed during the cyber-attack (though he
has not yet), and this risk of misuse alone is enough to satisfy
the standing requirement." Tsao, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3055, at *9
(emphasis in original). The Tsao plaintiff also argued that he had
standing because "he has already suffered some 'concrete,
particularized' mitigation injuries -- for example, lost time, lost
rewards points, and loss of access to accounts -- that are
sufficient to confer standing." Id. The Eleventh Circuit rejected
both arguments. As the Court stated, "[g]enerally speaking, the
cases conferring standing after a data breach based on an increased
risk of theft or misuse included at least some allegations of
actual misuse or actual access to personal data." Id. at *14.

Which brings us to Hymes. There, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant
(which operates several restaurant chains nationwide) failed to
"exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its
customers' sensitive personal information (SPI), including the
names, payment card numbers, payment card expiration dates, and
payment card security codes." The Defendant had previously
disclosed that approximately 2.15 million payment card numbers of
customers were stolen from its restaurants, including some
restaurants in California, and placed on the dark web for sale as a
result of a data breach. Plaintiffs asserted the following claims
against Defendant: breach of implied contract, negligence,
negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and
violations of Florida and California consumer protection and
privacy laws.

Following litigation, the parties reached a settlement that
included Defendant agreeing to establish a settlement fund of
$650,000.00. Class members, consisting of those whose SPI had been
disclosed in the data breach, were entitled to seek reimbursement
for documented out of pocked expenses (up to $5,000, per class
member) to be paid from the settlement fund. Plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which
the court refused.

Why? As the court noted, Plaintiffs' alleged injuries track those
of the plaintiff in Tsao -- loss of opportunities to use the cash
back and rewards programs and of the credit card itself as a result
of the data breach. The court faulted the parties for not
addressing Plaintiffs' standing in seeking approval of the
settlement, particularly as Plaintiffs' counsel in this case were
also involved in the Tsao litigation. However, the court did not
close the door completely on signing off on the settlement down the
road. It invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the
issues addressed in the court's decision (including whether
Plaintiffs had standing in light of Tsao).

Time will tell whether Plaintiffs in Hymes will be able to salvage
their settlement and obtain preliminary court approval. More
broadly, it can be expected that the Eleventh Circuit's adoption of
a defendant-friendly standing standard in data breach litigations
will continue to impact other pending and future filed cases. For
this, and other developments in data privacy, CPW will be there.
Stay tuned. [GN]


CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Valentine Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, EFREN VALENTINE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
LLC, EBRO DIQUE GROUP, LLC, GREGORY KALAMARAS, FRANCISCO GARCIA,
and RAMON CALVO, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01322 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 15, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged intentional
and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker at Central Construction and Ebro Dique Group from
approximately July 16, 2019 until on or about January 26, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he was required to work in excess of 40 hours a week
without paying him appropriate overtime compensation. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and
payroll records, failed to provide their employees with accurate
wage statements at the time of their payment of wages, and failed
to provide them with a written notice at the time of hiring, the
Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated construction workers
to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigations expenses, costs, and attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate construction companies which
perform a variety of projects in Manhatttan. The Individual
Defendants possess operational control over the Corporate
Defendants, possess ownership interests in the Corporate
Defendants, and control significant functions of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The 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
          Fax: (212) 317-1620


CERNER CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Its Retirement Plan for $4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement covers all beneficiaries of Cerner's retirement plan
as of Jan. 21, 2014, or roughly 26,000 people.
Cerner Corp. has agreed to pay $4.05 million to settle a class
action lawsuit over the way it managed its employee retirement
program.

The settlement, which requires approval from a federal judge, would
resolve two lawsuits filed last year that were later combined.

Both suits alleged that Cerner, the largest private employer based
in Kansas City, mismanaged its 401(k) plan by choosing costly
investment options and defaulting to its own stock to match
employee contributions.

The lawsuits, filed by current and former employees, contended the
administrators of the program failed to take advantage of Cerner's
enormous bargaining power to reduce its investment and
record-keeping expenses.

As part of the settlement, Cerner has agreed to change the way it
administers the plan.

Cerner, a health information technology company, has more than
28,000 employees worldwide. More than 13,000 work in the Kansas
City area.

Cerner had sought to force the case into arbitration, but both
sides ultimately agreed to submit it to a neutral, third-party
mediator. After several hours of mediation, they agreed to the
settlement, according to court documents.

Kristie Welder, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said she was unable
to comment on the settlement.

"We have no comment beyond the filing," she said.

Cerner did not immediately return a request for comment.

Cerner's retirement plan is among the largest in the United States
as measured by assets and participants, according to court
documents.

The settlement covers all beneficiaries of Cerner's retirement plan
as of Jan. 21, 2014, or roughly 26,000 people. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bids to Seal Docs in Harper Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL SINCLAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
denied Charter's and Plaintiffs' requests to seal documents.

Plaintiffs Harper and Sinclair brought the putative class action
against Defendant Charter alleging various violations of the
California Labor and Business and Professions Code.  Both Charter
and the Plaintiffs have filed requests to seal documents in support
of their filings related to Charter's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Charter requests that the Court seals the following documents:

       1. Documents related to the training provided to Account
Executives, which are Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrea Benner
(Benner Declaration) in support of Charter's Motion;

       2. Signed commission plan that applied to Plaintiff Harper
during his employment with Charter, which is attached as Exhibit D
to the Benner Declaration;

       3. Signed commission plans that applied to Plaintiff
Sinclair during his employment with Charter, which are attached as
Exhibit F to the Benner Declaration;

       4. The Synygy training Charter provided to Account
Executives, which is attached as Exhibit G to the Benner
Declaration;

       5. Charter's Standards of Performance, which is attached as
Exhibit H to the Benner Declaration;

       6. The Oct. 19, 2015 corrective action issued to Plaintiff
Sinclair, which is attached as Exhibit I to the Benner
Declaration;

       7. The April 4, 2016 corrective action issued to Plaintiff
Sinclair, which is attached as Exhibit J to the Benner
Declaration;

       8. The Incident Investigation Report, which is attached as
Exhibit K to the Benner Declaration;

       9. The Jan. 5, 2018 written corrective action issued to
Plaintiff Harper, which is attached as Exhibit M to the Benner
Declaration; and

       10. The Incident Investigation Report and further corrective
action related to Plaintiff Harper's subpar performance, which is
attached as Exhibit N to the Benner Declaration.

The Defendant argues that the listed documents should be sealed
because (1) Charter has designated the documents as confidential
and subject to the parties' Stipulation and Protective Order; (2)
the content of the documents includes confidential and proprietary
information, including Charter's internal training documents and
other employee policies, commission plans and other sales-related
documents; (3) Charter has maintained such documents as
confidential as part of its regular business practices; and (4)
there is no clear public interest in publicly disclosing the
information contained in these documents.

Judge Shubb finds that the Court has previously pointed out that a
confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se
constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs the
interests of public disclosure and access. The fact that the
assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order
does not change this principle.

Beyond its contention that the documents are subject to the
parties' Stipulation and Protective Order, the Judge also finds
that Charter offers the general assertion that the content of the
documents includes confidential and proprietary information.
However, Charter provides no further guidance as to what sensitive
information these internal training documents, commission plans, or
"other sales-related documents" contain that would merit an order
sealing the documents from public view.  It is not the Court's
burden to parse this substantial amount of material to determine
which portions contain sensitive information.  The Judge therefore
finds that Charter has not provided a compelling reason to shield
the submitted documents from public scrutiny.  Accordingly, he
denied Charter's request to seal.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court seals the following
documents:

       1. Business Account Executive job description, which is
Exhibit 5 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       2. Account Executive job description, which is Exhibit 6 to
the Soderstrom Declaration;

       3. Charter's Aug. 22, 2017 Standards of Performance, which
is Exhibit 8 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       4. Charter's July 2017 Timekeeping Policy, which is Exhibit
9 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       5. Charter's December 2016 BAE New Hire Training Participant
Guide, which is Exhibit 10 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       6. Charter's January 2017 New Hire Training Participant
Guide, which is Exhibit 11 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       7. Charter's January 2017 Account Executive New Hire
Spectrum Sales Success Process, which is Exhibit 12 to the
Soderstrom Declaration;

       8. Charter's November 2014 Sales New Hire Participant
Playbook, which is Exhibit 13 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       9. Excerpts of a spreadsheet showing Sinclair's commission
payments, which is Exhibit 14 to the Soderstrom Declaration;

       10. Charter's Oct. 2, 2017 Commission Plan Addendum with
Amended Attachment A commissions schedule, which is Exhibit 16 to
the Soderstrom Declaration; and

       11. Harper's Salesforce Leads List Report, which is Exhibit
17 to the Soderstrom Declaration.

Judge Shubb finds that the Plaintiffs offer almost exactly the same
four reasons why these documents should be sealed as Charter.  They
merely add "Charter's actual and potential customers" as an example
of proprietary information purportedly contained within the
documents.  Like Charter, the Plaintiffs provide the Court with 203
pages of documents with little guidance as to which portions
contain sensitive information.  Accordingly, for the same reasons
he articulated, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' request to seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/16065zxn from Leagle.com.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harper Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL SINCLAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb
of the U.S. District Court for the District of California granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Plaintiffs Harper and Sinclair brought the putative class action
against Defendant Charter, alleging various violations of the
California Labor and Business and Professions Code.  The Plaintiffs
were employed by Charter as small/medium sized business Account
Executives ("AEs") at Charter's Redding, California location.
Harper worked for Charter from Sept. 18, 2017 to March 12, 2018,
and Sinclair worked for Charter from Jan. 5, 2015 to April 4,
2017.

Charter is a broadband connectivity company and cable operator
serving business and residential customers under the Spectrum
brand, among others.  It utilizes AEs to sell its phone, internet,
and television services directly to small- and medium-sized
businesses in an assigned geographic area.  Charter classifies its
AEs as "exempt" employees.

As salespersons, Charter AEs were eligible to earn commissions
based on how many sales they made each month.  The parties dispute
whether Charter ever provided the Plaintiffs with a copy of
Charter's commission plan or conveyed its terms to the Plaintiffs.

On Sept. 14, 2018, Harper filed a written notice with the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"),
alleging that Charter had committed violations of the California
Labor Code.  Believing he was subject to an arbitration agreement
with Charter, Harper then filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS
on Nov. 19, 2018.  The arbitrator subsequently issued a final award
determining that none of Harper's claims were arbitrable.

Mr. Harper then filed a complaint alleging the same violations of
the California Labor Code against Charter in Shasta County Superior
Court, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals.
Charter removed the case to the Court on May 17, 2019.  On Dec.
13, 2019, Harper amended his complaint, adding Sinclair as a named
Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 15(c).

The Plaintiffs allege that Charter erroneously categorized them as
exempt employees because Charter mistakenly categorized them as
"outside salespersons."   They claim that, as a result of this
misclassification, Charter failed to pay them minimum wage in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197,
and 1194.4 (First Claim), failed to pay overtime wages in violation
of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1197 (Second Claim),
failed to provide meal periods or provide premium wages in lieu
thereof in violation of California Labor Code Sections 512 and
226.7 (Third Claim), and failed to provide rest breaks or pay
premium wages in lieu thereof in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 226.7 (Fourth Claim).

The Plaintiffs further claim that Charter unlawfully calculated,
deducted, and failed to pay commission wages under California Labor
Code Sections 204, 221, 223, 224, and 2751 (Fifth Claim), failed to
provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code Section 226 (Sixth Claim), failed to pay all wages owed upon
termination in violation of California Labor Code Section 203
(Seventh Claim), failed to provide timely and complete copies of
employment records in violation of California Labor Code Sections
226, 432, and 1198.5 (Eighth Claim), violated California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") under California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 (Ninth Claim), and violated the California
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section
2698, et seq. (Tenth Claim).

Charter now moves for summary judgment on all claims or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication.

Judge Shubb denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment or,
in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to Sinclair's First,
Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for damages, Harper's
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Claims, as well as
Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for violations of Cal. Labor Code Section
204, 221, and 224, Seventh Claim, and Eighth Claim for violations
of Sections 1198.5 and 226.

Judge Shubb granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment or,
in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to Sinclair's First,
Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for statutory penalties, as
well as the Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for violations of Cal. Labor
Code Sections 2751(b) and 223, and Eighth Claim for violations of
Cal. Labor Code Section 432.

Among other things, Judge Shubb finds that the equitable tolling of
the statute of limitations applicable to the claims in Charter's
original complaint to Nov. 19, 2018 (the date on which Harper filed
his arbitration demand with JAMS) is appropriate.  Because
Sinclair's claims relate back to the claims contained in Harper's
original complaint, the applicable date for determining whether
Sinclair complied with the statute of limitations is Nov. 19,
2018.

Accordingly, because the applicable statute of limitations for
claims for damages under the Labor Code is three years, and
Sinclair was still working for Charter on Nov. 19, 2015, the Judge
can not grant summary judgment against Sinclair on his First
through Fourth claims for damages on the grounds that his claims
were not timely filed.  As Sinclair acknowledges, however, he is
time-barred from seeking penalties under his first four claims, as
the last day he worked for Charter was April 4, 2017, and statutory
penalties are subject to a one-year limitations period.  The Judge
therefore granted Charter's request for summary adjudication as to
Sinclair's First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for statutory
penalties.

And because a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether
Sinclair was properly classified as an outside salesperson, the
Judge finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to
whether Charter's wage statements violated Section 226 by failing
to include total hours worked prior to 2017.  He therefore denied
summary judgment as to Harper's Sixth Claim, and granted summary
judgment in favor of Charter as to Sinclair's Sixth Claim for
penalties.

Judge Shubb also finds that both Harper and Sinclair have provided
evidence sufficient evidence to create a disputed issue of material
fact as to whether Charter paid them a lower commission wage than
that to which they were entitled as part of their commission plans,
while purporting to pay them the proper wage.  A genuine of fact
therefore exists as to whether Charter violated the terms of
California Labor Code Section 223.  He therefore granted summary
judgment in favor of Charter as to the Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for
violation of California Labor Code Section 223.

The Judge further finds that there is no documentary evidence he
can rely on that conclusively shows that the Plaintiffs knowingly
agreed to Charter's commission plan, acknowledged receipt of the
plan, or were provided with a signed copy of the plan, and the
testimony and declarations of the parties are in direct conflict.
He therefore finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as
to whether Charter failed to provide the Plaintiffs with signed
copies of their commission plans or failed to obtain a signed
receipt from each Plaintiff in violation of Section 2751.

Finally, as to Sinclair's claim under Section 226, Judge Shubb
finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing Charter's
production of Sinclair's wage statements was incomplete and omitted
at least 17 wage statements.  There is therefore a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether Charter fully satisfied its
obligations to Sinclair under Section 226(a).  He denied Charter's
motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' Eighth Claim for
violations of California Labor Code Sections 226 and 1198.5.
However, he granted summary adjudication in favor of Charter as to
the Plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Labor Code
Section 432.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1rbo9s66 from Leagle.com.


CHW GROUP: Adam Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHW Group, Inc. The
case is styled as William Adam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as:
Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 1:21-cv-00019-LRR-MAR (N.D. Iowa,
Feb. 18, 2021).

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

CHW Group, Inc. -- https://www.choicehomewarranty.com/ -- provides
home repair and maintenance warranties. It offers home protection,
buyers and sellers, and real estate warranty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric David Puryear, Esq.
          PURYEAR LAW, PC
          3719 Bridge Avenue, Suite 6
          Davenport, IA 52807
          Phone: (888) 919-3719
          Fax: (866) 415-5032
          Email: eric@puryearlaw.com


CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lee Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Owen V. Lee, et al., Plaintiffs v. Cincinnati Capital
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-12133 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean
F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
        for Judgment on the Pleadings; and

   (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
        Judgment.

The case is a putative class action but a motion for class
certification has not yet been filed or ruled upon.  Thus, only the
claims of the named Plaintiffs, Owen and Heather Lee, are at issue
at this juncture.

Plaintiffs Owen V. Lee and Heather Lee filed the lawsuit against
Defendants Joseph Engelhart and Cincinnati Capital in state court.
On July 22, 2019, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court, based upon both diversity jurisdiction and federal-question
jurisdiction.

On Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff's filed an amended complaint that
included class action allegations--the Plaintiffs' "First Amended
Class Action Complaint."  In September of 2019, both the Defendants
filed Motions to Dismiss, brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Court dismissed the claims against Defendant Engelhart.

Defendant Cincinnati Capital has asserted the following
counterclaims against Owen and Heather Lee: 1) Breach of Contract
(Count I); 2) Promissory Estoppel (Count II); and 3) Unjust
Enrichment (Count III).

At this juncture, the operative Complaint is the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), and the only remaining
Defendant is Cincinnati Capital.  The Plaintiffs' SAC, filed on
July 20, 2020, is the third complaint filed in the action.

The following claims are asserted against Defendant: 1) "Violation
of the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act ("SMLA"), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
Section 493.51, et seq." (Count I); 2) "Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution" (Count II); 3) "Violation of
Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601, et seq."
(Count III); and 4) "Violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et seq." (Count
IV).

The complaint is against the Defendants for violations of the SML,
the TILA, the RESPA, and for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution under
the laws of the State of Michigan, based upon the unjust collection
and retention of payments, to which they were not entitled, made by
the Lees and the Putative Class.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the SMLA when
they conducted business with the Lees and the Putative Class
despite being unlicensed under SMLA.  The Defendants' collection of
principal and interest mortgage payments without a license gives
rise to a claim for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution as the law
prohibits them from collecting such payments.  Further, the
Defendants violated various provisions of TILA and RESPA by failing
to make certain disclosures or otherwise failing to provide certain
information to the Lees and the Putative Class.

The SAC asks the Court to "certify a class action of all persons
impacted by Defendant's improper activity under SMLA, TILA, and/or
RESPA, specifically, the mortgagors whose loans were purchased by
Defendants and which were originally executed in favor of Main
Street Bank."  The Class Definition would include "all persons
impacted by Defendants' improper activity under SMLA, Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution, TILA, and RESPA, specifically, the
mortgagors whose loans were purchased by Defendants and which were
originated by Main Street Bank."  Upon information and belief, the
Class consists of members who acquired each of 230 loans, the Loans
purchased by Defendants from the FDIC, and joinder of all these
members is impracticable.

Because the parties did not agree upon how the case should proceed,
and could not agree upon a proposed scheduling order, the Court had
the parties brief the issues and submit proposed scheduling orders.
On July 17, 2020, it issued an Opinion & Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion To Combine Class And Merits Discovery."  In that
same Opinion and Order, the Court denied the Defendant's
cross-motion seeking to bifurcate discovery.

On July 20, 2020, the Court issued the "Initial Scheduling Order"
in the case.  That order was modeled after the proposed scheduling
order submitted by the Plaintiffs' counsel.  Among other things, it
provided that fact discovery would be completed by Oct. 30, 2020,
and that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification would be
filed March 22, 2021.  Thus, at the suggestion and urging of the
Plaintiffs, the Court's Initial Scheduling Order provided that the
Plaintiffs would file their motion for class certification on March
22, 2021 and then, after the Court ruled on that motion, it Court
would set a date for the filing of summary judgment motions.

On July 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their SAC.  On Sept. 18,
2020, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Plaintiffs have not yet filed their Motion for Class
Certification.  Nevertheless, without seeking leave to do so, on
Oct. 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Partial Summary
Judgment, asking the Court to rule in favor of the named Plaintiffs
(the Lees) as to liability only, and only as to one of the four
counts.

In its Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, the Defendant states
that it seeks judgment in its favor as to all claims asserted
against it.

The Plaintiffs have now filed three different complaints in the
case.  The Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), challenges the Plaintiffs'
operative complaint--their SAC.  In responding to the Defendant's
motion, however, the Plaintiffs made cursory and improper
references about filing yet another amended complaint.

Judge Cox opines that faced with the Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings that challenges whether the Plaintiffs
have included sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state a
claim under the statutes at issue, the Plaintiffs have not filed a
motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint, nor have they
presented this Court with a proposed amended complaint.  Hence, the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to an advisory opinion from the Court
informing them of the deficiencies of the complaint and then an
opportunity to cure those deficiencies.  Accordingly, he denies the
Plaintiffs' improper requests to file another amended complaint and
will evaluate the pending motion based on the operative
complaint--the Plaintiffs' SAC.

The Defendant's motion begins by challenging the SMLA and Unjust
Enrichment counts, asserting that the Lees do not have a viable
claim under the Michigan SMLA because the SMLA simply does not
apply to the type of financial instrument at issue in the case--a
home equity line of credit.  Likewise, the Lees' purported unjust
enrichment claim must fail because it is entirely derivative of the
SMLA argument.

The Judge holds that because the SMLA contains specific definitions
and thresholds that must be met before it requires a license, he
agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs' SAC (the Lees' now
third complaint in the action) does not contain sufficient factual
allegations to plausibly allege a SMLA claim against the Defendant.
Given this ruling, the Judge need not decide the second challenge
to the SMLA count raised by the Defendant.  And he declines to do
so because it is an issue of first impression of whether Michigan's
SMLA applies to HELOCs.  The Judge grants judgment on the pleadings
to the Defendant as to the SMLA Count, and the derivative Unjust
Enrichment Count.

Next, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs' TILA count (Count
III), fails for a number of reasons.  It argues that it cannot be
held liable under TILA as a matter of law, as either a creditor,
servicer, or assignee.  In its opening brief, the Defendant
acknowledged that the only exception to Section 1641(e)'s
limitation on assignee liability is Section 1641(g).  Thus, it does
not dispute that Section 1641(g) therefore requires an assignee "to
notify the borrower in writing" of the assignment of a mortgage
loan from the creditor to the assignee.  And this appears to the be
sole TILA claim that the Plaintiffs seek to pursue.

In its reply brief, the Defendant states that this sole potentially
viable TILA claim under 1641(g) is "subject to a strict one-year
statute of limitations," and notes that it will raise a timeliness
challenge at the summary-judgment phase of the case.  Accordingly,
as to Count III, the sole claim remaining in the action is the
claim under Section 1641(g).

In Count IV, the Plaintiffs assert a claim against the Defendant
for violation of RESPA for its failure to adequately respond to
their requests for information.  The Defendant's motion contends
that the Plaintiffs' RESPA count should be dismissed because the
Lees have not sufficiently alleged: 1) that they sent any QWRs to
Defendant; or 2) that Defendant's responses were deficient.

Judge Cox (i) agrees that the Lees have failed to include
sufficient facts to plausibly allege that they sent Defendant a
written correspondence that could constitute a QWR, thereby
triggering a duty to respond under RESPA; and (ii) finds that the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded the facts necessary to plausibly
suggest that the Defendant failed to adequately respond to their
requests for information.  Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled
to judgment in its favor as to Count IV.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Cox granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  He
granted the motion to the extent that he ruled that the Defendant
is entitled to judgment on the pleadings with respect to the SMLA
claims asserted in Count I, the derivative unjust enrichment claims
asserted in Count II, and the RESPA claims asserted in Count IV.
With respect to the Plaintiffs' TILA claims asserted in Count III,
the Judge ruled that the sole claim remaining is the Plaintiffs'
claim under Section 1641(g) that the Defendant failed to notify the
borrowers in writing of the assignment of a mortgage loan from the
creditor to the assignee.  Given these rulings, the Judge denied
the Plaintiffs' motion seeking partial summary judgment as to their
SMLA claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4v8lhwa8 from Leagle.com.


CLEANSPARK INC: Klein Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Cleanspark, Inc. There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.

Cleanspark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK)
Class Period: December 31, 2020 - January 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in CLSK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/cleanspark-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13006&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Klein Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Clover Health Investments,
Corp. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered
a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV)
Class Period: October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021

During the class period, Clover Health Investments, Corp. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are
driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to
disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in CLOV:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?id=13006&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Kaul Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRINAL KAUL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP. f/k/a SOCIAL CAPITAL
HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP. III, VIVEK GARIPALLI, JOSEPH WAGNER,
CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, STEVEN TRIEU, IAN OSBORNE, JACQUELINE D.
RESES, and JAMES RYANS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 5,
2021) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Clover securities
between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the Class
Period), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or purchased or otherwise
acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
December 2020 Merger.

The Defendant Clover purports to provide health insurance services.
Clover is incorporated in Delaware with headquarters at 725 Cool
Springs Boulevard, Suite 320, Franklin, Tennessee. Clover was taken
public through a reverse merger with Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (IPOC), a Special Purpose Acquisition Company
(the Business Combination). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC
traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker IPOC.


On October 6, 2020, Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC.

On December 11, 2020, the Company filed a proxy
statement/prospectus for the purpose of soliciting approval of the
merger at a meeting to be held on January 6, 2021. The proxy
statement/prospectus made substantially similar statements as the
Registration Statement.

Allegedly, the statements contained in the proxy statement were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose tha Clover's was under active investigation by the
Department of Justice for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks
to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals.

On January 8, 2021, Clover's common shares began trading on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOV," closing at $15.90 per share,
and on January 11, Clover's redeemable warrants began trading on
the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOVW," closing at $3.36 per
warrant.

On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, the Company filed  a
Form 8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation
and requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." On this news,
Clover shares (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3% during intraday
trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.28
per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on February 5, 2021,
further damaging investors, the suit says.

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

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities
during the Class Period and/or purchased or otherwise acquired
Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the Company’s
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
December 2020 Merger and was economically damaged thereby.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215-0734
          Telephone: (615) 248-2828
          Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
          E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                  Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

               - and -

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

COMPASS INC: Maffei Suit Removed from Cal. State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GREGORY MAFFEI,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
COMPASS, INC., a Delaware corporation; COMPASS CALIFORNIA, INC.,
dba Compass, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV49779 (Filed Dec. 31, 2020), was removed from the the
Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 5, 2021.

The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01072-JFW-MAA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his employment, the Defendants
engaged in various practices that violate California law, including
alleged breach of his operative Independent Contractor Agreement;
fraudulent misrepresentations, which purportedly induced the him to
enter into a contractual relationship with the Defendants; and
failure to reimburse him for necessary expenses incurred in
discharge of his duties, in violation of California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and general damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, restitutionary relief, costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Compass is an American licensed real estate broker that utilizes
the Internet as a marketing medium with the use of real estate
technology.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel F. Pyne, Esq.
          Elaisha Nandrajog, Esq.
          HOPKINS & CARLEY
          The Letitia Building
          70 S First Street
          San Jose, CA 95113-2406
          E-mail: dpyne@hopkinscarley.com
                  enandrajog@hopkinscarley.com

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cafe Plaza Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAFE PLAZA DE MESILLA INC., Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-354-KWR-KRS (D.N.M.),
Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico granted Defendant Continental's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim, filed on June 15, 2020.

The Plaintiff is a New Mexico company operating as a restaurant and
espresso bar in Mesilla, New Mexico.  It brings the putative class
action individually and on behalf of other members of a
"nationwide" class against the Defendant, an Illinois insurance
company that writes, sells, and issues insurance policies,
including in New Mexico.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant issued an "all risk"
insurance coverage to the Plaintiff with a policy period running
from Feb. 11, 2020 to Feb. 11, 2021.  The Plaintiff has not
included a copy of the policy with the Amended Complaint.  The
Defendant attaches a copy to its motion to dismiss and asks the
Court to take judicial notice of the Policy and other documents
relevant to the motion.  Because the Plaintiff has not opposed the
request and the Court deems judicial notice of the documents
appropriate in the instance, the Defendant's request is granted.

The presence of COVID-19, a novel strain of coronavirus, has
resulted in nationwide closure and suspension of businesses in
efforts to slow the pandemic's spread.  On March 11, 2020, New
Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order in
response to the increasing infection rates in the state, titled the
"Order Declaring a State of Public Health Emergency and Invoking
the Powers Provided by All the Hazard Emergency Management Act and
the Emergency Licensing Act," declaring a public emergency.  In the
ensuing months, the Governor and Department of Health Cabinet
Secretary Kathyleen Kunkel issued additional orders extending the
original order and directing certain public safety action,
including limiting public gatherings.  The Governor and Kunkel
subsequently issued further orders extending the requirements
through April 30, 2020.

On March 19, 2020, the Plaintiff posted an announcement on its
official website advising customers that as of that day would be
offering take-out services only and would be open from 9:00 a.m. to
1:30 p.m.  On March 24th, the Plaintiff posted another message on
Facebook and its website, notifying clientele that "In an effort to
keep our valued clientele, staff and our families safe during the
current COVID19 outbreak and to do our part in contributing to
flatten the curve, we have decided to close the restaurant until
further notice."  The cafe appears to have remained closed until
May 26th, 2020, when the restaurant advertised that it would be
reopening for outdoor patio dining, with temporary hours running
from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Thursday to Monday.  On May 28th, the
Plaintiff stated on Facebook that it would also be implementing
curbside pickup services.

On March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an insurance claim for,
among other things, lost business income following the onset of
COVID-19 and the ensuing executive orders issued mandating
suspension, closure, and limited operation of businesses.

In a denial of claim letter dated April 14, 2020, the Defendant
noted that the Plaintiff stated to it in a telephonic conversation
that the Plaintiff closed its operations on March 19, 2020 in
response to the Governor's orders but that none of its employees
had reported sickness at that time.  The Defendant concluded that
the Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the suspension of activity
was due to "direct physical loss of or damage to the property" as
required by the Policy to trigger coverage.  The Complaint contends
that the denial of coverage was improper in light of four
provisions in the Policy, specifically the "Business Income, Extra
Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor provisions."

The Policy does not contain any specific exclusions as to "viruses
or communicable diseases," but does include exclusions for losses
caused by "contamination by other than 'pollutants.'"

The Plaintiff advances eight counts on its behalf and on behalf of
a putative nationwide class; four counts for Breach of Contract
(Counts I-IV), and four counts seeking declaratory relief (Counts
V-VIII) that it incurred covered losses pursuant to the four
referenced provisions in connection with New Mexico's closure
orders arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

First, the Plaintiff has stated that it "does not intend to pursue
its 'Sue and Labor' provision claim and will voluntarily dismiss
this claim in cooperation with the Defendant."  Therefore, Judge
Riggs dismisses Counts IV and VIII, which relate to the Plaintiff's
"Sue and Labor" claims.

Second, the Plaintiff first alleges that there is coverage under
the Business Income and Extra Expense provisions of the Policy.
The Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Complaint
does not allege any "direct physical loss of or damage to property"
as is required for coverage under the Business Income, Civil
Authority, and Extra Expense provision.  Based on a plain language
review of the policy at hand, the parties' briefs, and recent,
comparable caselaw, although she sympathizes with the Plaintiff and
the other similarly situated businesses, the Judge concludes that
the motion to dismiss must be granted.

Third, the parties dispute whether the Plaintiff's allegations
constitute a "direct physical loss" of the property as required by
the Business Income and Expense provisions.  The Plaintiff finds
fault with the Policy's failure to "define the phrase 'direct
physical loss or damage to' property" and sets forth arguments
interpreting the placement of the word "or" in "direct physical
loss or damage to" and the Defendant's purportedly deliberate
decision "not to include" the words "tangible" or "structural" as
modifiers of "loss" and "damage.

Upon a review of the plain, contemporary, and ordinary meaning of
the words, Judge Riggs disagrees with the Plaintiff.  Among other
things, she finds that (i) the Plaintiff cites non-binding and
factually distinct caselaw for the proposition that the loss of use
of portions of the restaurant for their intended use in the face of
these closure orders and the coronavirus qualifies as a "physical
loss"; (ii) the Plaintiff has identified a recent case with
substantially similar facts in which the Court found that the
complaint at least pled sufficient facts to defeat the defendant's
motion to dismiss as premature; and (iii) the Plaintiff's claim is
based purely on economic loss as a result of the closure orders,
which did not actually direct full closure of the property and is
outside the parameters of the coverage at hand.  Therefore, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to
show coverage is established under the provision of the Policy.

Fourth, for similar reasons, the Judge determines that the facts
alleged in the Complaint do not support recovery under the Civil
Authority provisions.  The Defendant posits that the Plaintiff is
not entitled to this coverage because the closure orders were
issued to minimize the spread of COVID-19 and not due to any direct
physical loss or damage sustained at any adjacent property.  The
Judge agrees.  Simply put, the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
that the closure orders were issued for a purpose other than to
prevent the spread of COVID-19, or that the orders caused a direct
physical loss to neighboring properties, just as it has not
plausibly pled direct physical damage to its own premises.

Fifth, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff was
not prevented from accessing its premises within the plain meaning
of the Policy's terms.  None of the orders effectively prevented
the Plaintiff from access to its business; the closure orders
expressly exempted restaurants and food vendors from physical
closure and permitted take-out and delivery services.  The
Plaintiff's circular argument regarding physical/non-physical
access by employees is unclear, unconvincing, and misses the point.
Consequently, it has failed to allege that access to its premises
was prohibited by government order and that it is entitled to civil
authority coverage.

Sixth, having determined that the Plaintiff has not met its initial
burden to demonstrate that it suffered a physical loss of or damage
to its property covered by the Policy, the Juduge need not address
the Plaintiff's additional arguments that the absence of a
virus/pandemic exclusion is relevant.

Finally, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's counts seeking
declaratory relief are duplicative of the breach of contract claims
and should be dismissed.  The Plaintiff effectively acknowledges
this to be the case but suggests that the Court need not dismiss
the claims at this time.  The Judge opines that the Plaintiff is
correct that the Court need not parse through these claims, but
likewise it need not retain duplicative ones.  Having ruled against
the Plaintiff on its breach of contract claims, necessarily
resolving all issues identified in the Plaintiff's declaratory
judgment claims, the Judge also dismisses those claims (Counts
V-VII) as duplicative.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Riggs granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  A separate judgment will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ygfbuwfp from
Leagle.com.


DOORDASH INC: Saunders Suit Moved to San Francisco Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case, KEVIN SAUNDERS, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05825-DMR (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.

The case is a putative class action alleging state law wage and
hour claims on behalf of drivers who use the Defendant's platform
to make deliveries for its customers.  The case was initially filed
in San Francisco County Superior Court.

DoorDash customers order food from restaurants through the DoorDash
app or website.  DoorDash drivers pick up the food from the
restaurant and deliver it to customers.  Saunders, a DoorDash
driver, alleges that DoorDash misclassifies him and other drivers
as independent contractors rather than employees to avoid paying
employee benefits and complying with other provisions of California
employment law.

The wage and hour claims in the case are derivative of the
misclassification issue: if Saunders and the other drivers are
employees rather than independent contractors, then they are
entitled to receive at least minimum wage for all hours worked, in
addition to other employee protections.

In the original complaint, Saunders defined the putative class as
"each individual whom DoorDash has employed as a Driver in
California at any time since the date four years prior to the
filing of the instant case and whom DoorDash has classified as an
independent contractor."

On Aug. 18, 2020, DoorDash removed the case, asserting that federal
jurisdiction exists under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"),
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

After the case was removed, Saunders filed the first amended
complaint on Sept. 14, 2020, which defines two subclasses.  The
first subclass is defined as "each individual DoorDash employed as
a Driver in California at any time beginning on March 1, 2020, and
whom DoorDash classified as an independent contractor during that
time."  The second subclass consists of DoorDash drivers who were
terminated because they requested to opt out of DoorDash's
arbitration agreement, which is allegedly permitted under the terms
of their written agreement with DoorDash.  The class period for the
second subclass is four years prior to the filing of the case.

On behalf of himself and the class, Saunders brings claims for (1)
failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3)
failure to pay wages upon termination; (4) failure to provide
accurate, itemized paystubs; (5) failure to reimburse business
expenses; (6) breach of contract; (7) wrongful termination in
violation of public policy; and (8) violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff now moves for remand.  The Court held a hearing on
Oct. 22, 2020.  Following the hearing, the Court ordered the
parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery.  On Jan. 5, 2021,
the parties filed a joint letter explaining their positions on the
information obtained from discovery.

Mr. Saunders moves to remand the case on the basis that (1)
DoorDash has not established the amount in controversy requirement
for CAFA jurisdiction; (2) the case qualifies for the home state
exception to CAFA jurisdiction; and (3) this case should be
remanded under CAFA's discretionary jurisdiction provision.

Judge Ryu explains that under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
federal courts have jurisdiction over class actions in which the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and diversity of
citizenship exists between at least one plaintiff and one
defendant.  There are a number of exceptions to CAFA.

Relevant in the case, CAFA's "home state controversy" exception
requires a district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction "over
a class in which two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed
plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are
citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed."
Citing Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 884 (9th
Cir. 2013), in the Ninth Circuit, once the removing party
establishes federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the objecting party
bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
an exception applies.  To meet this burden, the "moving party must
provide `some facts in evidence from which the district court may
make findings regarding class members' citizenship."  A complete
lack of evidence does not satisfy this standard."  However, the
burden of proof for the party seeking remand "should not be
exceptionally difficult to bear."

Judge Ryu concludes that Mondragon does not permit "guesswork," but
"district courts are permitted to make reasonable inferences from
facts in evidence." Given the available evidence and given that
Saunders' burden to prove the applicability of the home state
exception "should not be exceptionally difficult to bear," she
finds that Saunders has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that at least two-thirds of the putative class members are
California citizens.  It is undisputed that the other requirements
of the home state exception are met since DoorDash, the only
Defendant, is a citizen of California.

Accordingly, Judge Ryu finds that the home state exception applies
in the case and remand is appropriate.  She granted Saunders'
motion.  The Clerk is directed to remand the matter to the San
Francisco County Superior Court and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4lnbexfk from Leagle.com.


DOSE OF COLORS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dose of Colors, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dose of Colors, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01451 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Dose of Colors -- https://doseofcolors.com/ -- creates cruelty-free
cosmetics that are user friendly, functional and always on
trend.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


FALONI LAW: Lugo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FALONI LAW GROUP,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Lugo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FALONI LAW GROUP, LLC,
FIRST PORTFOLIO VENTURES I, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02921 (D.N.J.,
Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Faloni Law Group, LLC -- https://falonilaw.com/ -- helps families
with legal planning in New York and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FIRST CREDIT: Faces Jones FDCPA Suit in New Jersey Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Credit
Incorporated. The case is captioned as JONES v. FIRST CREDIT
INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01990-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., Feb.
5, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Noel L. Hillman.

The Defendant is debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

FIRSTCREDIT INC: Reynolds Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Dannella Reynolds, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FirstCredit Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:21-cv-00395 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 18, 2021).

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

FirstCredit, Inc. -- http://www.revcare.com/-- is a collection
agency located in Fairlawn, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rUSCqU
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Willis Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No.  3:19-cv-00670 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NAAeVn
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Wray Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dkQ6qc
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FLORIDA: Unemployment Compensation System Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for Florida News Service, reports that nearly
a year after the COVID-19 pandemic began tossing people out of
work, a circuit judge is again poised to consider a potential
class-action lawsuit stemming from major problems in Florida's
unemployment compensation system.

Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper is scheduled to hear
arguments on Feb. 16 about whether he should dismiss the lawsuit
filed against the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and
Deloitte Consulting, LLP, a contractor that helped put the state's
CONNECT online unemployment system in place in 2013.

Cooper in September dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit,
but gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a revised complaint.
The case seeks damages and raises several arguments, including that
the department and Deloitte were negligent and breached a fiduciary
duty.

"DEO (the department) breached its fiduciary duty to the hundreds
of thousands of Floridians who now await their life-sustaining
funds and encounter roadblock after roadblock to payment," said the
revised lawsuit, filed Nov. 16 by plaintiffs' attorneys Gautier
Kitchen and Marie Mattox. "The damages flowing from defendants'
breach multiply daily as people lose homes, cars, savings and
dignity."

But in motions to dismiss the case, attorneys for the department
and Deloitte said the plaintiffs are repeating arguments that were
in the version of the case rejected by Cooper in September.

They contend Cooper should also dismiss the latest version for a
series of reasons: the constitutional separation of powers between
courts and the executive branch of government; sovereign immunity,
which helps shield government agencies from lawsuits; and a lack of
a legal basis for showing a fiduciary duty.

"Simply put, the (version of the case filed in November) is
substantively indistinguishable from the one the court has already
found to be deficient and provides no basis for the court to
revisit its prior conclusions," Deloitte attorneys wrote in a Dec.
7 motion to dismiss the case.

The CONNECT system was overwhelmed after the pandemic slammed into
the state in March and forced businesses to shut down or
dramatically scale back operations. The state scrambled to shore up
the system, but many people who lost jobs remained frustrated as
they tried to get benefits -- with Gov. Ron DeSantis even
describing the system as a "jalopy."

The plaintiffs filed the potential class-action lawsuit in April.
Cooper in May rejected a preliminary injunction that plaintiffs
sought to force the Department of Economic Opportunity to "fix" the
system.

Cooper's Sept. 30 order dismissing the case did not give detailed
reasons, saying only that he "grants the motion to dismiss on the
grounds argued by the defendants," while allowing plaintiffs to
subsequently file the revised version.

During a June hearing, Department of Economic Opportunity attorney
Daniel Nordby argued, in part, that the lawsuit should be dismissed
because of the constitutional separation of powers. He said
decisions by the department "involve a great deal of discretion"
that cannot be second-guessed by judges under the separation of
powers.

As of a Feb. 11 count, the unemployment system had processed more
than 5.16 million claims since March 15, with 2.36 million found to
be eligible, according to the Department of Economic Opportunity's
website. The system had paid about $22.2 billion in benefits, with
the most of that money flowing through the state from the federal
government. [GN]


GARDEN FRESH: Lopez-Aguilar Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LOPEZ-AGUILAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GARDEN FRESH FRUIT MARKET, INC., Case No.
21-L-00000100 (Ill. Cir., Lake Cty., Feb. 4, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant has violated and continues to violate Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because it did not and continues not
to properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA.

According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers
use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant, upon information and
belief, mandated and required that employees have finger(s) scanned
by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards
-- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised --
biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees,
including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks, the
suit says.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

The Plaintiff contends that as an employee/worker of the Defendant,
he was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by
having his fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which
identified each employee, including him. He adds that
notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at in Illinois. While doing so,
Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois.

Garden Fresh offers grocery products. The Company provides fruit,
meat, vegetable, salad, beverage, and dairy products. Garden Fresh
Fruit Market operates in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  plesko@peitterwolt.com

GARDENS ALIVE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gardens Alive, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Gardens Alive, Inc., LM
Farms, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01487 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Gardens Alive!, Inc. -- https://www.gardensalive.com/ -- is a
privately owned multi-title catalog company founded in 1984. It
sells garden and lawn supplies, specializing in organic products
under its namesake catalog.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Allowed to File First Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al., Plaintiffs v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-CV-10562-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of purchasers and
lessees of certain General Motors vehicles.  These vehicles
allegedly suffer from valve defects that can lead to catastrophic
engine failure.  Their original Complaint was filed on March 3,
2020.  The Complaint alleges 55 claims under federal law, state
common law and state statutes on behalf of 42 named Plaintiffs, and
it also proposes that the Plaintiffs represent a nationwide class
and 20 state-specific sub-classes.

Defendant GM filed a motion to dismiss in response.

The Plaintiffs now seek to amend their Complaint.  Specifically,
the proposed First Amended Complaint contains the following
changes: (i) additional factual underpinnings for state class
claims; (ii) two new named Plaintiffs; and (iii) eight new claims
specific to the California and Oklahoma sub-classes based on the
same factual allegations regarding the Defendant's course of
conduct originally pleaded.

The motion has been fully briefed. Although it was originally
scheduled for oral argument, Judge Berg concludes that it may be
decided on the briefs alone.

Defendant GM focuses on "futility of amendment," naming six grounds
from its motion to dismiss and alleging that the Plaintiffs'
proposed amendments would not cure any of those deficiencies.

Judge Berg finds it unnecessary at this stage to delve into the
specifics of each of these grounds because the probability that all
the proposed amendments are futile or that none the claims in the
amended complaint will survive a motion to dismiss is very low.  He
says this kind of large, complicated, and unwieldy class action
against a major automobile manufacturer is unfortunately quite
familiar to the Court and becoming all too common in the district.
He plans to hear oral argument regarding any motion to dismiss, at
which time he will fully address all of GM's contentions.  Allowing
amendment at this stage will only effectuate a more thorough review
of GM's arguments for dismissal.

GM notes that granting the motion will result in a "duplicative
round of briefing." But that argument cuts in the Plaintiffs'
favor.  GM concedes that the core factual allegations in the
proposed amended complaint are unchanged.  Assuming it chooses to
re-file its motion to dismiss, GM will not suffer any undue
prejudice.  It may easily and efficiently adjust its arguments as
may be appropriate while simply restating those that may still
apply.

Judge Berg finds that granting the Plaintiff leave to file a first
amended Complaint is appropriate.  There is no evidence of undue
delay, lack of notice, bad faith, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, or undue prejudice to Defendant.  The factual and
legal allegations in the proposed First Amended Complaint are
largely the same as those in the original Complaint.  The
amendments proposed will allow the Court to more fully evaluate the
Plaintiffs' contentions "on the merits" all at once, a significant
advantage in these cases.  Allowing amendment at this stage is also
in line with the Circuit's practice of liberally granting leave to
amend.

For these reasons, Judge Berg granted the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a First Amended Complaint, and accepted the Complaint
attached to the motion as Exhibit 1 for filing.  Because it is no
longer responsive to the operative complaint, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss is moot and therefore denied without prejudice.
The Judge ordered the Defendant to respond to the First Amended
Complaint within 21 days of the date of his Order, or by any date
to which the parties mutually agree to stipulate, not later than 45
days from the date of his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2y9me78 from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sproles Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors, LLC.
The case is styled as Christopher Sproles, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00016-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Feb. 18, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts,
and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's
Renaissance Center.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Kyle McNew, Esq.
          Lisa Sarah Brook, Esq.
          MICHIE HAMLETT PLLC
          500 Court Square, Suite 300
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: (434) 951-7200
          Fax: (434) 951-7243
          Email: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
                 lbrook@michiehamlett.com

               - and -

          John Gregory Webb, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC
          310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: (434) 951-7200
          Fax: (434) 951-7218
          Email: gwebb@mhlrt.com


GENERALI US: Dziagwa Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Val Dziagwa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch; Customized
Service Administrators, Inc. doing business as: CSA Travel
Protection and Insurance Services; Case No. 1:21-cv-00314, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 18, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01428-JGK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

Generali US Branch -- https://www.generaliusa.com/ -- is licensed
as a domestic insurance/reinsurance company in all 50 states and
territories for all major businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Charles Wickert, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: 713-5549-078
          Email: bwickert@raiznerlaw.com


GILBERT H. WILD: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gilbert H. Wild II,
LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Gilbert H. Wild II,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01491 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Gilbert H. Wild -- https://www.gilberthwild.com/ -- is America's
largest grower and online retailer of daylilies, iris, peonies and
other premium perennials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL APPAREL: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. GLOBAL APPAREL PARTNERS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01019-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, https://variantmalibu.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant denies full and equal
access to its Website, and asserts claims under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL),
and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) against the Defendant.

Plaintiff Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause the
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Mr. Nisbett is a resident of the Bronx, New York, Bronx County. As
a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, he is a member of a
protected class of individuals under Title III of the ADA.

The Defendant is a seller of masks, mask filters, and masks sprays.
The company focuses on selling custom knit made face masks,
filters, and organic masks sprays. Through its Website, its sells
face masks individually. The Defendant's Website is a commercial
marketplace. Customers can purchase items through the Website for
delivery anywhere in the United States. Through the Website,
Defendant's customers are also able to learn about Defendant's
products, including materials used, care instructions and learn
about the refund policy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com

GOOGLE INC: Calif. Court Tosses Class Action Over Loot Boxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Whitehead, writing for Legal Gambling and the Law, reports
that Google was slapped with a class action lawsuit in the state of
California which alleged that the tech giant was offering gambling
via video games that were being downloaded on the Google
Playstore.

The allegations claimed that these video games have loot boxes in
them and allows unsuspecting users to start gambling via these loot
boxes and exposed them to problem gambling.

Loot boxes have caused a lot of controversy over the last few years
and has debated in multiple countries around the world. Some
countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and China consider loot
boxes to be similar to gambling and have banned video gaming
developers from using loot boxes in their games.

However, some countries like the United States and the United
Kingdom have yet to classify loot boxes as gambling. Loot boxes
allow video game players to purchase unknown items in these loot
boxes for real money and use these items to progress to the next
level of the video game.

Players have no idea what each loot box contains and are enticed to
keep buying more loot boxes in an attempt to get special items that
will allow them to quickly proceed to the next level. The lawyers
who filed the class action lawsuit wanted Google to be held
responsible for offering video games with loot boxes and
facilitating gambling activities in children and adults, this isn't
the first time a lawsuit has been issued with Apple also receiving
one last year.

COURT GRANTS MOTION TO DISMISS GOOGLE PLAY LAWSUIT
Google filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit claiming
that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gave it
exemption from being liable to prosecution for offering video games
with loot boxes from the Google Playstore.

Google stated that they did not develop these video games in
question or the controversial loot boxes. They only provided a
platform for these games to be downloaded. Judge Beth Labson
Freeman who presided over the hearing in the Northern District of
California issued a motion to dismiss the lawsuit after hearing the
arguments.

The Judge said that exemption could be granted to Google based on
Section 230 but also ruled that it may refer to loot boxes at a
later stage and check whether they can be categorized as illegal
gambling offerings.

The plaintiffs were not happy with the ruling and claim that Google
cannot be granted exemption under Section 230. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Stadia 4K Game Quality
-----------------------------------------------------
Brad Bennett at mobilesyrup.com reports that a class-action lawsuit
has moved on to a New York federal court, claiming that Google
oversold Stadia's power and the quality of its 4K subscription
tier.

The lawsuit, originally submitted in October 2020, nearly one year
after the streaming platform's launch, argues that Google
exaggerated the streaming quality and the display resolution of
Stadia's games. The lawsuit claims that Google did this to boost
its subscription numbers. To this date, Google has not disclosed
how many subscribers Stadia currently has.

The case adds that Google's official Stadia account deleted a tweet
about Red Dead Redemption 2 claiming players didn't need high
internet speeds to play the game in 4K/60fps.

According to the lawsuit, the tech giant's removal of the tweet
"shows that Google understood that it was intentionally misleading
consumers and wanted to assure there was no direct false statements
coming from Google regarding the Stadia service." Additionally, the
lawsuit alleges Google "quietly" tweaked the About section on
Stadia's website to "obscure the indication that Stadia gameplay
was less than 4K only if a customer had a slower internet
connection."

"As a result of Google's actions, there are hundred [sic], if not
thousands, of articles and reports across the United States and the
world containing misleading statements originating from Google that
consumers are making purchasing decisions based upon," the lawsuit
argues. "Google has done nothing to correct the false information
concerning the power and resolution of the games available on
Stadia and does not disclose to consumers in the Google Stadia
store the resolution of each of the games available for purchase."

As it stands, Google has not yet commented on the lawsuit. However,
the company did address the resolution controversy in 2019.

At the time, Digital Foundry did a deep dive into Stadia's
performance, noting that the service didn't live up to the 4K
quality Google promised. In response, Google said this was done to
"give developers the freedom of how to achieve the best image
quality and framerate on Stadia."

Should the lawsuit proceed, it seeks damages for anyone who
purchased a Stadia Founder's Edition, Premiere Edition, or paid for
a Stadia Pro subscription based on the understanding that Stadia
would support all games in 4K. [GN]



GOOGLE LLC: Vance BIPA Suit Stayed Until Resolution of IBM Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
Google's motion to stay all proceedings in the case, STEVEN VANCE,
et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-CV-04696-BLF (N.D. Cal.), until
the resolution of Vance v. International Business Machines,
Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-0577.

On Jan. 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Vance and Tim Janecyk filed suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging that IBM violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA").  BIPA prohibits private entities from
collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing,
disseminating or profiting from the biometric identifiers or
information of an individual without providing written notice and
without obtaining a written release from the impacted individual or
his authorized representative.  BIPA defines biometric identifiers
as including a scan of an individual's facial geometry and
biometric information as any information "based on an individual's
biometric identifier used to identify an individual."  BIPA creates
a private right of action that allows a plaintiff to recover
liquidated damages ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, attorney's fees,
and injunctive relief.

In the IBM action, it is alleged that in 2008, Vance uploaded
photos of himself and his family members to Flickr from his
computer in Illinois.  Flickr subsequently made Vance's photos, as
well as millions of other people's photos, available to IBM in a
single downloadable dataset.  IBM captured biometrics from these
photographs by scanning the faces and extracting geometric data
relating to the contours of the faces.  It used the data to create
its own dataset of "frontal-facing images of human faces."  IBM
included images from the IBM Dataset into a larger dataset it
created known as the "Diversity in Faces" dataset ("DiF dataset").
Vance alleges IBM used the DiF dataset to profit "from the
biometric identifiers and information of the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members" in violation of BIPA, among other things.

Vance brought seven causes of action against IBM: (1) violation of
BIPA Section 14/15(a) by wrongfully possessing Vance's biometric
identifiers; (2) violation of BIPA Section 14/15(b) by wrongfully
collecting biometric identifiers; (3) violation of BIPA Section
14/15(c) by wrongfully profiting from biometric identifiers; (4)
violation of BIPA Section 14/15(d) by wrongfully disclosing
biometric identifiers; (5) violation of BIPA Section 14/15(e) by
wrongfully failing to protect biometric identifiers from
disclosure; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7) injunctive relief.

On Sept. 15, 2020, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed
Vance's causes of action under BIPA Section 14/15(a) and for
injunctive relief and allowed the other claims to proceed.
Discovery in the IBM action is set to close on July 28, 2021.

In addition to the IBM action, Vance has filed three other class
action BIPA suits.  On July 14, 2020, he filed a BIPA class action
against Microsoft Corp. in the Western District of Washington.  The
Microsoft action alleges that Microsoft Corporation obtained the
DiF dataset from IBM and used biometric identifiers contained
therein in violation of BIPA.  On July 14, 2020, Microsoft filed a
motion to dismiss, which, as of Feb. 8, 2021, has not yet been
adjudicated.

On July 14, 2020, Vance filed a BIPA class action suit against
Amazon.com, Inc. in the Western District of Washington.  As in the
Microsoft action, Vance claims Amazon.com, Inc. obtained the DiF
dataset from IBM and used biometric identifiers in violation of
BIPA.  Amazon.com filed a motion to dismiss, which, as of Feb. 8,
2021, has not yet been adjudicated.

Finally, also on July 14, 2020, Vance filed a class action BIPA
suit against FaceFirst, Inc. in the Central District of California.
As in the Microsoft and Amazon actions, Vance claims FaceFirst
obtained the DiF dataset from IBM and used biometric identifiers in
violation of BIPA.  Facefirst filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to stay, neither of which have been adjudicated as of Feb.
8, 2021.

Neither Amazon.com, nor Microsoft has requested a stay in their
respective action, but FaceFirst has requested a stay in the
FaceFirst action.

On July 14, 2020, Vance filed the instant suit against Google.  He
seeks to represent a class of "all Illinois residents" whose faces
are in or depicted in the DiF dataset photo sharing service which
it alleges was passed from IBM to Google in violation of BIPA.  The
complaint alleges four causes of action against Google: (1)
violation of BIPA Section 14/15(b); (2) violation of BIPA Section
14/15(c); (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) injunctive relief.

Google requests the Court judicially notice four documents filed in
federal courts outside of the Northern District of California: (A)
Vance's second amended class action complaint in the IBM action;
(B) a print out of the docket in the IBM action; (C) Vance's class
action complaint in the Amazon action; and (D) Vance's class action
complaint in the Microsoft action.

Vance requests the Court judicially notice documents filed in
federal courts outside of the Northern District of California as
well as six documents filed in state court in Cook County,
Illinois: (A) Vance's class action complaint in the IBM action; (B)
Vance's second amended class action complaint in the IBM action;
(C) IBM's memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss Vance's
complaint in the IBM action; (D) the Oct. 12, 2020 scheduling order
in the IBM action; (E) Vance's class action complaint in the
Microsoft action; (F) Vance's class action complaint in the Amazon
action; (G) Vance's class action complaint in the FaceFirst action;
(H) an Oct. 23, 2020 copy of the docket for the Microsoft action;
(I) an Oct. 23, 2020 copy of the docket for the Amazon action; (J)
the Oct. 21, 2020 scheduling order for the Microsoft action; and
(K) which includes,but not limited to: (1) an order from Mutnick v.
Clearview AI, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-CV-00512 (N.D. Ill May 19,
2020); and (2) Grabawska v. The Millard Group, LLC, No. 2017 CH
13730 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Apr. 3, 2018) (Flynn, J.), Order Denying
Stay.

The parties have neither opposed the requests for judicial notice
nor disputed the authenticity of the documents.  Judge Freeman
granted both requests for judicial notice.

Citing Landis v. No. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), Judge
Freeman explains that district courts have the "discretionary power
to stay proceedings."  She now weighs the Landis factors: the
possible damage to the non-moving party, the hardship or inequity
which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the
orderly course of justice.

As to the first Landis factor, Judge Freeman finds that the
possibility that a stay will cause Vance harm is marginal.  Google
has submitted sufficient evidence and argument to demonstrate that
the harm to Vance is not significant enough to outweigh the other
Landis factors.  Because Vance is the plaintiff in both the instant
case and in the IBM action, Google's request for a stay does not
require that Vance's claims be litigated by another party.  Any
generalized risk of delayed litigation is minimized by the fact
that the IBM action is moving quickly, with discovery set to end in
July 2021, and therefore any delay will likely be minimal.

Moreover, the Judge finds that Vance is currently actively engaged
in discovery in the IBM action and Google is on notice of the need
to preserve any additional evidence it may have.  Google's
assurances of evidence preservation are sufficient, and any failure
to live up to the obligations it takes on will have significant
negative effects on Google later in the litigation.  While Vance
contends that he will be harmed by the degradation of testimonial
evidence, the Judge holds that he has not identified any witnesses
or areas of testimony that need to be preserved, nor has he
requested a limited discovery carve out from the proposed stay.
She credits Vance's concern regarding an indefinite stay, however,
and finds it appropriate to limit the scope of Google's request to
one year from the date of the Order--or sooner should the IBM
action reach a quicker conclusion.

Turning to the second Landis factor, Google argues the instant case
shares significant factual and legal questions with the IBM action,
such as whether Vance's photos were included in the dataset
allegedly used by Google and IBM, the nature of contractual
agreements between Vance and IBM, whether IBM's actions violate
BIPA, and whether Vance consented to the use of his photos.  Vance
responds that Google "overstates" the legal and factual overlap
between the two cases, but concedes, there is undeniably some
preliminary overlap between IBM and the case.

Judge Freeman finds that this factor weighs in favor of staying the
action.  Although Google is not being asked to litigate on two
fronts, it will nonetheless shoulder additional burdens if a stay
is not granted.  The differences between the IBM action and the
action do not negate the presence of substantial overlapping
factual and legal questions, which need not be litigated twice,
causing burden to Google.  The Judge also highlights that many of
the overlapping legal issues pose significant constitutional
questions, increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings and
confusion.  Finally, without a stay there will be significant
overlap in the discovery in both cases, creating additional
expenses.  Because significant discovery and litigation could be
rendered moot by the IBM action, and because parallel proceedings
could create inconsistent and confusing outcomes, the potential
hardship to Google weighs in favor of granting the stay.

Judicial economy, which furthers the third Landis factor, is the
primary basis courts consider when ruling on motions to stay.
Vance argues that the divergent factual nature of the two actions
requires "at most" informal discovery coordination.   Google
counters that judicial economy favors a stay because there are
threshold questions across both cases, such as whether IBM
collected Vance's biometric identifiers or information in violation
of BIPA.

Judge Freeman agrees with Google.  The factual issues to be
resolved in both cases are similar and predicated on the issues in
the IBM action as Vance must first establish that IBM wrongfully
acquired and used Vance's biometric information in violation of
BIPA.  In addition to the overlapping factual issues, there are
overlapping constitutional questions raised by Google and IBM in
their respective cases.

In sum, although there are no dispositive motion deadlines set in
the IBM action, a one-year stay is appropriate as it will allow the
IBM parties to complete discovery and provide them with a
meaningful amount of time to resolve some of the overlapping
issues. Because trial in the instant action is currently set for
February 2023, the parties will have ample time to complete
discovery even in light of a one-year stay.

Google concurrently filed its Motions to Dismiss and to Stay.  It
did not, however, indicate the order in which it preferred the
Court consider the motions.  The circumstances of the case counsel
that Judge Freeman rules on the Motion to Stay first and terminates
the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay
if lifted.  It appears likely that once the IBM Court rules on the
overlapping legal and factual issues, the Plaintiffs will choose to
amend the Complaint in this action in order to move forward rapidly
upon lifting the stay.  The Plaintiffs may identify additional
theories or issues to litigate in this case with the benefit of the
IBM action.  It would be inefficient to use this Court's time to
delve into the pleadings under these circumstances, particularly
given that Google's Motion to Stay is broad.  For these reasons,
the pending Motion to Dismiss is terminated.

For the foregoing reason, Judge Freeman finds the Landis factors
weigh in favor of a stay.  She granted Google's Motion to Stay and
stayed the case until Feb. 12, 2022, or sooner should the IBM
action be resolved before that date.  The parties will submit a
joint status report to the Court within 14 days of the resolution
of the IBM Action or on Feb. 12, 2022, whichever is earlier.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3fnjl7x9 from Leagle.com.


GTS TRANSPORTATION: Equitable Claims in Plestsov Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXEI PLESTSOV, DENIS NAZAROV, and ROMAN KALABAYDA,
Plaintiffs v. GTS TRANSPORTATION CORP. and TOMAS STIRBYS,
Defendants, Case No. 20 CV 1847 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Manish S. Shah
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' second motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Kalabayda, Plestsov, and Nazarov worked as truck drivers
for GTS, a company owned and operated by Tomas Stirbys.  All three
Plaintiffs had similar hiring experiences.  Stirbys and another GTS
employee interviewed Kalabayda.  Stirbys orally offered Kalabayda a
job, where he would be paid based on a percentage of the dollar
amount of the freight/load confirmations from brokers and
customers, minus fuel and other expenses. Stirbys orally stated
other terms about control, like Kalabayda could only operate GTS
trucks, could not work for another company, and had to comply with
all of GTS's instructions for deliveries.  Kalabayda was required
to sign a document on the spot, which he did not understand due to
his lack of English proficiency and legal knowledge.  Kalabayda
accepted the job offer.

Later, on at least three occasions, Kalabayda learned from GTS
brokers and staff that the dollar amount on the original
freight/load confirmations differed from the confirmations he
received, resulting in an underpayment of approximately 10%.  In
one instance, Kalabayda was able to verify the underpayment because
he received an original confirmation from a broker and compared it
to the confirmation GTS provided him for the same load.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs allege that GTS forged the
confirmations presented to Kalabayda, which lowered his pay, and
that the total amount of underpayment is unknown because the
original freight/load confirmations are in GTS' possession and
control.

A GTS employee who interviewed Kalabayda interviewed Plestsov,
along with another GTS employee.  At Stirbys's direction, the GTS
employees orally offered Plestsov a job, where he would be paid a
percentage of the dollar amount of the freight/load confirmations
from brokers and customers, minus fuel and other expenses.  One of
the GTS employees orally stated the same terms about control, and
Plestsov signed a document that he did not understand.  Plestsov
accepted the offer but eventually learned from other drivers,
including Kalabayda, that GTS allegedly forged the freight/load
confirmations, which lowered his pay by approximately 10%.

Similarly, another GTS manager, at Stirbys's direction, orally
offered Nazarov a truck driver position.  Nazarov would be paid per
mile, including layovers and extra stops, and subject to the same
terms about control.  Like the others, Nazarov signed a document
that he did not understand and accepted the job offer.  He alleges
that he too was underpaid by approximately 10% because GTS paid him
using a "zip code to zip code" formula instead of calculating the
actual miles he drove.

GTS also took deductions from the Plaintiffs' paychecks, which they
never agreed to.  GTS withheld a total of $17,096.90 from
Kalabayda's pay for "escrow," "repairs," "claims," and a "ticket";
$3,797.20 from Plestsov's pay for "escrow," "repairs," and an
"Uber"; and $520 for a "cash advance" and "insurance escrow" from
Nazarov's pay.  GTS never reimbursed Kalabayda and Plestsov for
$52,000 and $17,181.52, respectively, for operational expenses, or
Nazarov for a new GPS, tire gauge, and repair tools.  Finally, GTS
failed to pay Plestsov approximately $3,000.61 for his last two
weeks at work and never paid Nazarov for any layovers and extra
stops, as promised.  It also returned the $1,000 it took for
"escrow" at the time of Nazarov's hiring 24 weeks later.  In total,
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants owe at least $65,532.88
to Kalabayda, $29,734.74 to Plestsov, and $6,467.37 to Nazarov.

The Plaintiffs broadly allege that the Defendants took advantage of
immigrant workers, and that at Stirbys's direction, GTS doctored
freight/load confirmations to lower their drivers' pay, took
improper deductions, and misclassified drivers as independent
contractors.  They also allege that GTS failed to withhold payroll
and social security taxes; provide health insurance for its
drivers; or make contributions to unemployment insurance or
workmen's compensation.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first
class action complaint based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim for equitable remedies.  The Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, realleging violations of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act and in the alternative, unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit.  The Defendants now seek to dismiss
both claims on the merits.

First, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' entire IWPCA claim
"sounds in fraud," and therefore should be dismissed because the
allegations fail to meet the heightened pleading requirements of
Rule 9(b).  But Judge Shah finds that the Plaintiffs allege wage
violations that are independent of their allegations about doctored
wages and fraudulent misclassification of employees.  GTS failed to
pay Nazarov for any layovers and extra stops or pay Plestsov his
final paycheck.  It took GTS 24 weeks to return "escrow" money it
took from Nazarov.  GTS also took random and authorized deductions
from their paychecks, for expenses like "escrow" and "repairs," and
never reimbursed Kalabayda and Plestsov for operational expenses,
or Nazarov for truck equipment.  None of these allegations involve
fraudulent conduct, Judge Shah holds.  Hence, the Plaintiffs
successfully state IWPCA claims that are not subject to the
heightened pleading standard for averments of fraud.

Next, the Plaintiffs do aver that GTS forged freight/load
confirmations, "doctored" logbooks, and systematically
misclassified drivers as independent contractors in violation of
the IWPCA's requirement that employers must pay their employees'
wages in full.  These allegations are acts of deception, Judge Shah
finds.  However, he says, just because the complaint includes
averments of fraud does not mean that the Plaintiffs' IWPCA claim
is premised on a fraudulent course of conduct that would trigger
the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b).

The Plaintiffs also replead unjust enrichment and quantum meruit in
the alternative.  Judge Shah previously dismissed these claims
because the Plaintiffs incorporated their allegations of a valid
agreement into their equitable claims.  The amended complaint does
it too.  The Plaintiffs cannot show that their equitable claims
fall outside the terms of the employee agreements because
agreements existed between the parties, and agreements under the
IWCPA are akin to breach of contract actions.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that it is premature to dismiss their
equitable claims and seek leave to amend their complaint to allege
their equitable claims in the event the Court finds no valid
employment agreement between the parties.  Judge Shah holds that
the Plaintiffs had their chance to clearly delineate between
misconduct based on a valid agreement and misconduct that falls
outside a contract.  He denied their request.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Shah granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' equitable
claims are dismissed with prejudice.  The Defendants will answer
the amended complaint by March 5, 2021, and the parties will file a
joint status report with a proposed discovery schedule on March 12,
2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3frnm75g from
Leagle.com.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Heavy Metals, Mays Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00805 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021) is an action arising
out of the Defendant's deceptive and misleading labeling of its
Earth's Best baby food products (the "Product").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
list heavy metals as an ingredient on the Products' labels, and
failed to warn of the potential presence of heavy metals in the
Products. The Defendant also failed to disclose that the
ingredients of its supposedly organic Products contain inorganic
arsenic.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a natural and organic beverage,
snack, specialty food, and personal care products company. The
Company's product line include grocery store foods such as organic
cookies, cooking oils, sugar free products, kosher foods, snacks,
and frozen foods, as well as organic skin, hair, and body products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

               -and-

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FORM LLC
          134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               -and-

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               -and-

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER L.P.A.
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8297
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               -and-

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  dmagagna@lfsblaw.com


HEARST MAGAZINE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hearst Magazine
Media, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hearst Magazine Media,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01431 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Hearst Magazine is part of Hearst -- https://www.hearst.com/ -- a
global, diversified media, information and services company with
more than 360 businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal

HOME DEPOT: Faces Gregorio Suit Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GREGORIO v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. CACE-21-002428 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb.
4, 2021) is a class action complaint brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers
to redress the unfair business practices employed by Defendant in
connection with its sale of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup
(TM) and its breach of contract with the Plaintiff and the class.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's retail stores and
website have sold and continue to sell various Roundup (TM)
herbicide products directly to consumers despite the Defendant's
knowledge Roundup (TM) has the potential to cause cancer in humans,
and that there is an ongoing scientific debate as to whether
Roundup (TM) can cause Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ("NHL").

The Defendant has been aware that glyphosate -- the active
ingredient in Roundup (TM) -- is a Class 2A herbicide, meaning the
World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on
Cancer ("IARC") has determined it is probably carcinogenic to
humans. The Defendant has also known Roundup (TM) and other
glyphosate-based herbicides have been banned by many countries,
regions, and municipalities, including actions taken within
Florida, because it may be dangerous to human health. Additionally,
the Defendant is aware of the tens of thousands personal injury
cases brought by individuals who have alleged Roundup (TM) exposure
caused their cancer, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that despite the Defendant's knowledge of
Roundup (TM)'s potential carcinogenicity throughout the class
period , the Defendant has sold and continues to sell Roundup (TM)
at its retail locations and on its website without providing
consumers with any additional information on its website, store
shelves or at the point of sale about the products' potential
health risks. Defendant, at the very least, should inform consumers
there is an ongoing scientific dispute over its potential
carcinogenicity, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff, is an individual consumer over the age of 18, who
resides in Broward County, Florida, and is a member of the alleged
Class.

Defendant Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in
the United States and is engaged in the marketing, sale, and
distribution of a product line of herbicide Roundup (TM), which
contains the active ingredient glyphosate. All formulations of
Roundup (TM) are manufactured by non-parties Monsanto Company,
Bayer Corporation, and/or Bayer AG.

"Roundup" refers to any and all Roundup (TM)-brand products and
other herbicide products containing glyphosate that have been sold
by Home Depot at any time during the class period . Roundup
includes Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass KIIIer III; Roundup
Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass KIIIer III with Comfort Wand; Roundup
Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass KIIIer III Sure Shot Wand ; Roundup
Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass KIIIer III Trigger Sprayer; and Roundup
Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass KIIIer III with Pump 'N Go 2
Sprayer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W . Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          663 Bishops Lodge Rd Apt 3
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail : howardr@pdq .net

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN: Bais Yaakov Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley filed an appeal from court
rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING
VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, Defendant, Case No.
13-cv-4577, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (White Plains).

In 2008, Educational Testing Service (ETS) entered into an
exclusive distribution agreement with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company (HMH), pursuant to which HMH obtained the
exclusive right to distribute, market, and advertise Criterion, a
web-based application that evaluates a student's writing skills and
provides diagnostic feedback and a holistic score, in the K-12
school market in the United States.

Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley brought an action against
ETS alleging that ETS sent it an unsolicited fax advertisement for
goods and services without the proper opt-out notices in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The original complaint
was filed on July 2, 2013, naming Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishers, Inc. and Laurel Kaczor as Defendants.

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff sought leave to file a motion to
amend the complaint to add ETS as a Defendant. The Plaintiff spent
some time arguing that the failure of Plaintiff to name ETS in the
original complaint was a "mistake" within the meaning of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). Defendant, however,
raised no argument to the contrary, and so the Court did not
address the issue.

On February 1, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's renewed motion
for entry of judgment and to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Judgment was entered on February 2 for $12,000 plus
applicable costs for Plaintiff, denying Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief, and dismissing the case as moot pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1); accordingly, the
case was closed.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Orders dated
February 8, 2017, July 11, 2017, June 6, 2018, April 25, 2019, and
July 8, 2020; Court's Motion Scheduling Order dated July 19, 2017;
Court's Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2021; and Court's
Judgment dated February 2, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishers, Inc., Case No. 21-399, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 18,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Educational Testing Service is represented by:

          Sharyl A. Reisman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 326-3939
          E-mail: sareisman@jonesday.com

HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Suit Removed from Cal. State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Juan J. Chavez v. Huhtamaki,
Inc. et al., Case No. 19STCV19491, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles)
on Feb. 5, 2021.

The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01073-ODW-JEM to the proceeding.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights: Jobs. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II.

Huhtamaki is a global food packaging specialist, headquartered in
Espoo, Finland. Its products include paper and plastic disposable
tableware, such as cups, plates and containers for quick service
restaurants, coffee shops, retail stores, caterers and vending
operators.[BN]

The Plaintiffs Juan J. Chavez and Raumundo Caldera are represented
by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Ani Martirosian, Esq.
          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          MOON AND YANG APC
          1055 West 7th Street Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  ani.martirosian@moonyanglaw.com
                  scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com

The Defendant Huhtamaki, Inc. is represented by:

          Sarah Elana Ross, Esq.
          Alexandria Marie Witte, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: sross@littler.com
                  awitte@littler.com

ICEBOX BRANDS: Faces Lopez Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Icebox Brands, Inc.
The case is captioned as Doris Lopez v. Icebox Brands, Inc., a
California Corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00293902-CU-OE-GDS (Calif.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 4, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

IIWII GARDENS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IIWII Gardens, Inc.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. IIWII Gardens, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01488 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

IIWII Gardens, Inc. grows hundreds of sun perennials, shade
perennials, shrubs, groundcovers, roses, hedge plants and so much
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in McDermid Securities Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK McDERMID, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-01402 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim.

A putative class of shareholders alleges that Inovio and three
individual Defendants made false or misleading statements about
Inovio's COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Inovio is a biotechnology company
focused on bringing to market DNA medicines to combat infectious
diseases.

In 2020, Inovio ramped up efforts to develop INO-4800, its vaccine
candidate for COVID-19.  Defendant J. Joseph Kim was Inovio's CEO
and President and served as a member of the Board of Directors
during the class period.  Defendant Peter Kies was Inovio's CFO
during the class period.  Defendant Robert Juba, Jr. was the
company's Vice President of Biological Manufacturing and Clinical
Supply Management during the class period.

The Plaintiffs claim Inovio and the individual Defendants made
several false or misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated Inovio's stock price.  They allege that after
making these false and misleading statements Inovio and the
individual Defendants cashed in on Inovio's artificially high stock
price by organizing several at-the-market stock offerings and
selling individually held shares of the company.

In February, March, April and May, Inovio raised more than $300
million from investors in at-the-market offerings, a process
through which a company can incrementally place new shares into the
market.  The Plaintiffs claim Inovio fraudulently pumped up its
stock price to maximize investments during this period, in part
because it had no other material source of income and faced
mounting research and development expenses.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the individual Defendants were
motivated to mislead investors on the success of Inovio's vaccine
production because significant portions of their compensation were
performance-based.  Moreover, during the class period, Kim sold
100,000 shares of Inovio common stock for approximately $2,135,000.
Similarly, Kies sold 70,000 shares for about $1,800,750.  Neither
Defendant had voluntarily sold any shares in the 18 months leading
up to these sales.

The Plaintiffs acknowledge that Kim and Kies allegedly sold their
shares as part of Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, but claim these plans
are not valid defenses to the fraud allegations because both men
"had knowledge of, or recklessly disregarded, non-public, material
adverse facts concerning the development status of INO-4800 at the
time they created the trading plans."  Like the at-the-market stock
offerings, the Plaintiffs allege these sales support the individual
Defendants' knowledge and intent to defraud.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege they suffered significant losses as
a result of the Defendants' "scheme to deceive investors and the
market."  They provide data showing increases in Inovio's stock
price around the time of each alleged false or misleading statement
and subsequent declines around the time the true nature of these
statements came to light.

In Count One, the Plaintiffs' claim all the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by engaging in a scheme to inflate Inovio's stock price
with false or misleading statements.  In Count Two, they claim all
the Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
"controlling persons" at Inovio.  Liability under Section 20(a) is
derivative of an underlying violation of Section 10(b), so if any
of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims fail, so will the
corresponding Section 20(a) claim.

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims in the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim.
They claim that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead
falsity, scienter and loss causation for each of the alleged
misstatements identified in the Amended Complaint.

Judge Pappert grouped those alleged misstatements into three
categories for purposes of analyzing the Defendants' Motion: (1)
Kim's statements about Inovio constructing a vaccine in three
hours; (2) statements about Inovio's progress toward producing one
million vaccine doses in 2020; and (3) Inovio's claim that it was
selected for inclusion in Operation Warp Speed.

He finds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead claims only for the
first two groups of statements.

As to the first alleged misstatement, Judge Pappert finds that the
Plaintiffs plead enough to satisfy the PSLRA's requirement to
allege why the statements were misleading.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Kim misled investors by claiming Inovio constructed a vaccine
when it had only designed one.  And they allege that a vaccine
construct is distinct from a design.  By alleging the Defendants
claimed to have achieved something they did not achieve and thereby
instilling false confidence in investors, the Plaintiffs have
satisfied their burden of alleging why Kim's statements were
misleading.  The Plaintiffs have plead enough facts to support a
strong inference of scienter and loss causation.

As the second alleged misstatement, the Judge finds that Kim's
statements were inextricably linked to Inovio's current
manufacturing capabilities.  Although portions of the Defendants'
statements were forward-looking, the Plaintiffs do not challenge
those aspects; they take issue with the Defendants withholding
material information about Inovio's current relationship with VGXI
and its manufacturing capacity under present conditions.  The
Plaintiffs are also correct that, once the Defendants chose to
speak about their various manufacturing deals and progress, they
had a duty to include material information that would render those
statements not misleading.  At this stage, the Plaintiffs have done
enough to establish a strong inference that the Defendants' acted
with the requisite scienter when announcing their partnership with
Ology, claiming to be on track to reach their goal of producing one
million vaccines in 2020 and issuing the May prospectus.

As to the third alleged misstatement, the Plaintiffs' contend that
the Defendants led investors to believe that they had been chosen
to receive government funding for their vaccine when they had been
chosen only to participate in a government-backed study.  But the
Judge finds that the Defendants never claimed to be receiving
vaccine funding and disclosed the fact that INO-4800 had been
chosen for the NHP study in the same press release in which it
broadly claimed to have been selected for Operation Warp Speed.
The Plaintiffs do not explain how or why a reasonable investor with
access to all this information would have thought Inovio would
receive government funding for its vaccine.  Even if the
Defendants' claim about being selected for Operation Warp Speed was
a misrepresentation, the subsequent disclosure rendered it
immaterial and not misleading.  Accordingly, the Judge dismisses
the Plaintiffs' claims based on the Defendants' Operation Warp
Speed press release.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a)
claims only on the grounds that these claims must fail if the
Section 10(b) claims fail.  Because he dismisses only the Section
10(b) claims related to the Defendants' April 30 and June 30, 2020
press releases, the Judge dismisses only the corresponding Section
20(a) claims.

Finally, amendment of the Plaintiffs' claims involving the
Defendants' April 30, 2020 and June 30, 2020 press releases would
be futile, so Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice as to
those claims.

An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2738xvrm from Leagle.com.


INTERACTIVE LIFE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interactive Life
Forms, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Interactive Life
Forms, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01453 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Interactive Life Forms, LLC -- http://www.interactivelifeforms.com/
-- provides pleasure products. The Company offers its products in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Feb. 15 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in IRTC:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12889&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that 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

Shareholders have until April 2, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the IRTC lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of iRhythm Technologies. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC)
Class Period: August 4, 2020 - January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021

The IRTC lawsuit alleges that 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

Learn about your recoverable losses in IRTC:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13006&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Kovaleski, writing for TheDenverChannel.com, reports that
Elizabeth Young first saw ads for It's Just Lunch in airplane
magazines.

After not having luck with other online dating apps, Young, a
41-year-old school counselor, said she decided to write a check to
It's Just Lunch Denver. It cost Young $2,700 for a lifetime
membership and then a fee of roughly $90 per month.

The dating service sells itself as an elite international matching
service that has offices across the country, including in Denver.

Class action lawsuit claims It's Just Lunch defrauded customers

"What they say is 'It's Just Lunch is the world's No. 1 personal
matchmaking service. It's personal, it's private, it's convenient,
it's real.' They just forgot it's a scam," said Young, while
reading the company's website.

She saw the purchase as a major investment with the promise of
handpicked dates. Young said the salesperson told her over the
phone that she would have a few dates per month.

Young said she was told, "We have so many great men I can't wait
for you to meet."

"I had this expectation and this excitement of meeting quality
people who also invested what I did," she said.

Young is one of two It's Just Lunch customers who spoke with
Denver7, saying the company did not meet expectations. They're not
alone, as the company has already settled one class action lawsuit
and faces another.

Class action lawsuit filed against the company

John Balestriere is a New York-based attorney who filed a
class-action lawsuit against It's Just Lunch and won. He said
Young's story matches what his firm has heard from other clients.

"A common trick they were taught was to be speaking to someone and
at some point just turn over the clipboard and say, 'I'm sorry, I
just have to stop you. I have three people who would be just
perfect for you.' The idea of kind of luring people in,"
Balestriere said.

As a part of the lawsuit and settlement agreement, It's Just Lunch
agreed to pay nearly $5 million to impacted clients. The average
customer received around $14. The law firm was also paid a fee of
$1.5 million.

"People who are signing up are busy and they have disposable
income. They are very vulnerable," Balestriere said.

The lawsuit called the dating service "a massive scheme to defraud
tens of thousands of single professionals throughout the country."
It claimed the company, "overcharged its clients" and "matches are
driven entirely by monthly quota requirements."

Balestriere said the most shocking thing his firm found was that in
some cases, It's Just Lunch employees went on dates with female
customers so that they "could at least have a date with a man."

He said the company trains its employees to make the sale, and the
lawsuit states the company "[r]outinely hires staff . . . who have
no experience . . . whatsoever in the field of matchmaking."

The suit resulted in a settlement in late 2019.

"We frankly thought that was the end of it," Balestriere said.

But it would end up being far from the end.

"This is the worst financial decision I've ever made," Young said.

Young was not a part of the settlement agreement. She said instead
of getting the few dates per month the company verbally promised,
she had four dates over three months.

"So, mathematically, that's $3,000 for four dates," she said.

And while Young does acknowledge the contract she signed only
promised her one date per month, she said she believed what It's
Just Lunch was selling.

"I believe that the company really preys on people who -- like me,
in the Denver area, especially during a pandemic -- really want
connection," Young said.

Another Denver client tells a similar story

Joseph DeOliveira said he had a similar experience with the
company. He was a single father also looking for love who said he
fell for It's Just Lunch's sales pitch.

"It was basically a waste of money and waste of time," DeOliveira
said. "They told me that I was going to have multiple matches a
month and that I was going to find people that were committed to a
relationship."

Instead, DeOliveira said he received "one or two dates for the
thousands of dollars that I put in and it wasn't consistent."

He said his matches weren't matches at all, and the women he went
out with had nothing in common with him.

"There were so many good reviews, I thought it was a good company,"
DeOliveira said.

Young said she also believed those reviews and everything else she
read.

Both now question the accuracy of those good reviews and want to
warn others trying to find love.

"They are going to continue to scam people until they are brought
to light," DeOliveira said.

Law firm files another lawsuit against the company

After Balestriere's firm settled in the original class-action
lawsuit, the firm said new It's Just Lunch clients started reaching
out to them with the same complaints.

"It's Just Lunch is continuing to engage in very similar sounding
misconduct," Balestriere said.

The firm filed another class-action lawsuit against the company in
November 2020, this time in California.

The suit claims It's Just Lunch "continues to engage in similar
misconduct" the original suit was supposed to stop.

"I've been a lawyer and doing this stuff for over 20 years and I
don't think I've ever seen it," Balestriere said.

"They took advantage of people wanting a real relationship," said
DeOliveira.

It's Just Lunch responds

It's Just Lunch Denver declined Denver7's request for an
interview.

In a lengthy statement, the company said, "The new claims in the
California lawsuit are brought by two individuals. It is very
disappointing and unfortunate that this matter is pending because
these allegations are completely without merit. IJL intends to
vigorously defend the new suit."

It's Just Lunch Denver is a franchise of the company and said, "The
satisfaction of our clients has been our number one priority" and
that the company "cannot guarantee chemistry, long-term
relationship or marriage."

In It's Just Lunch Denver's statement, the company said DeOliveira
"called our Denver office on February 10, 2021 requesting to
continue his membership."

DeOliveira confirmed to Denver7 he did reach out to the company but
said in an email, "My only purpose was to inquire and confirm the
facts I gave you in the interview and to express my displeasure
with the service I was provided and to give them a chance to make
it right."

He went on to say, "I stand by what I said 100% that I believe IJL
is a scam and I will not retract that statement unless I am proven
wrong by their actions." [GN]


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Jianpu
Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT) American Depositary Shares ("ADS")
between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until April 19, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review
into "transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit" with third-party business entities. The Company
concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses
had been inflated due to "certain transactions [that] involved
third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream
suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions
[that] lacked business substance." Jianpu stated that it
"anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal
years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164
million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of
the total revenue previously reported."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to
close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, 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
certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit
Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed
relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result,
Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019
were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in
Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was
reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) 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 Jianpu ADS during the Class Period and suffered a
loss, have information, 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
Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
[url="]filling+out+this+contact+form.[/url] There is no cost or
obligation to you.

                        About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit [url="]www.bespc.com[/url]. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

JR CITY PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rodriguez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JR CITY PROPERTIES, LLC, 97 BLEECKER, LLC,
39 BLEECKER LLC, 37 PATERSON LLC, 355 DANFORTH LLC, 6 POPLAR LLC,
18 POPLAR, LLC, 563 CENTRAL, LLC, 222 VAN HORNE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, 1700 BERGENLINE LLC, 228 HANCOCK LLC, JUDITH SCIARRA, AND
ROBERT NICK, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02562 (D.N.J., February
15, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking
equitable and legal relief for its alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
handyman from in or around August 2017 until on or around March 1,
2018, and he was made a handyman and superintendent until his
employment was terminated on or around October 31, 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts that despite routine working more than 40
hours per week for the Defendants, he was not paid overtime
compensation of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate of
pay for all the hours he worked over 40 per week. Instead, he was
compensated by the Defendants at the same hourly rate of pay for
all hours he worked per week, including those in excess of 40 hours
in a week, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, costs and
disbursements, and other relief that is just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operates residential apartments buildings.
They are joint employers who jointly managed, supervised, hired,
fired, and controlled the Plaintiff's compensation. The Individual
Defendants are officers, directors, shareholders and/or persons in
control of all other Defendants, who exercises significant control
over the companies' operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Ave., Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


JUUL LABS: School Boards Sue Over Unlawful Sales of E-Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEORIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT 150, HALL TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT 502 MARION COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, LA MOILLE
COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 303, Individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC.,
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, INC., ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, NU
MARK LLC, NU MARK INNOVATIONS, LTD. And ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00885 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2021) is a class action
complaint seeking injunctive relief, abatement, and damages arising
out of the injuries to their property, students, and employees
caused by the Defendants' unlawful sales of e-cigarette.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, product design targets minors, especially teenagers,
and, along with unlawful sales, will increase the likelihood that
minors, like the students in their school will begin using
e-cigarettes and become addicted to the Defendants' e-cigarette
products and this will cause further harm to the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated.

Allegedly, the Manufacturer Defendants' marketing campaigns hooked
teens who had never tried traditional cigarettes on their
e-cigarette products. Since 2008, cigarette smoking among Illinois
high school seniors has decreased from 21% to 5% in 2018.
E-cigarette use by high school seniors is higher than cigarette use
was 10 years ago.

Between 2016 to 2018, e-cigarette use in Illinois increased from
18.4% to 26.7% among high school seniors, a 45% increase; a 15%
increase was seen among 8th grade students; and a 65% increase
among 10th grade students. E-cigarettes put youth at risk for
addiction and possibly worse asthma outcomes, yet almost 40% of
10th and 12th grade youth believe there is low or no risk of
negative health effects.

The Plaintiffs are school boards created by Article 10 of the
Illinois School Code, 105. Peoria Public Schools District 150 is a
public-school district, in Peoria, Peoria County, Illinois, with
12,867 students enrolled in 2019 ranging from kindergarten to
twelfth grade. La Moille Community Unit School District No. 303 is
a public-school district located in La Moille, Bureau County,
Illinois, with 247 students enrolled in 2019 ranging from
kindergarten to twelfth grade. Marion Community Unit No. 2 Schools
is a public-school district located in Marion, Williamson County,
Illinois with over 4,000 students enrolled in 2019 ranging from
kindergarten to twelfth grade. Hall Community High School No. 502,
also known as Spring Valley Hall, or HHS, is a public four-year
high school, grades 9-12, with 437 students, located in Spring
Valley, Bureau County, Illinois. HHS serves the communities and
surrounding areas of Spring Valley, Bureau, Cherry, Dalzell, Ladd,
and Seatonville.

JUUL is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California. JUUL originally operated
under the name PAX Labs, Inc. In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs,
Inc. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          Melissa Sims, Esq.
          Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-5600
          Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
          E-mail: rkassan@thesandersfirm.com
                  msims@thesandersfirm.com
                  vmaniatis@thesandersfirm.com

KRAFT HEINZ: Bagels Don't Contain Mozzarella Cheese, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Marcinelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-01075
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2021) alleges that the Defendant's frozen pizza
bagels representations are misleading because though it is labeled
as containing mozzarella cheese, it actually contains a "Cheese
Blend" of "Part-Skim Mozzarella Cheese" and "Modified Food
Starch."

Kraft Heinz manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
frozen pizza bagels under the Bagel Bites brand purporting to be
made with real mozzarella cheese ("Product"). The relevant
representations include "Made With Real Cheese," the "Real" dairy
seal, "Mozzarella Cheese," "Mini Bagels With Mozzarella Cheese and
Tomato Sauce," "Kosher Dairy" and "7g of Protein Per Serving."

According to the complaint, reasonable consumers understand "pizza"
to refer to a combination of tomato sauce, mozzarella cheese and
wheat crust. In the context of a "pizza snack" where the crust is
replaced with a bagel, consumers will still expect the other two
elements -- tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese. The Defendant
misrepresented the Product through affirmative statements,
half-truths, and omissions, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sold more of the Product
and at higher prices than it would have in absence of this
misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of
consumers. She adds that had she and the proposed class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would
have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading
representations, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than no less than $10.99 for boxes of 72
bagel halves (56 OZ), excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations, the
Plaintiff adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

KRG KINGS: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in McDonnell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARLENE McDONNELL, Plaintiff v. KRG KINGS LLC, KELLY
OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-01060-CCW (W.D.
Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Joint
Motion to Approve Stipulation to Conditional Certification of the
FLSA Collective.

The Stipulation seeks to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to include
"all individuals who, during any week since July 16, 2017, have
been employed as servers at Kings Family Restaurants and were paid
an hourly wage below $7.25."

Plaintiff McDonnell was employed as a server at the Kings Family
Restaurant located in New Kensington, Pennsylvania, from 1991 until
September 2019.  She alleges that "in seeking to comply" with their
minimum wage obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Defendants "purported to utilize a 'tip credit,'" pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 203(m), such that servers (including the Plaintiff)
were paid "an hourly wage of $3.45 plus tips from customers."

The Plaintiff further alleges that she and other servers were
required to perform non-tip-generating work (including "rolling
silverware; washing dishes, cleaning the ice cream bar, taking used
dishes from the dining room to the back of the Restaurant, bringing
clean dishes from the back of the restaurant to the dining room,
cutting fruit, and cleaning the restaurant"), which she estimates
amounted to "at least 30% of servers' working hours."

In support of the Joint Motion to conditionally certify the
collective action, the parties stipulate that there is a factual
nexus between the manner in which the Defendants' alleged policy
affected the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members.  These
common agreed to facts include, for example, the Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective Members each worked as servers at King Family
Restaurants, were classified as tipped employees for purposes of 29
U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2), were paid an hourly wage below $7.25, may
have performed some amount of side work as part of their
employment, and were classified as employees covered by the FLSA's
minimum wage and overtime premium pay provisions.

As such, the parties agree that the lenient modest factual showing
standard to conditionally certify an FLSA collective for purposes
of sending notice is satisfied.  They further agree that the
Plaintiff will not pursue her Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA") claim as a class action claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 but that the Plaintiff and any Putative Collective
Members who join the case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) will
continue to assert PMWA claims, and the limitations period
applicable to such PMWA claims is tolled as of July 16, 2017.

Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, Judge Wiegand is satisfied
that that the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed collective
action are similarly situated given the "lenient standard" set
forth.  Therefore, she ordered that the case is conditionally
certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and
will proceed as such until further order of the Court.

The collective action will consist of the following: All
individuals who, during any week since July 16, 2017, have been
employed as servers at Kings Family Restaurants and were paid an
hourly wage below $7.25.

The Judge authorized the Notice of Collective Action and Consent
Form filed as part of the Stipulation to be delivered or otherwise
disseminated by mail.

The parties will comply with the following schedule:

      a. No later than March 2, 2021, the Counsel for the
Defendants will provide to the Collective Counsel in Excel (.xlsx)
format the following information regarding all the Putative
Collective Members: full names; last known mailing addresses with
city, state, and zip code; and all known email addresses.

      b. No later than March 9, 2021, the Collective Counsel must
send a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form, and
postage paid return envelope to every Putative Collective Member by
First Class U.S. Mail.

      c. No later than April 23, 2021, the Putative Collective
Members will have until April 23, 2021 to return their signed
Consent Forms to the Collective Counsel for filing with the Court.

      d. No later than April 27, 2021, the Collective Counsel will
file with the Court all signed Consents to Join.

      e. No later than April 30, 2021, the Counsel for the parties
must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan for the
remainder of litigation.

The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on May 4, 2021,
at 9:00 a.m.  The parties are not required to file confidential
position letters in advance of the conference.

In accordance with LCvR 16.2, the parties will file a completed ADR
stipulation by March 2, 2021.  The parties will complete ADR by May
11, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/53dazbmj from
Leagle.com.


LIBERTY HEALTCARE: Underpays Investigators, Williams Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION and ADVANCE
SOURCING CONCEPTS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00691 (E.D.
Penn., February 15, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants seeking all available
relief for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an investigator from
in or around April 2015 until in or around May 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week, approximately over 60 hours during a typical week.
However, like the other similarly situated investigators, the
Plaintiff did not receive any overtime pay for all hours she worked
over 40 per week.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages and prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

The Corporate Defendants provide adult protective services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The McClatchy
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The McClatchy Company,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01432 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

The McClatchy Company, commonly referred to as simply McClatchy --
https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- is an American publishing company
incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and based in
Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MDL 2989: 41 Short Squeeze Class Suits Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
About 41 Actions are consolidated in MDL 2989 re: January 2021
Short Squeeze Trading Litigation in Northern District of
California.

The actions include:

   -- Hanna Kayali et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al.,
      Case No. 2:21-cv-00835 (C.D. Calif.);

   -- Josh Gossett et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al.,
      Case No. 2:21-cv-00837 (C.D. Calif.);

   -- Levi Cobos v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No.
      2:21-cv-00843 (C.D. Calif.);

   -- Wieg v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-
      00693 (N.D. Calif.)

   -- Cezana v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-
      cv-00759 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Cheng et al v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-
      cv-00781 (N.D. Calif.),

   -- Curiel-Ruth v. Robinhood Securities LLC et al., Case No.
      3:21-cv-00829 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Moody et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      3:21-cv-00861 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Days v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-
      00696 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Dalton v. Robinhood Securities, LLC et al., Case No. 4:21-
      cv-00697 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- KRASOWSKI et al v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case
      No. 4:21-cv-00758 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Krumenacker v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      4:21-cv-00838 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Feeney et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      5:21-cv-00833 (N.D. Calif.);

   -- Nordeen et al v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No.
      3:21-cv-00167 (S.D. Calif.);

   -- Daniels v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-
      cv-00290 (D. Colo.);

   -- Ziegler v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-
      cv-00123 (D. Conn.);

      Fresa v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-
      00134 (D. Conn.);

   -- Diamond v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No. 6:21-
      cv-00207 (M.D. Fla.);

   -- Schaff v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:21-
      cv-00216 (M.D. Fla.);

   -- Schaff v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.., Case No. 8:21-cv-00222
      (M.D. Fla.);

   -- Perri et al v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case No.
      8:21-cv-00234 (M.D. Fla.);

   -- BAIRD v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-
      00061 (N.D. Fla.);

   -- Courtney v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 0:21-
      cv-60220 (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Fray v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-
      60226 (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Juncadella v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No.
      1:21-cv-20414 (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Scalia v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No. 9:21-
      cv-80238 (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Gatz v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00490
      (N.D. Ill.);

   -- Kayali et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      1:21-cv-00510 (N.D. Ill.);

   -- Lagmanson et al v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case
      No. 1:21-cv-00541 (N.D. Ill.);

   -- Cherry v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-
      cv-00574 (N.D. Ill.);

   -- Hiscock v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.., Case No. 1:21-cv-00624
      (N.D. Ill.);

   -- ZYBURA v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC et al., Case No. 2:21-
      cv-01348 in (D.N.J.);

   -- MUNCY v. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC et al., Case No. 2:21-
      cv-01729 (D.N.J.);

   -- NOORZAIE v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. et al., Case No. 3:21-
      cv-01361 (D.N.J.);

   -- Dechirico et al v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., Case No.
      1:21-cv-00677 (E.D.N.Y.);

   -- Nelson v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-
      cv-00777 (S.D.N.Y.);

   -- Williams v. Webull Financial LLC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00799
      (S.D.N.Y.);

   -- MINNICK et al v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC et al., Case No.
      2:21-cv-00489 (E.D. Pa.);

   -- OMAHNE v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC., Case No. 3:21-cv-
      00013 (W.D. Pa.);

   -- Ross et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      4:21-cv-00292 (S.D. Tex.);

   -- Ng et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC et al., Case No.
      4:21-cv-00311 (S.D. Tex.); and

   -- Lavin v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-
      00115 (E.D. Va.). [BN]

MENTED COSMETICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Slade Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. MENTED COSMETICS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01036 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2021) alleges that the Mented
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Mented provides to their
non-disabled customers through http//:www.Mentedcosmetics.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
suit says.

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

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

Mented Cosmetics controls and operates Mentedcosmetics.com. in New
York State and throughout the United States. Mentedcosmetics.com is
a commercial Website that offers products and services for online
sale. The online store allows the user to take a Shade Quiz, browse
and learn about cosmetics products, make purchases, and perform a
variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. ("Meridian" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VIVO). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby
at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On February 16, 2021, Meridian issued a press release "provid[ing]
an update on its application for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the SARS-CoV-2
molecular diagnostic test on its Revogene(R) platform."  The press
release advised investors that "[i]n its ongoing discussion with
the FDA, late in the day on February 12, 2021, the Company received
further correspondence requesting additional information on the
SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test on its Revogene(R) platform"
and "has elected to place shipments of the SARS-CoV-2 test kits on
hold while it continues to work with the FDA."

On this news, Meridian's stock price fell $3.70 per share, or
12.41%, to close at $26.12 per share on February 16, 2021.

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

MONARCH INVESTMENT: Turner Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Compel Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID TURNER, Plaintiff v. MONARCH INVESTMENT &
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-3997 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay pending ruling on the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss.

Plaintiff Turner filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint on
Aug. 6, 2020, against Defendant Monarch, seeking to collect
allegedly unpaid overtime compensation and other unpaid
compensation from Monarch under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, O.R.C. Chapter 4111.

On Sept. 22, 2020, Monarch filed the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Stay, This
Action, generally arguing that the Plaintiff entered into an
agreement to arbitrate any and all disputes he may have with
Monarch, including the claims raised in the case.  It argued that,
as a result, the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's case with
prejudice, or in the alternative stay the case pending arbitration.
The Motion to Compel has been fully briefed and will be decided by
separate order.

On Dec. 15, 2020, Monarch filed the subject Motion to Stay,
generally arguing that until the Court resolves the threshold issue
of whether this Court or arbitration is the appropriate forum for
the Plaintiff's claims, it is most efficient and appropriate to
pause discovery, motion practice, and any other further litigation.
Specifically, it argues that it would be a waste of resources for
the Court to oversee discovery only to then decide that the
Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration, and that no
discovery is necessary to answer whether the case is properly
before the Court.

Monarch also highlights that the case is at its "procedural
infancy," and argues that a stay would not undermine any
proceedings to date.  It further argues the Plaintiff would not
suffer undue prejudice from a stay, that a stay would simplify the
issues in the case, and that a stay manifestly would reduce the
litigation burden for all parties and the Court.

The Plaintiff opposes Monarch's request, generally arguing that the
Motion to Stay should be denied because it is not highly likely
that the Motion to Compel will be granted, the Defendant has no
compelling reason to stay the proceedings, a stay would unduly
prejudice him, and a stay would not reduce the litigation burden or
simplify the central issue in the case.

In Reply, Monarch generally argues that the Plaintiff misstates the
applicable standards governing the Court's consideration of a stay,
needlessly rehashes arguments concerning Monarch's underlying
Motion to Compel Arbitration, and offers no reasonable basis to
disregard the arguments Monarch presented as to why a stay is an
appropriate and prudent exercise of the Court's discretion.

Judge Deavers finds that Monarch has demonstrated good cause for
granting a stay of discovery pending resolution of the Motion to
Compel.  Monarch has met its burden of showing that it is entitled
to a stay of discovery.

The Judge finds there to be no risk of prejudice to the Plaintiff
regarding the statute of limitations.  She also is not moved by the
Plaintiff's purely speculative suggestion that the "passage of
time" would prejudice him.  Accordingly, she rejects his arguments
that he will be unduly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged by a
further stay of discovery.  The Judge also agrees with Monarch that
a further stay would simplify the issues in the case and reduce the
burden of litigation on the parties and the Court.  It does not
serve the parties' or the Court's best interests to inject
discovery issues into the case at this point, especially given the
risk that at least some (if not all) of the "progress" made in
discovery would be wasted should the Motion to Compel be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Deavers finds that Monarch has
carried its burden to show that a stay of discovery is appropriate
under the circumstances presented in the case.  She, therefore,
concludes that a stay is warranted, pending resolution of the
Defendant's Motion for Compel.  She granted the Defendant's Motion
to Stay.  All discovery, motion practice, and further litigation in
the case will continue to be stayed pending resolution of the
Defendant's Motion to Compel.

In the event that the Court denied the Motion to Compel, the Court
will set a status conference by separate order so that the parties
can discuss the tolling of the Plaintiff's claims and set a
discovery schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/19rsnjk5 from Leagle.com.


MRS BPO: Milam Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls & Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flavio Milam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00119-LY (W.D. Tex.,
Feb. 4, 2021) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited phone calls and text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on December 6, 2020, MRS BPO began
sending the Plaintiff text messages to his cellular telephone
ending in "9275", from (856) 245-2532 and other automated phone
numbers.

On December 15, 2020, the Defendant allegedly sent the Plaintiff
collection calls from phone number 833-388-0571 seeking to collect
a balance allegedly incurred for personal purposes from an MRS
employee ID: ZB, about account number 287436404. The Plaintiff
contends that the collection calls were confusing to the Plaintiffs
and is likely to be misconstrued by the "least sophisticated
consumer" since it is open to more than one reasonable
interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

MRS BPO is a debt collection agency.[BN]

NAGOYA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Jiang Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
LICHUN JIANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAGOYA INC.; NEW NAGOYA, LLC; NEW NAGOYA,
INC d/b/a NAGOYA SUSHI & HIBACHI; and WEI LIN, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00121-KHJ-MTP (D. Miss., Feb. 12, 2021) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Jiang was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Nagoya Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Madison, Mississippi.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nick Norris, Esq.
          WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
          1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
          Jackson, MS 39216
          Telephone: (601) 253-1179
          E-mail: nick@watsonnorris.com


NATURE HILLS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature Hills Nursery,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Nature Hills Nursery,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01489 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Nature Hills Nursery -- https://www.naturehills.com/ -- is
America's number 1 online plant nursery offering trees, shrubs &
plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. ("Neptune" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: NEPT). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2021,
missing analyst expectations.  Among other results, Neptune
reported third quarter revenues of CA$3.32 million and a net loss
of CA$73.8 million, down 63.81% and over 1,000% year-over-year,
respectively.  Neptune attributed the net loss, in part, to a
CA$35.6 million impairment of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million
impairment of "property, plant and equipment and right-of-use
assets related to the acquisition of SugarLeaf in July 2019," as
well as accelerated amortization of CA$13.95 million "also related
to the SugarLeaf acquisition."  Additionally, the Company disclosed
that its "[g]ross margin declined to a loss of 268.3%," which
included a non-cash CA$7.39 million "write-down of inventory and
deposits to reflect their net realizable value."

On this news, Neptune's common share price fell $0.86 per share, or
30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

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

NESTLE USA: Coubaly Suit Alleges Child Labor and Trafficking
------------------------------------------------------------
ISSOUF COUBALY; SIDIKI BAMBA; TENIMBA DJAMOUTENE; OUDOU OUATTARA;
OUSMANE OUATTARA; ISSOUF BAGAYOKO; AROUNA BALLO; and MOHAMED
TRAORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTLE U.S.A.; CARGILL INCORPORATED;
CARGILL COCOA; BARRY CALLEBAUT USA LLC; MARS, INCORPORATED; MARS
WRIGLEY CONFECTIONARY; OLAM AMERICAS; INC.; HERSHEY COMPANY;
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC; and CORPORATE DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00386 (D.D.C., Feb. 12, 2021) alleges violation of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants profited
from the forced labor of children performing hazardous work
harvesting cocoa for the Defendants. They further assert that the
Defendants have engaged in various schemes to mislead the public by
explicitly promising to "phase out" their use of forced child labor
and ultimately stop, but the reality is they continue to profit
from the labor of millions of children harvesting cocoa.

Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes nutritious food and
beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates,
confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice
creams, and frozen food products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Collingsworth, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          621 Maryland Ave NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 543-5811
          E-mail: tc@iradvocates.org


NEW HO WAH: Juracan Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MIGUEL JURACAN QUINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. NEW HO WAH CHINESE TAKE OUT INC. (D/B/A NEW
HO WAH), DONG LIU and ZHEN LIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00648 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 5, 2021), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law as
well as the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that he was required to spend a considerable
part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including
cooking rice, washing dishes, taking out the garbage, sweeping and
mopping, twisting and tying up cardboard boxes, stocking
deliveries, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the windows and
refilling the refrigerator with sodas ("non-tipped duties"). He
adds that he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him, appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium, the Plaintiff alleges.

Plaintiff Juracan was employed as a delivery worker, cook and
ostensibly as a dishwasher at the Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese Restaurant,
located at 42-01 Broadway, Long Island City, New York under the
name "New Ho Wah".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Alford
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated January 13, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated January
13, 2021, classifying Allie Alford as a member of the Plaintiff
class in this action, and holding that she is entitled to monetary
and injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the
injuries she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the
Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-359, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, February 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Allie Alford is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

NIAGARA BOTTLING: Awarded $98K in Counsel Fees, Costs in Frompovicz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STANLEY F. FROMPOVICZ, Plaintiff v. NIAGARA BOTTLING,
LLC, ICE RIVER SPRINGS WATER CO, INC., AND JAMES J. LAND, JR.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-0054 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy
Beetlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania awarded:

    (i) Niagara $98,194.84 in attorneys' fees and $27.45 in
        costs; and

   (ii) Frompovicz $12,200 in attorneys' fees and $190.29 in
        costs.

As detailed in an opinion and order dated Oct. 16, 2020, the Court
granted Plaintiff Frompovicz and Defendant Niagara's motions to
enforce against Defendant Land the parties' Settlement Agreement.
The order also granted Frompovicz's and Niagara's requests for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in litigating that motion.

Judge Beetleston determines the amount to be paid.  The basis of
Land's duty to pay the attorneys' fees and costs of Frompovicz and
Niagara is the fee-shifting provision in the parties' Settlement
Agreement.  Pursuant to that agreement, "in any action to enforce
the terms of the Agreement (the Enforcement Action), including any
action to recover damages or indemnity for any violations therein,
the prevailing party of the Enforcement Action will be entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements in addition to
costs of suit."

There is no dispute that Frompovicz and Niagara were the prevailing
parties in the underlying motion to enforce the Settlement
Agreement.  However, the parties disagree on what is encompassed by
the language "any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement."

Niagara requests fees from Feb. 24, 2020--when Land refused to
execute and requested edits to the Settlement Agreement after the
parties had reached a supposedly final agreement--through the
filing of the petition for fees.  Niagara's itemized request
therefore includes time its attorneys spent in informal
negotiations with Land as well as formal mediation before
Magistrate Judge Lloret before the motion to enforce was filed on
Aug. 11, 2020.  Niagara argues that these were all direct actions
to enforce the agreement.  Likewise, although Frompovicz does not
discuss the meaning of "any action," he requests fees beginning on
March 6, 20202 through the filing of the request for fees.

Land, on the other hand, contends that the only "action to enforce
the terms of this Agreement" is the motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.  Consequently, he argues that neither party
is entitled to fees incurred outside the preparation, filing, and
litigation of said motion, including negotiation, mediation, and
the drafting of the request for fees.

Under the plain meaning of "any action to enforce the terms of this
Agreement," in the context of the fee-shifting provision in the
parties' Settlement Agreement, the action at issue is the motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Beetlestone holds that while Niagara and Frompovicz were the
prevailing parties on the motion to enforce, negotiation and
mediation are attempts to avoid adversarial legal actions that do
not typically produce a "prevailing party" nor "costs of suit."
The Court's October 16, 2020 order, which granted the request for
attorneys' fees "incurred in litigating this motion," confirms this
understanding.

On the other hand, Frompovicz and Niagara are entitled not only to
attorneys' fees and costs associated with the preparation and
filing of their motions to enforce the agreement, but also to
recover the reasonable fees and costs incurred in preparing and
filing their requests for costs and fees.  The additional
reasonable fees and costs incurred in the latter step are a
necessary part of the enforcement action and therefore covered by
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Niagara requests $111,861.90 in attorneys' fees incurred in
preparing and litigating the motion to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, which is the product of 176 hours billed by three
attorneys and one paralegal.  It also requests $27.45 for the cost
of delivering copies of its motion and briefs to Land.  Finally, it
requests $21,454.58 for the 34.5 hours the same legal team spent
preparing and filing the request for fees.

The Judge finds that when the parties entered the Settlement
Agreement, including the fee-shifting provision, Land agreed to pay
the attorneys' fees and costs of the opposing parties should they
succeed in an enforcement action against him.  In entering this
agreement after years of complex litigation, he knew or should have
known that he was agreeing to compensate experienced commercial
litigation attorneys selected by the opposing parties at the
reasonable rate charged for comparable disputes.  Land does not
challenge Niagara's evidence regarding the significant experience
and professional accolades of the attorneys involved, nor offer a
rationale for why the 2018 CLS fee schedule would be a more
reasonable benchmark than the actual rates charged to Niagara.
Accordingly, Niagara is entitled to reimbursement at the reasonable
rate that it has paid its attorneys.

There is a need, however, to reduce the compensable time spent on
the enforcement action in that it was not reasonable under the
circumstances, the Judge holds.  She reduced $90,034.65 by 10%, or
$9,003.47, to $81,031.18.  She says the hours expended on a
relatively straightforward motion seeking to enforce the Settlement
Agreement were unreasonably excessive and duplicative.

The Judge also reduced the additional $21,454.58 Niagara requests
for preparing and filing the request for fees by 20%, to
$17,163.66.  She finds that the number hours spent on compiling the
attorneys' fees documentation and related briefing--34.5 hours--is
excessive in consideration of the simplicity of the issues involved
and the administrative nature of compiling the attorneys' hours
into a table.  Moreover, Niagara derived a lesser pecuniary benefit
from succeeding on the request for fees as it will ultimately be
denied over 40% of the attorneys' fees requested.

In sum, Niagara will be awarded $81,031.18 in attorney's fees
incurred in litigating the motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, $17,163.66 in attorney's fees incurred in preparing and
filing its request for fees--a total of $98,194.84 in fees--and
$27.45 in costs.

Frompovicz requests attorneys' fees for 39.5 hours at a rate of
$500 per hour, for a total of $19,750.  Two attorneys worked on
this matter on behalf of Frompovicz at the same hourly rate: David
Stanoch incurred $10,250 in attorneys' fees for 20.5 hours billed
between March 6, 2020 and Sept. 3, 2020, and Ken Grunfeld incurred
$9,500 in fees for 19 hours billed between Aug. 25, 2020 and the
filing of the petition for fees.  In addition, Frompovicz requests
$190.29 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs, including
electronic research, copying, and mailing.  Land does not challenge
the hourly rate or the costs, but rather argues that the entire
request should be denied because it is not supported by sufficient
evidence.

Based on the evidence provided, Judge Beetestone finds that
Frompovicz's request is subject to two reductions.  First,
Frompovicz's request includes time spent on several non-compensable
activities such as negotiation and mediation before the motion to
enforce was filed on Aug. 11, 2020.  However, the documentation
provided for this period does not delineate how the 20.5 hours were
spent and the attorney at issue has since left the firm.  Absent
time entries to analyze, the Court will exercise its discretion to
reduce the 20.5 hours billed by Stanoch by 20% to 16.4 hours.

Second, 11 hours must be struck from Grunfeld's time sheet as those
hours relate to the refiling of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
There are therefore only eight compensable hours for the time
period between Aug. 25, 2020 and the filing of the request for
attorneys' fees and costs.

This leaves 24.4 cumulative billed hours between the two attorneys.
As the rate and conservative number of hours are reasonable
considering Frompovicz's ultimate success on the enforcement action
and request for fees, Frompovicz will be awarded these hours at the
requested rate of $500 per hour, for a total of $12,200, in
addition to the uncontested $190.29 in costs.

As set forth, Niagara is awarded $98,194.84 in attorneys' fees and
$27.45 in costs.  Frompovicz is awarded $12,200 in attorneys' fees
and $190.29 in costs.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/131gouz9 from Leagle.com.


OATH INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oath Inc. The case is
styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Oath Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01441 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Oath Inc. a subsidiary of Verizon Media --
https://www.verizonmedia.com/ -- provides advertisement solutions.
The Company offers video, mobile, content marketing, insight, and
publication services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of OrthoPediatrics Corp. (NASDAQ: KIDS) resulting from
allegations that OrthoPediatrics may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased OrthoPediatrics securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2015.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.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 2, 2020, Culper Research published
a report entitled "OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Even Channel
Stuffing Can't Save This Company[.]" The report alleged that
OrthoPediatrics has "engaged in a channel stuffing scheme that has
systematically and significantly overstated revenues." On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $5.40 per share, or 12%, to
close at $39.35 per share on December 3, 2020. Then on December 14,
2020, Culper Research published a second report entitled
"OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Pleading the Fifth" in which it
concluded that the Company "is a structurally broken business which
has relied on nefarious tactics to inflate its reported revenues."

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


PARDHAR LLC: Perkey Suit Seeks OT Premiums for Home Care Providers
------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY PERKEY, LYNDSAY ALLRED, SONYA GARCIA, and ANTHONY RAMSEY,
Individually and on behalf of similarly situated current and former
employees v. PARDHAR, LLC d/b/a HOMEWATCH CAREGIVERS, DUNCAN
EMPLOYMENT AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, WESTCO LIFECARE SERVICES,
LLC, NURTURING INDEPENDENCE, INC, BRANDIE MASTON, TRACY WALTER,
JESSICA DUNCAN, and AARON DUNCAN, Individually, Case No.
3:21-cv-00037 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 4, 2021) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Tennessee common law seeking to
recover overtime premium.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants never paid them the
overtime premium despite the Defendants' knowledge or requirement
that each of their home care providers worked substantially more
than forty hours in a given week. They add that in an intentional,
willful, and concerted effort to avoid the costs of overtime wages,
state/federal withholdings, workers' compensation protection,
health insurance premiums, and other mandated costs employers
ordinarily absorb, the Defendants used fraudulent practices to
manipulate Plaintiffs' working hours, obfuscate the payment of
overtime, and flat out lie regarding the withholding of certain
benefits, such as insurance premiums and child support remittance.

Each Plaintiff does work or has worked for Defendants as a home
care provider. They performed their duties at the homes of the
Defendants' clients.

The Defendants WestCo, Nurturing Independence, and Homewatch are
home care staffing agencies.

Defendant Duncan LLC is a non-medical home care staffing
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@NLGattorneys.com

PEACOCK TV: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peacock TV LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Peacock TV LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01437
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Peacock -- https://www.peacocktv.com/ -- is an American
over-the-top video streaming service owned and operated by the
Television and Streaming division of NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of
Comcast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PENUMBRA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 16 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
Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE:PEN) from August
3, 2020 through December 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District for the Northern District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (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 were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 8, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management ("QCM")
published a report questioning the validity and independence of the
scientific research supporting the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, and
accused the Company of using a fake author to publish studies
regarding the purported safety and efficacy of its products.

In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 9%, $224.02 per share
on December 7, 2020, to $204.70 per share on December 8, 2020, a
decline of $19.95 per share.

On December 15, 2020, after the markets closed, the Company issued
a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" recall
of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become susceptible
to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to injury or
death. On a conference call held the same day, the Company's CEO
acknowledged that the product's design "ma[de] the catheter
susceptible to failure in certain scenarios" and that the Company's
"steps to ensure the safe use of the product...were not able to
fully address the risks."

In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 7%, from $188.82 per
share on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per share on December 16,
2020, a decline of $13.84 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 Penumbra securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/penumbrainc-pen-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-345/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]


PENUMBRA INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Penumbra, Inc. (PEN)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 12/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pen/

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                              About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]

PICSART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PicsArt, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PicsArt, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01438
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

PicsArt -- https://picsart.com/ -- is a San Francisco, California
and Yerevan, Armenia-based technology company that develops the
PicsArt suite of online photo and video editing applications, with
a social creative community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PILLPACK LLC: Class & Subclass in Williams TCPA Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PILLPACK LLC, Defendant,
Case No. C19-5282 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Defendant PillPack is a full-service pharmacy that delivers
medications in multi-dose packaging to patients' homes.  In March
2018, the Defendant engaged a company called Performance Media
Strategies, Inc. to telemarket its services.  The following month,
it executed a PillPack Insertion Order ("Agreement"), hiring
Performance Media as an independent contractor to generate live
customer leads and transfer those leads to its call center
("Campaign").  Around that time, the Defendant was purportedly
informed that the calls "would be placed using a prerecorded voice
system which is sometimes described as an Avatar or an IVR
(interactive voice response) system."  The Defendant was also
purportedly informed that a third party--a company called Prospects
DM--would place the calls.

Throughout the Campaign, from March 2018 to June 2019, Performance
Media engaged Prospects DM to place calls and transfer them to
Defendant's call center. Prospects DM obtained the called parties'
contact information from three companies: Little Brook Media,
Sharecare Inc., and Yodel Technologies LLC.  Yodel obtained at
least some of that contact information from a fourth company,
Fluent Inc.  Those companies collectively operate dozens of
websites on which individuals may consent to be called by the
companies or their "Marketing Partners."

In March 2019, Plaintiff Williams received a prerecorded call
advertising a pharmacy service on his cell phone and was
transferred to the Defendant's call center.  After the Plaintiff
asked for the Defendant's name and address, he was transferred to
its customer care line.  The Plaintiff told the Defendant's
employee to "please stop calling people with the automated phone
call" and that "it's not appropriate to call people on their cell
phones for marketing purposes."  He also warned that the Defendant
"is on notice that if he receives another phone call, he will sue."
According to the Defendant, when the Plaintiff was transferred
over to the customer care team, it lost the ability to track the
Plaintiff.

In April 2019, the Plaintiff received another call on his cell
phone, which appeared to repeat the same prerecorded message he had
received earlier.  The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff's
number is associated with a person named Michael Morgan, who
consented to receive calls to that number on one of Yodel's
websites in April 2018.  The Plaintiff testified that he did not
enter or authorize anyone else to enter his cell number or the name
Michael Morgan into that website.  He also submitted evidence that
he has used that cell number continuously since 2008, and that he
registered the number on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNC
Registry") in late 2010.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant,
asserting two causes of action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.: (1)
a violation of Section 227(b)(1) for calls made using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or an artificial or prerecorded
voice and (2) a violation of Section 227(c) for calls placed to
numbers listed on the DNC Registry.

In July 2020, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class
Certification.  He seeks to certify a proposed class and transfers
subclass as follows:

   a. Class: All persons or entities within the United States who
      between March 13, 2018 and June 16, 2019, received a
      non-emergency telephone call promoting goods or services on
      behalf of PillPack, LLC, as part of the PillPack
      Performance Media campaign:

       (i) to a cellular telephone number through the use of an
           automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
           prerecorded voice; or

      (ii) to a cellular or residential telephone number that had
           been registered on the national Do Not Call Registry
           for at least 31 days and who received more than one
           call as part of the PillPack Performance Media
           campaign within any twelvemonth period.

   b. Transfers Sub-Class: All Class members who were transferred
      at least once to a PillPack call center on the DNIS [Dialed
      Number Identification Service] 866-298-0058.

The Court deferred ruling on the Motion, after requesting that the
parties file supplemental briefing; and it granted the parties'
motions to file supplemental evidence in support of, or           
in opposition to, the Motion.

Judge Zilly finds that Rule 23(a)'s requirements--numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy--are satisfied.  Among other
things, he concludes that resolving certain liability issues with
respect to the Plaintiff's claims will not necessarily resolve such
issues with respect to the claims of the proposed Class members
whose contact information was obtained from Little Brook Media or
Sharecare.  If the Class is limited to the called parties whose
contact information was obtained from Yodel or Fluent, like the
Plaintiff, the Defendant's consent defense would presumably be the
same or similar for all Class members.  The therefore narrows the
Plaintiff's proposed class definition to include only the called
parties whose telephone number was obtained by Prospects DM from
Yodel or Fluent.  He appoints Plaintiff Aaron Williams to serve as
the Class Representative.

Judge Zilly also finds that Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirements--predominance and superiority--are satisfied.  He
concludes that the Plaintiff has identified several common issues
that are susceptible to classwide proof, and which have the
capacity to generate common answers that will drive the resolution
of this action.  The individualized issues raised by the Defendant
do not threaten to overwhelm these common issues.  To the extent
Defendant develops evidence in support of its defenses,
necessitating individual inquiry, the Court may take remedial
action, including decertifying the Class.  The Judge further
concludes that a class action is superior to the other available
methods for adjudicating the case.

Finally, the Defendant does not challenge the appointment of the
Plaintiff's counsel as the Class Counsel.  After reviewing the
counsels' qualifications and their ability to fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the Class, Judge Zilly approves Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Smith & Dietrich Law Offices PLLC, and
Paronich Law PC as the Class Counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Under Rule 23(c), he certified the following amended Class and
Subclass:

   a. Class: All persons or entities within the United States,
      whose telephone number was obtained by Prospects DM from
      Yodel Technologies, LLC or Fluent, Inc., and who between
      March 13, 2018, and June 16, 2019, received a non-emergency
      telephone call promoting goods or services on behalf of
      PillPack, LLC, as part of the PillPack Performance Media
      campaign:

      (a) to a cellular telephone number through the use of an
          automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
          prerecorded voice; or

      (b) to a cellular or residential telephone number that had
          been registered on the national Do Not Call Registry
          for at least 31 days and who received more than one
          call as part of the PillPack Performance Media campaign
          within any twelvemonth period.

   b. Transfers Sub-Class: "All Class members who were
      transferred at least once to a PillPack call center on the
      Dialed Number Identification Service at:866-298-0058."

Plaintiff Williams is appointed as the Class Representative, and
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Smith & Dietrich Law Offices PLLC,
and Paronich Law PC are appointed as the Class Counsel.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4sa3ha29 from Leagle.com.


PREFERRED PHYSICIANS: Sharfman Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D., P.A., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v PREFERRED PHYSICIANS
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 121397508 (Fla. 13th
Jud. Cir. Ct., February 15, 2021) brings this complaint against the
Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful practice of faxing
unsolicited advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him an unsolicited
facsimile commercial advertisement on or about December 9, 2020
using a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device, in
an attempt to promote its insurance brokerage services with newly
reduced rate of Medical Malpractice coverage. Allegedly, the
Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express invitation
or permission" to receive fax advertisement.

Purportedly, the Defendant faxed or caused to be faxed to at least
fifty recipients' telephone facsimile machines at the same and/or
unsolicited facsimiles without prior express invitation or
permission, and without the compliant opt-out language as required
by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(a)(4), thereby precluding the Defendant from successfully
invoking the affirmative defense of established business
relationship.

The Defendant's unsolicited fax advertisement has caused damages to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals by
improperly and unlawfully converting their fax machines, toner,
paper, to its own use in order send unsolicited fax advertisement,
the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from
sending unsolicited fax advertisements, as well as statutory
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Preferred Physicians Insurance Agency, Inc. provides insurance
brokerage services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Tel: 847-368-1500
          Fax: 847-368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Dismisses First Amended Davis Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, dismissed the
case, ANGELA DAVIS, DEANNA LOPEZ, and URSULA RILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03220-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Davis, Lopez, and
Riley, and without prejudice as to the putative class.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the
Plaintiffs and P&G stipulated that the claims of the named
Plaintiffs, which are asserted in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint, are dismissed with prejudice.  The parties agreed to
bear their own costs and fees.  The stipulation will be without
prejudice to the claims of the putative class members.

The filing attorney certified that concurrence in the filing of the
document has been obtained from each signatory, in accordance with
Local Rule 5-1.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1d47n4zh from Leagle.com.

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC, Robert R. Ahdoot -- rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
-- Christopher E. Stiner -- cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com -- in
Burbank, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP -- Eric J. Knapp --
eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- Alfredo W. Amoedo --
alfredo.amoedo@squirepb.com -- in San Francisco, California,
Attorneys for Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Must Pay Davis ACV Under Policy, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCHELL DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-5726 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that
the insurance policy obligates Progressive to pay actual cash value
in the event of total loss, but the ACV does not include
replacement costs.

Plaintiffs Davis and Brandy Gress have sued Defendants Progressive
Advanced and Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. for breaching
their respective insurance policies by failing to pay the full
costs of replacing their insured vehicles.  The Plaintiffs'
vehicles suffered a total loss.  Progressive Specialty settled
Davis' loss by paying her $23,569.02, the automobile's actual cash
value ("ACV") plus sales tax reduced by the deductible.  Likewise,
Progressive Advanced settled Gress' total loss by paying her
$4,482.67, the ACV plus sales tax less the deductible and salvage
value.  Neither settlement included regulatory fees.

In Part IV of the Policy, Progressive provides it will pay for
"sudden, direct and accidental loss to a covered auto."  Part IV of
the Policy features a section titled "Limits of Liability," which
states "the limit of liability for loss to a covered auto" is the
lowest of: 1) the ACV of the damaged property at the time of the
loss less the applicable deductible; 2) the amount necessary to
replace the damaged property less the applicable deductible; 3) the
amount necessary to repair the damaged property to its pre-loss
condition less the applicable deductible; or 4) the stated amount
shown on the declarations page for that covered auto.  This section
states the ACV "is determined by the market value, age, and
condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs."

The Plaintiffs and Progressive each seek summary judgment.  The
Plaintiffs argue: 1) they are entitled to the ACV for a total loss
to their vehicles; and 2) the ACV includes replacement costs such
as mandatory title and registration fees.  Progressive argues its
Policy: 1) promises to pay only for "sudden, direct and accidental
loss" to a covered auto; and 2) limits a covered loss to the
vehicle's ACV, which does not include replacement costs.

The pivotal question is whether the plain language of the
Plaintiffs' policies require Progressive to pay the Plaintiffs the
ACV, and if so, if the ACV includes mandatory title or
registration-related fees.

First, Progressive argues the Policy only obligates it to pay for a
"sudden, direct and accidental loss."  The Plaintiffs believe the
Policy requires Progressive to pay the ACV in the event of a total
loss.

Judge Rice finds that the plain language of the Policy justifies
the Plaintiffs' position.  In  Sylvester v. Depositors Ins. Co.,
No. 20-1322, 2020 WL 4934361, *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020), at *4
(quoting Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sartno, 903 A.2d 1170,
1174 (Pa. 2006)), the insurance policy provided the insurer will
pay for the "loss" of the vehicle and limited the liability to the
vehicle's ACV.  The court in Sylvester found the policies
unambiguously provide that the insurers must pay for loss to the
vehicle, not the replacement cost.  However, the court acknowledged
that the insurer must pay the liability limit, which was the ACV,
when the insured's damages exceed that limit.

In Sylvester, the plaintiff did not demonstrate its loss exceeded
the limit of liability.  In the case, all parties agree that the
losses were greater than the limit of liability, which was the ACV.
Therefore, considering Sylvester's own language about when an
insurer must pay its liability limit, Davis and Gress are entitled
to the ACV.

Next, the Plaintiffs contend that Progressive did not clearly
define ACV in their Policy, and as a result, it should include the
mandatory title and registration fees necessary to operate an
automobile in Pennsylvania.  Progressive challenges that the Policy
specifies the method of calculating the ACV as "determined by the
market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the
loss occurs," and does not include consideration of mandatory
replacement fees such as title and registration fees.

Judge Rice agrees.  At issue is whether the Policy's language
regarding the ACV is clear or ambiguous.  If it is clear, then the
Policy's language controls.  If it is ambiguous, then the
Plaintiffs' interpretation controls.  He finds it is clear.  The
Policy unambiguously defines the ACV in stating how it is
determined.

Further, the Judge finds that no insurance policy provision should
be treated as redundant if any reasonable meaning consistent with
the other parts can be given to it.  The Policy states that, when
paying a liability limit, Progressive will pay the lower of 1) the
ACV and 2) "the amount necessary to replace" the damaged property
reduced by the deductible.  The latter amount is the cost of
replacement that "might cover costs of title and registration."  If
the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the Policy, he
would be imputing those fees into the ACV and "negating any
difference between the two," making the second option redundant.
Because he must avoid redundant meanings in contract language, the
Judge cannot impose the full breadth of replacement costs into the
ACV.

An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2m9jdbpl from Leagle.com.


PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Gregg Remanded to California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remanded the case, ANDREA GREGG, ET
AL., Plaintiffs v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, ET AL., AND DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03880-YGR (N.D. Cal.), to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.

Plaintiffs Gregg and Davidson bring the putative class action
against Defendants Providence St. Joseph Health; Providence Health
and Services; St. Joseph Health; St. Joseph Health System; St.
Joseph Health Northern California, LLC; Queen of the Valley Medical
Center; Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital; SRM Alliance Hospital
Services d/b/a Petaluma Valley Hospital; St. Joseph Hospital of
Eureka; and Redwood Memorial Hospital of Fortuna, for unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent business practices in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, and for intentional interference with contractual relations.
The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive, and other
relief, individually and on behalf of a proposed class.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the California
Superior Court, County of San Francisco, on March 26, 2020.  The
Plaintiffs are individuals who sought or received medical services
in relation to injuries sustained in separate car accidents.  Gregg
was injured in a car accident on November 2016 when she was
read-ended.  Davidson was injured in a car accident caused by a
third party on June 2018.  Both received medical services from
Defendant Queen of the Valley Medical Center ("QVMC").  When
admitted to QVMC, both provided information for their respective
health insurance plans.  Gregg's plan was with United Healthcare
and Davidson was covered by both Medicare and a Kaiser Permanente
supplemental insurance plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that, rather than billing their health
insurance plans, the Defendants asserted liens under the California
Hospital Lien Act ("HLA"), California Civil Code sections
3045.1-3045.6, against their prospective civil recoveries from
their tortfeasors.  The Plaintiffs allege that, while the HLA
limits a hospital's lien to 50% of the final judgment or
settlement, Cal. Civ. Code Section 3045.4, it does not prohibit
hospitals from pursuing patients for the balance of the retail
amount.  By sidestepping the patient's health care insurance and
seeking the higher "retail" bill through an HLA lien, the hospital
deprives the patient of the benefit of their health plan coverage.

The Plaintiffs allege that QVMC refrained from billing their health
insurance plans in order to assert HLA liens against potential tort
recovery on their automobile accidents at "grossly inflated" retail
rates.  Both Gregg and Davidson learned QVMC did not submit bills
to their health care plans when they received letters from QVMC
administrators notifying them of the liens.  They allege that the
lien amounts exceeded the "reasonable and necessary" limitation in
the HLA because the amounts were "in orders" higher than the amount
QVMC would have accepted as payment in full had QVMC submitted
bills to their health insurance plans.  Based on the foregoing, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally interfered with
their contracts and engaged in unfair and unlawful practices under
the UCL.

The Defendants removed the complaint from state court on the
grounds that Plaintiff Davidson's claims are predicated on federal
law and implicate federal questions under the Medicare Act.  They
contend that the allegations in the complaint rely on federal
Medicare requirements since Davidson seeks to have Medicare pay for
their services rather than the third-party responsible for the
injuries that necessitated her treatment.  Thus, the Defendants
assert that Davidson essentially has made a claim for benefits
under the Medicare Act that will require the Court to interpret,
apply, and enforce federal Medicare laws and regulations, including
those under the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") rules found in 42
U.S.C. section 1395(y) and implementing regulations at 42 C.F.R.
sections 422.1, et seq.

Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  Both motions are
opposed.

The Plaintiffs move to remand on the grounds that the claims do not
arise under the Medicare Act but instead are based entirely on a
violation of California statutory law, the Hospital Lien Act.
Davidson alleges that the Defendants refused to bill her health
care service plans (Medicare and Kaiser) and accept the plan's
contracted rates, but instead asserted a lien at a grossly inflated
"customary" rate against any damages award or settlement Davidson
may receive.  She contends the crux of the issue is whether
defendants violated state law by asserting liens to charge rates
that are not "reasonable and necessary" under the HLA.

The Defendants counter that Davidson's claims actually arise under
the Medicare Act and are a disguised claim for denial of Medicare
benefits since each claim effectively alleges she was entitled to
limit QVMC's lien to the amount it would have been reimbursed under
Medicare.

While on their face the factual scenarios appear similar, Judge
Rogers finds that the allegations of the well-pleaded complaint
focus not on the violation of the Medicare statute or regulations,
but on the pure application of California law.  Davidson does not
allege that she was denied Medicare benefits, nor does she seek to
recover them.  Instead, she seeks to limit the state law liens
filed by QVMC to their "reasonable and necessary" amount under
state law, the measure of which would be the rates QVMC normally
would have been able to recover from Davidson's health insurance
coverage.  The mere reference to Medicare rates does not convert
the claim into one arising under the Medicare Act.

The Defendants' argument that the claims are so intertwined with
the Medicare Act that they would require interpretation of the
statute and regulations to determine the lawfulness of the liens
does not persuade.  The parties are in agreement that the Medicare
regulations and the Medicare Secondary Payer Manual ("MSP Manual")
authorize and instruct hospital medical providers to seek recovery
from a primary payer, including by means of a lien on a judgment or
settlement.  The MSP Manual expressly acknowledges that state law
governs lien rights and specifically the right to file a lien for
"full charges."  No conflict with or interpretation of federal
Medicare rules appears.

In sum, Judge Rogers finds that the Defendants have failed to meet
their burden to establish that the action falls within the "slim
category" of state law claims "arising under" federal law for
purposes of federal question jurisdiction.  Having failed to
establish that jurisdiction is proper, the case must be remanded.

For these reasons, Judge Rogers granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand, and denied as moot the motion to dismiss.  She directed the
Clerk of the Court to remand the action to the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.  Her Order terminates Docket
Number 15.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ygqa7th6 from Leagle.com.


QEP ENERGY: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QEP Energy Company.
The case is styled as David A. Blasi, Paula J. Blasi, as Trustees
of the Blasi Living Trust, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated persons v. QEP Energy Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-01436-JMF (D.N.D., Feb. 18, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Contract.

QEP Energy Company -- http://www.qepres.com/-- is an oil & energy
company based out of Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          Gregory Bentz, Esq.
          Isaac Diel, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 gbentz@midwest-law.com
                 idiel@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Charles Thomas Schimmel, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          6900 College Blvd., Ste. 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Email: cschimmel@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY & PENDER, P.C.
          5630 34th Avenue So., Ste. 120
          Fargo, ND 58104
          Phone: (701) 281-8001
          Email: mike@mplawnd.com


QUANTUM GLOBAL: $175K Settlement in Taafua FCRA Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PANIANI TAAFUA, Plaintiff v. QUANTUM GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06602-VKD (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District to California, San Jose Division, grants
the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action
settlement and grants his motion for his attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiff Taafua filed the action for himself, and on behalf of a
putative class, for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii), based on a
disclosure form used by his former employer, Quantum Global
Technologies ("QGT"), that reportedly included an extraneous
liability waiver.  Mr. Taafua claims that QGT required him, and all
prospective employees, to sign a standard company form authorizing
QGT to obtain a consumer report from third party First Contact HR
to verify an applicant's background and experience.

Mr. Taafua contends that because QGT's form included a liability
waiver, in addition to a disclosure concerning a consumer report,
QGT violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, and as
a result, QGT also never received proper authorizations for any
reports it obtained using its standard form. Mr. Taafua claims that
he was confused by the standard disclosure and authorization form
and did not understand that QGT would be requesting a consumer
report as defined in the FCRA.  He further alleges that
nonetheless, upon information and belief, [QGT] then secured a
consumer report from First Contact HR.

Several months after the Court held an initial case management
conference, and before a noticed hearing on QGT's then-pending
motion to transfer venue, the parties settled.

The Court previously denied preliminary approval of a proposed
class action settlement agreement that contemplated a release of
claims in return for a total payment of $125,902.  The parties
subsequently agreed to an Amended Class Action Release and
Settlement Agreement that provides for payment of $174,980 and a
modified proposed distribution of those funds.

On Aug. 14, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the amended
settlement, conditionally certified a Rule 23 class action, ordered
notice to be given to the class, and set a final fairness hearing
for Feb. 16, 2021.

The proposed amended settlement covers the period Oct. 30, 2013 to
Dec. 31, 2018, on behalf of the following class: "All individuals
who applied for employment with and/or were employed by Defendant
in the United States and were the subject of a consumer report that
was procured by Defendant or caused to be procured by Defendant
through third-party consumer reporting agency First Contact HR
during the Class Period."

The settlement is non-reversionary and contemplates a release of
claims in return for a total payment of $174,980, from which
$15,5922 in estimated administrator expenses, $41,967.33 in
attorney's fees, $1,993.723 in costs, and a $3,500 service award
will be deducted before the remaining $111,926.954 is distributed
to the class, which has 1,040 members.   The settlement
contemplates that 13% of the Net Settlement Fund will be
distributed to the class members whose claims fall outside the
two-year statute of limitations period and 87% will be distributed
among those whose claims are unquestionably timely.  Individual
payments will be made on a pro rata basis, depending on the number
of reports that were obtained for a given class member.  Any
unclaimed funds will be given as a cy pres award to the Education
Fund of the National Association of Consumer Advocates ("NACA").

Mr. Taafua reports that pursuant to the terms of the Amended
Settlement Agreement, the settlement administrator, JND Legal
Administration, sent notice to all 1,040 class members identified
by QGT.  Based on JND's report, it appears that ultimately nine
notices were returned as undeliverable, with no forwarding address
and for which JND was not able to obtain updated address
information.  JND states that as of Jan. 8, 2021, it received no
objections to the settlement and only two requests for exclusion.
Thus, it appears that there is a total settlement class of 1,038
individuals, of whom 1,029 are presumed to have successfully
received notice of the settlement.

An individual class member may be entitled to more or less money
depending on the number of reports that were obtained for that
individual and the period of time when the report(s) were procured.
JND estimates that the average settlement payment is expected to
be $107.10, with the lowest estimated payment being $20.70 and the
highest estimated payment being $560.65.  These estimates
apparently are based on a Net Settlement Fund of $111,720.67.  As
noted, Mr. Taafua indicates that these numbers may be somewhat
higher, inasmuch as the Net Settlement Fund will be slightly higher
due to his counsel's lower-than-estimated costs.

Mr. Taafua now moves pursuant to Rule 23 for final approval of the
proposed settlement, including payment of his service award, as
well as his attorneys' fees and costs.

In their unopposed motion for fees and costs, Mr. Taafua's counsel
seek $41,967.33 in fees and $1,993.72 in costs. Dkt. No. 53. With
respect to the requested fees, the counsel avers that her firm
spent a total of 152.40 hours in this litigation, resulting in a
total lodestar of $74,727.  Nevertheless, their fee request remains
at $41,967.33, the same sum sought when Mr. Taafua sought
preliminary approval of the parties' amended settlement. With
respect to hourly rates, the rates requested are between $325 and
$400 for associates, and $625 to $850 for partners.

Mr. Taafua requests a service award of $3,500 for his time and
effort in assisting counsel with the investigation of his claims,
gathering information, and reviewing the settlement.

QGT does not oppose Mr. Taafua's motion, and the Court has received
no objections to the proposed settlement or counsel's requested
fees and costs.  The Court held a final fairness hearing on Feb.
16, 2021.

Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers
submitted, Judge DeMarchi grants Mr. Taafua's motion for final
approval of the class action settlement and grants his motion for
his attorneys' fees and costs.  He finds that (i) the settlement
class satisfies Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and the notice
requirements of Rule 23(c)(2) have been met; (ii) the terms of the
parties' proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable under
Rule 23(e); (iii) (iv) the attorney's fees and expenses were
reasonably incurred; and (v) the requested $3,500 award is
appropriate in view of the benefit Mr. Taafua helped obtain for the
class.

The parties and JND are directed to implement the terms of the
Order and the class action settlement in accordance with the terms
of the Amended Settlement Agreement.  The Clerk of Court will enter
judgment and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/45ax534p from Leagle.com.


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

QuantumScape Corporation (QS)
Class Period: 11/27/2020 - 12/31/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 8, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-qs/

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                         About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Robbins LLP Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP on Feb. 15 disclosed that a
purchaser of QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS) filed a class
action complaint against the Company and its officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020. QuantumScape
develops battery technology for electric vehicles and other
applications.

QuantumScape Corporation (QS) Misled Shareholders by Overstating
the Viability, Power, and Life of its Solid-State Battery

According to the complaint, on November 27, 2020, QuantumScape went
public via a business combination with Kensington Capital
Acquisition Corp. A joint press release issued by QuantumScape and
Kensington, characterized QuantumScape as "a leader in the
development of next generation solid-state lithium-metal batteries
for use in electric vehicles." Throughout the relevant period,
QuantumScape touted the success of its battery technology.

On January 4, 2021, Seeking Alpha published an article pointing to
several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries that make
it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." The article stated that the battery's power "will only
last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of aggressive driving."
As solid-state batteries are temperature sensitive, "the power and
cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above would have been
significantly worse if run even a few degrees lower." The article
further detailed significant challenges QuantumScape faces. On this
new, QuantumScape's stock plummeted $34.49, or over 40%, to close
at $49.96 per share on January 4, 2021.

If you purchased shares of QuantumScape Corporation (QS) between
November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, you have until March 8,
2021, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class.

Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against QuantumScape settles
or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts:
Lauren Levi
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
llevi@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 16 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or "the Company")
(NYSE:QS) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
8, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 8,
2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. QuantumScape dramatically overstated the
purported success of its solid-state batteries, including their
battery power, life, and energy density. The Company was unlikely
to scale its battery technology to the multi-layer cells necessary
to run electric vehicles. 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
QuantumScape, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


RAPID PASADENA: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Alexis Gomez v. Rapid
Pasadena Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 19STCV30192, was removed
from the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to
the united States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles) on Feb. 4, 2020.

The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01053-GW-AFM to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of labor-related laws and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Wolpe Stadmiller, Esq.
          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM AND ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: stadmiller@law-rm.com
                  makarem@law-rm.com

The Defendants Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC and Amazon.com Service,
Inc., are represented by:

          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          Tuyet T. Nguyen, Esq.
          Max C. Fischer, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                  tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com
                  max.fischer@morganlewis.com

SAN DIEGO GAS: Remand of Radcliff to California Super. Ct. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case, DAVID RADCLIFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly aggrieved, Plaintiffs v. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY, a California corporation; SEMPRA ENERGY, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01555-H-MSB (S.D. Cal.), back to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego.

On Feb. 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants, his former employers, in the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego.  In his complaint, the
Plaintiff asserted several putative class action claims against
them for their alleged: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to indemnify their
employees for necessary business expenses; (6) failure to maintain
their employment records; (7) failure to furnish accurate and
itemized wage statements; (8) failure to pay wages in a timely
manner to current employees; (9) failure to pay wages due at the
end of employment; and (10) unfair and unlawful business
practices.

Additionally, the Plaintiff brought an eleventh cause of action
under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").
With his PAGA action, he seeks recover civil penalties on behalf of
employees who were similarly aggrieved by the Defendants.

On Aug. 11, 2020, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court on the grounds that Section 301 of the Labor-Management
Relations Act ("LMRA") preempted the Plaintiff's overtime and meal
period claims in part because he was subject to a collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") during the relevant periods of the
lawsuit.

On Sept. 25, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel the
arbitration of the Plaintiff's non-PAGA claims.  The Court granted
the Defendants' motion, compelled the Plaintiff to submit his
non-PAGA claims to arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration
agreement, and subsequently dismissed those claims without
prejudice.  The Court also declined to stay the proceedings on the
Plaintiff's PAGA claim.

With the instant motion, the Plaintiff asks the Court to remand his
PAGA claim back to the state court where the action originated.

The parties dispute whether the Court has original jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's PAGA claim and, therefore, whether remand is
even authorized the first place.  As the Plaintiff argues, the
Court does not have original jurisdiction over his cause of action
under PAGA.  Therefore, he reasons, the Court should deny
supplemental jurisdiction over his PAGA claim, the lone claim still
pending before the Court, because his federal claims were dismissed
by the Court early in the litigation.  On the other hand, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's PAGA claim falls within the
Court's federal question jurisdiction because it is preempted by
Section 301 of the LMRA, making remand improper.

As a threshold matter, the Plaintiff argues that his PAGA claims
cannot be preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA because they are
brought in a representative capacity to protect the public's rights
under the California Labor Code.  Thus, according to him, his PAGA
action has nothing to do with any CBA that may apply to him.

This distinction, according to Judge Huff, is not persuasive.  She
reasons, to determine whether a claim is preempted under the LMRA,
courts look to the underlying character of the claim itself.  The
Plaintiff's PAGA claims for civil penalties are, in part,
derivative of his own overtime and meal period claims.  Thus, she
determines that, if the Court has original jurisdiction over these
predicate claims, it also has original jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's PAGA claim.  To find otherwise would allow for the
artful pleading of PAGA claims--premised on Labor Code violations
-- to circumvent congressional intent regarding collective
bargaining agreements and preemption.

Next, the Plaintiff's PAGA claim seeks civil penalties in part for
the Defendants' alleged violation of California Labor Code section
510, which regulates the payment of overtime wages.  The Defendants
argue that the Plaintiff's PAGA cause of action is preempted
because he is subject to a CBA that is expressly exempted from
section 510.

Judge Huff holds that Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146,
1152 (9th Cir. 2019), made clear that if, like in the case, an
employee is subject to a CBA satisfying section 514, his overtime
claims under section 510 are preempted.  The Plaintiff's concerns
that Curtis was decided on a motion to dismiss rather than a motion
to remand are unfounded because Curtis clearly stated that a civil
complaint raising claims preempted by Section 301 raises a federal
question that can be removed to a federal court.  Accordingly, the
Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's PAGA claim
because the Defendants have satisfied their burden to show that the
Plaintiff's underlying overtime claim is preempted by Section 301
of the LMRA.  The Plaintiff's motion to remand is, therefore,
denied on this basis.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks civil penalties under the PAGA for the
Defendants' alleged violation of California Labor Code section 512,
which governs meal periods.  Like sections 510 and 514, section 512
also expressly exempts from its terms certain employees who are
subject to qualifying CBAs.

Judge Huff finds that the Defendants have satisfied their burden of
showing that this exemption applies.  First, the Defendants are
both electrical and gas corporations.   Second, as discussed, they
have also shown that the Plaintiff is subject to a valid CBA.  And
third, the CBA contains express provisions satisfying each of the
conditions set forth in section 512(e)(2).  Additionally, the Judge
sees no reason why Curtis should not be extended to preempt meal
period claims made by an employee who falls within the exemption
set forth in section 512(e), nor does the Plaintiff present any
such reason.  At bottom, both sections 512 and 514 have nearly
identical exemptions that make the rights they confer negotiable.

Accordingly, because the Defendants have shown that the exemption
in section 512(e) applies in the case, the Plaintiff's meal period
rights exist solely because of his CBA.  As such, his PAGA action,
which is predicated on these rights, is preempted by Section 301 of
the LMRA and falls within the Court's original jurisdiction.  The
Plaintiff's motion to remand is, therefore, also denied on this
basis.

For these foregoing reasons, Judge Huff denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1w619sfu from Leagle.com.


SCOTT CREDIT: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Toth Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNA TOTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOTT CREDIT UNION and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-00306-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P.
McGlynn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint.

Plaintiff Toth filed a proposed class action Complaint alleging
that Defendants, Scott Credit Union and Does 1-100 ("SCU"), charged
SCU members fees that ran counter to SCU's own contracts and
violated state and federal laws.  SCU is a federally-chartered
Illinois-based credit union with branches in Illinois and Missouri
that offers its members checking accounts along with debit cards
for transactions on the accounts.

During the 10-year period prior to the filing of the suit, Toth had
a checking account with SCU.  She alleges that SCU assessed
overdraft fees even though her account had sufficient funds to
cover the transactions and that this practice is contrary to the
express terms SCU contracted for with members.  Toth further claims
that SCU charged multiple NSF fees for one purchase when retailers
re-submitted the same transaction, also contrary to the contract
terms.

Ms. Toth claims that these practices breached the terms of the
contracts governing SCU's overdraft and NSF program and that it
violated Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA")
because SCU failed to properly disclose these policies to
customers.  Additionally, Toth alleges that SCU breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and engaged in
unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("ICFA").  She also asserts quasi-contract claims for equitable
relief in the alternative to her breach of contract claim.

SCU moves to dismiss the breach of contract claims, arguing that
the Account Agreement and Opt-In Agreement, construed together,
unambiguously state that SCU would use the available balance method
in assessing overdraft fees.  It also contends that multiple NSF
fees were contemplated in the documents.  SCU also moves to dismiss
the Regulation E claim on the ground that it is untimely.  It
additionally moves to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing claims, quasi-contract claims, and ICFA claim on
the grounds that they cannot be maintained where Toth has conceded
that an express contract controls the parties' relationship.

Judge McGlynn granted in part and denied in part SCU's Motion to
Dismiss ("MTD").  He dismissed with prejudice Toth's (i) Count I
claim for breach of contract on overdraft fees, (ii) Toth's Count
II claim for breach of contract on NSF fees governed by the 2017
and 2019 Account Agreements, (iii) Count I and II claims for breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iv) Count V
claim under EFTA, and (v) Count VI claim under ICFA.  He dismissed
without prejudice Toth's Count III and IV claims for unjust
enrichment and "money had and received."  Toth's breach of contract
claims related to NSF fees governed by the 2013 Account Agreement
may proceed.

Among other things, Judge McGlynn finds that Toth's Complaint
asserts that she entered into binding contracts with SCU and SCU
failed in its performance of those contracts.  Her claims for
unjust enrichment and "money had and received" are not, by function
of the way the Complaint is written, alternative theories where no
express contract exists.  Toth incorporated her breach of contract
allegations into these equitable claims.  Consequently, Toth's
claims for unjust enrichment and "money had and received" are
dismissed without prejudice and Toth is granted leave to replead if
she can sufficiently allege that she meets the elements of a
properly stated unjust enrichment claim and "money had and
received" claim.

As to Toth's breach of contract claims related to NSF fees governed
by the 2013 Account Agreement, Judge McGlynn finds that the
language in these provisions, taken together, gives warning to
members that SCU cannot control merchant reprocessing of returned
items, giving greater clarity to what qualifies as an item and what
"per item" includes when SCU charges an NSF fee.  The disclaimer
itself shows that SCU now includes returned items reprocessing by
the merchant as an item capable of triggering an NSF fee.  So, in
the context of the 2017 Account Agreement, SCU did not breach by
charging its members an NSF fee every time a merchant presented an
item for payment against insufficient available funds.

Accordingly, relief is foreclosed and Toth's claim for breach is
dismissed with prejudice for NSF breach claims governed by the 2017
and 2019 Account Agreements.  The rest of SCU's motion to dismiss
related to Toth's breach of contract claim regarding NSF fees
governed by the 2013 Account Agreement is denied and that part of
the claim may proceed.

Plaintiff Toth has 14 days to file an amended complaint based on
the Court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y72d6n4v from Leagle.com.


SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smoky Mountain Knife
Works, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Smoky Mountain Knife
Works, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01446 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Smoky Mountain Knife Works -- https://www.smkw.com/ -- is a knife
store offering folding knives, fixed knives, and all types of
knives for sale, from Case, Buck, SOG, Benchmade, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces DualSense Controller Drifting Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sony is joining other big names in the gaming industry in being on
the receiving end of a lawsuit alleging its DualSense controllers
are drifting due to a hardware defect. The newest class action has
been filed by law firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of named plaintiff Lmarc Turner and other affected
consumers and claims that Sony is "selling defective DualSense
controllers which suffer from joysticks that register movement
without player input," according to court documents.

The lawsuit explains further, "Specifically, the DualSense
controllers that are used to operate the PS5 contain a defect that
results in characters or gameplay moving on the screen without user
command or manual operation of the joystick. This defect
significantly interferes with gameplay and thus compromises the
DualSense controller's core functionality."

The gaming console launched in November of last year, and just two
weeks after it hit the market, a video demonstrating the DualSense
drift was posted on Reddit. This video was followed by several
others.

The latest lawsuit claims Sony is "aware of the DualSense being
faulty due to complaints already filed, but also that consumers
must pay the shipping fees to send a DualSense controller to Sony
for repair even though they are still under warranty." It also
states, "Customers are experiencing long wait times and having to
deal with a maze of pre-recorded phone prompts before finally
speaking with an agent concerning repairs for DualSense controller
drift."

Around the same time that DualSense began to take heat for its
issues, Microsoft and Nintendo were fending off reports of their
own game controller drifting issues, which both companies compelled
plaintiffs to settle through arbitration. Turner has reportedly
already written a letter to Sony informing the company he is opting
out of resolving the litigation through arbitration, but it is
unclear whether his wishes will be upheld. "Had Plaintiff been
aware of the drift defect prior to purchasing his PS5, he otherwise
would not have purchased the PS5, or would have paid substantially
less for it," court documents state.

Nintendo's Switch joysticks were also fundamentally flawed,
according to an expert that evaluated them last fall, stating for
the court, "As the steel brushes inside of the joystick move back
and forth, they rub away the soft carbon material that makes up the
pad, which changes its electrical resistance and leads the drifting
phenomenon. The difference in surface hardness between the steel
brush and the carbon pad results in excessive wear debris that
collects on the steel brush tips. This transferred debris
exacerbates the wear of the pad. The wear of the carbon (a known
soft material) by the steel brushes (a known hard material)
inevitably causes the joysticks to fail."

It is unclear why there have been so many issues with flawed
hardware across gaming consoles as of late. The Sony complaint is
demanding a jury trial as well as monetary relief "for damages
suffered, declaratory relief, and public injunctive relief. [GN]

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Zenoff Named Lead in Wasa Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WASA MEDICAL HOLDINGS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS,
INC., HENRY JI, and MARK R. BRUNSWICK, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-0966-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
Movant Andrew Zenoff's motion for Lead Plaintiff and appointment of
Lead Counsel.

On May 26, 2020, the action was filed in the Court alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sorrento shares from
May 15, 2020, through May 22, 2020.  Specifically, the action
alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and/or misleading statements, and failing
to disclose material adverse facts relating to its announcement
that the Company had discovered an antibody that had demonstrated
100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection.

On June 11, 2020, Calvo v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No.
20-cv-1066 ("Calvo Action") was filed in the District with similar
allegations on behalf of investors who purchased Sorrento common
stock during the same Class Period.  The Wasa Action, together with
the Calvo Action, seek to recover damages on behalf of Sorrento
investors during the same Class Period.

Presently before the Court are six motions to consolidate, appoint
Lead Plaintiff, and appoint Lead Counsel from movants Dr. Dean
Roller, the SRNE Investor Group, Mike Nguyen, Andrew Zenoff, Thomas
Hammond, and Jing Li.  Movants Dr. Roller, Nguyen, and Hammond do
not oppose the motions, recognizing they do not have the largest
financial interest in the litigation.  Competing movants the SRNE
Investor Group, Zenoff, and Li, however, filed oppositions to the
motions.

First, all the movants request that the Court consolidate the Wasa
and Calvo Actions.  Under the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4, et seq., if multiple actions involving "substantially the
same claim or claims" are filed with a court, the court tasked with
selecting the Lead Plaintiff should postpone that selection "until
after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.  As
soon as practicable after such decision is rendered, the court will
appoint the most adequate plaintiff as lead plaintiff for the
consolidated actions in accordance with this paragraph.

Judge Battaglia finds that the Wasa and the Calvo Actions assert
claims against the same Defendants and involve common questions of
law and fact.  Both actions involve similar allegations on behalf
of investors who purchased Sorrento common stock during the same
Class Period.  Thus, in the interest of judicial economy,
consolidation is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42.  Accordingly, the Judge grants the parties' motions to
consolidate.

Next, Judge Battaglia addresses the motions for appointment of Lead
Plaintiff.  He explains that the PSLRA creates a rebuttable
presumption that the most adequate plaintiff should be the
plaintiff who: (1) has filed the complaint or brought the motion
for appointment of lead counsel in response to the publication of
notice, (2) has the "largest financial interest" in the relief
sought by the class, and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23").  The presumption
may be rebutted only upon proof that the presumptive lead
plaintiff: (1) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class or (2) is subject to "unique defenses" that render
such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.

Under the PSLRA, a plaintiff who files a securities litigation
class action must provide notice to class members via publication
in a widely-circulated national business-oriented publication or
wire service within 20 days of filing the complaint.  In the case,
all the movants timely moved for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and
therefore they all easily satisfy the procedural requirements
necessary to serve as Lead Plaintiff.

Next, pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court will be guided by a
presumption that the most adequate lead plaintiff is the class
member who has "the largest financial interest in the relief sought
by the class."  Based on the briefing submitted, it appears Li is
the movant with the largest loss -- $454,341 -- Judge Battaglia
finds.  As such, Li has the largest financial interest at stake,
and is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff.  The next question to be
addressed is whether Li also meets the Rule 23 requirements.  If
not, Judge Battaglia repeats the process with the movant with the
next largest financial stake, until a typical and adequate Lead
Plaintiff is ascertained.

Because he concludes that Li does not satisfy the adequacy
requirement, Judge Battaglia then considers whether the movant with
the next largest financial stake, the SRNE Investor Group,
satisfies Rule 23's requirements.  He also concludes the group does
not.  Because he determined that the SRNE Investor Group does not
meet the adequacy requirement of Rule 23, he must proceed to the
movant with the next largest financial interest to determine
whether that plaintiff satisfies the Rule 23 requirements.  Judge
Battaglia concludes that Zenoff has the next largest financial
interest in the litigation and satisfies both Rule 23 requirements,
making him the most appropriate movant to appoint as Lead
Plaintiff.

Zenoff's claimed loss is $195,500.  While the amount is less than
Li's financial interest, Zenoff's alleged monetary damage is
nevertheless larger than the loss suffered by any of SRNE Investor
Group's individual members.  And, none of the competing movants
mount a meaningful attack on Zenoff's typicality or adequacy to
serve as Lead Plaintiff.  His experience in investing in
securities, coupled with his extensive background with leadership
and management, makes him a suitable candidate for Lead Plaintiff.
In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption of Zenoff as Lead Plaintiff.

Finally, the PSLRA provides that the "most adequate plaintiff
shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain
counsel to represent the class."  Zenoff wishes to appoint Robbins
Geller as Lead Counsel in the case.  With more than 200 attorneys
in offices nationwide, Robbins Geller has prosecuted numerous
securities litigations and securities fraud class actions
successfully on behalf of investors, including obtaining recoveries
in excess of one billion dollars.  Therefore, Judge Battaglia finds
Robbins Geller has the resources and experience to effectively
manage the class litigation.  Thus, Robbins Geller is appointed as
Lead Counsel.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Battaglia granted Zenoff's motion
for consolidation of related actions, appointment as Lead
Plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel in its entirety.
He denied movants Dean Roller, the SRNE Investor Group, Mike
Nguyen, Thomas Hammond, and Jing Li's motions to appoint Lead
Plaintiff and to appoint Lead Counsel.  Mike Nguyen's motion, Doc.
No. 5, in the Calvo Action, Case. No. 20-cv-01066-AJB-DEB, is also
denied.

Judge Battaglia orderd as follows:

      1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Wasa
Medical Holdings v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. et al.,
20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, and Calvo v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. et
al., 20-cv-01066-AJB-DEB, and all related actions are consolidated
for all purposes.  The Order will apply to the Consolidated Action
and to each case that relates to the same subject matter that is
subsequently filed in the District or is transferred to the
District and is consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

      2) A Master File is established for this proceeding.  The
Master File will be Case No. 20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB.  The Clerk of
Court will file all pleadings in the Master File and note such
filings on the Master Docket.

      3) Every pleading in the Consolidated Action will bear the
following caption: IN RE SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB.

      4) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Andrew
Zenoff is appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Consolidated
Action.

      5) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Andrew
Zenoff's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead
Counsel for the class is approved.  The Lead Counsel will have the
authority to speak for all the Plaintiffs and the class members in
all matters regarding the litigation, including, but not limited
to, pre-trial proceedings, motion practice, trial, and settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kdws9tpk from Leagle.com.


SPRAGUE OPERATING: Cruz Suit Seeks Prevailing Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN CRUZ and SEKHAR SAMAROO, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. SPRAGUE OPERATING RESOURCES
LLC, and STAR ENERGY TRANSPORTATION, INC., and/or any other
entities that contracted or are affiliated with SPRAGUE OPERATING
RESOURCES LLC or STAR ENERGY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No.
151242/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 4, 2021) seeks to
recover prevailing wages and supplemental benefits that should have
paid for the transportation and delivery of fossil fuel to
government facilities throughout New York.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class
consisting of each and every other person who performed work as a
Fuel Oil, Coal, Fuel Gas, Petroleum Product Chauffer, in connection
with the transporting and delivering of fossil fuel to Government
Buildings throughout New York in furtherance of contracts Sprague
entered into for the transportation and delivery of fossil fuels to
Government Buildings.

The government facilities include public schools, fire and police
stations, government office buildings, government operated vehicle
storage and maintenance facilities, and courthouses (Government
Buildings).

The Plaintiffs contend that prevailing wage schedules published by
the NYC Comptroller were made a part of the Sprague Contracts for
the benefit of the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Putative
Class. They alleges that Sprague breached these contracts by
willfully failing to pay or ensure that the Plaintiffs and the
other members of the Putative Class were paid the prevailing rates
of wages and supplemental benefits for all labor performed
transporting and delivering fuel oil, fuel gas, and other petroleum
product to the Government Buildings. The Plaintiffs say that by
reason of its breach of contract, Sprague is liable to them and the
other members of the Putative Class in the amount to be determined
at the trial, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Cruz is an individual residing in Queens, New York who
has performed fossil fuel transport and delivery for one or both
Defendants since 2015. Plaintiff Samaroo is an individual residing
in Bronx, New York who performed fossil fuel transport and delivery
for one or both Defendants since 2013.

Star Energy is engaged in the fuel transport and delivery business.
Sprague Operating Resources is engaged in the fossil fuel
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          James Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street -- Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-943-9080

               - and -

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue -- 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Partly Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms in part
and reverses in part the district court's order dismissing the
case, IN RE: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION. STICHTING
DEPOSITARY APG DEVELOPED MARKETS EQUITY POOL, STICHTING DEPOSITARY
APG FIXED INCOME CREDITS POOL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SYNCHRONY
FINANCIAL, MARGARET M. KEANE, BRIAN D. DOUBLES, THOMAS M. QUINDLEN,
DAVID MELITO, PAGET ALVES, ARTHUR COVIELLO, JR., WILLIAM GRAYLIN,
ROY GUTHRIE, RICHARD HARTNACK, JEFFREY NAYLOR, LAUREL RICHIE,
OLYMPIA SNOWE, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BLAYLOCK VAN,
LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., R.
SEELAUS & CO., INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-1352, 20-1352-cv (2d Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credits Pool
were appointed Lead Plaintiffs in the putative class action
against, inter alia, Synchrony.  Stichting is allegedly one of the
largest institutional investors in the world, and purchased shares
of publicly traded Synchrony stock between Oct. 21, 2016 and Nov.
1, 2018.  It also purchased Synchrony 3.95% bonds due 2027
("Notes") traceable to Synchrony's Dec. 1, 2017 note offering.

Defendant-Appellee Synchrony is a Delaware corporation that
operates in the consumer financial services industry.  For the
relevant period, Margaret M. Keane was Synchrony's CEO and
President, Brian D. Doubles was Synchrony's CFO and Executive VP,
and Thomas M. Quindlen was another EVP and Synchrony's CEO of
Retail Cards.  All three, along with Synchrony, are Defendants to
Stichting's Exchange Act claims ("Exchange Act Defendants").

Stichting brought its Securities Act claim against Keane, Doubles,
and the following additional individuals: David Melito, Synchrony's
Senior Vice President ("SVP"), Chief Accounting Officer ("CAO"),
and Controller, and Paget Alves, Arthur Coviello, Jr., William
Graylin, Roy Guthrie, Richard Hartnack, Jeffrey Naylor, Laurel
Richie, and Olympia Snowe, all members of Synchrony's Board of
Directors ("BOD").  It also named several financial institutions as
defendants to the Securities Act claim.  They were all allegedly
involved with the Offering: Barclays Capital Inc.; Mizuho
Securities USA LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; TD Securities (USA)
LLC; Blaylock Van, LLC; CastleOak Securities, L.P.; Mischler
Financial Group, Inc.; R. Seelaus & Co., Inc.; and The Williams
Capital Group, L.P. ("Securities Act Defendants").

Synchrony is the largest provider of private label credit cards
("PLCC") in the United States. A PLCC bears the name of a specific
retailer (e.g., Sam's Club, Amazon, Lowe's) and can be used only
for purchases with that retailer.   Within the triangle of
retailer, Synchrony, and consumers, each actor experiences
different incentives and rewards.  One of Synchrony's most
important retail partners was Walmart.  Indeed, Stichting alleges
that Walmart was so significant to Synchrony's business that
Synchrony maintained an office in Arkansas, near Walmart's
headquarters.

Between 2011 and 2016, Synchrony allegedly converted a number of
Walmart PLCC-holders to Dual Cardholders, pursuant to its "low and
grow" strategy.  By 2016, the "low and grow" strategy began to
backfire.  Nevertheless, Synchrony representatives continued to
publicly maintain that any changes to its underwriting standards
were minimal.  On April 28, 2017, Synchrony announced a 14% decline
in annual net income.  It attributed the loss to its poorly
performing loan portfolio, citing higher net charge-off rates.
Following the announcement, Synchrony's stock price dropped nearly
16%.

Stichting brought claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 of Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
regulations against the Exchange Act Defendants and Sections 20A
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Keane, Doubles, and Quindlen.
In addition to the officers' oral statements, Stichting alleges
material misrepresentations in registration documents submitted to
the SEC in 2016 and 2017 in connection with the Offering.

Stichting cites Synchrony's assertions in its 2016 Form 10-K that
it benefits from longstanding and collaborative relationships with
partners, including some of the nation's leading retailers and
manufacturers, and its practices align Synchrony's interests with
those of its partners.  Synchrony also stated that it had "stable
asset quality," that the credit environment remained favorable
during 2016, that it did not anticipate making "significant
changes" to its underwriting standards, and net charge-off rates
remained "relatively stable."  These written statements underlie
Synchrony's Securities Act claims, brought under Sections 11 and
15.

The district court consolidated the instant action with two
shareholder derivative actions, but later granted a motion by
derivative Plaintiffs to separate the cases.  Stichting then filed
an amended complaint.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules 9 and 12(b)(6).  While the motion to dismiss was
pending, Stichting filed a motion for a partial modification of the
discovery stay on the case, pursuant to the PSLRA.  The district
court issued a ruling and order dismissing the case in its entirety
and a text order dismissing the motion to modify the PSLRA
discovery stay as moot.

In its ruling and order on the motion to dismiss, the district
court divided the allegations into statements made before and after
April 28, 2017, the date when Synchrony first began disclosing
disappointing returns resulting from its poorly performing credit
portfolio.  It explained that phrases like "stable asset quality,"
"relatively stable" net charge-off rates, and "disciplined"
underwriting were not material misstatements that an investor could
reasonably have relied upon when the total mix of public
information disclosed contextualizing details about the
underwriting changes.

According to the district court, sufficient cautionary language
existed elsewhere in the disclosures to make these purported
"omissions" or "misstatements" immaterial.  Moreover, on earnings
calls, Synchrony officers repeatedly mentioned that Synchrony was
"always making tweaks and refinements" to their underwriting
standards, sufficiently contextualizing other adjectives like
"consistent" or "disciplined."  In any event, according to the
district court, many of the cited phrases and adjectives
constituted nothing more than inactionable puffery or opinion.

The district court also explained that disclosures or admissions
made after April 28, 2017 could not constitute evidence of earlier
alleged misrepresentations because the Plaintiffs may not "proceed
with allegations of fraud by hindsight."  Stichting must do more
than allege that the Defendants could not have actually believed
that loan loss reserves were adequate because they later increased
reserves.

As for comments regarding Synchrony's relationships with retail
partners, the district court concluded that all of them were not
more than "vague statements of optimism or expressions of opinion."
Because they were too general to create a duty to disclose or
further update investors on the state of renegotiations with
Walmart and other partners, Synchrony did not violate any duties by
failing to explicitly warn investors that it was at risk of losing
their Walmart contract.  The district court construed Stichting's
allegations on this matter as not more than alleging "lack of
clairvoyance" as to the uncertain state of the Walmart contract
renewal. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).  In doing so, the
district court made no reference to the statements from the former
employees or the WSJ articles set out in the amended complaint.

The district court next disposed of the statements that Synchrony's
interests were "completely aligned" with those of its retail
partners as too vague to constitute a material misrepresentation
when viewed with the total mix of public information, which
admitted the consumer finance industry was competitive.  Italso
relied on portions of Walmart's complaint against Synchrony to
debunk Stichting's theory that Walmart was unhappy with Synchrony
for tightened underwriting standards; instead, it seemed that
Walmart sued Synchrony for being too lax with its underwriting
practices.  Because the district court dismissed the purported
misrepresentations on generality grounds, it did not reach the
questions of scienter and loss causation.  The district court then
dismissed Stichting's Section 20A and 20(a) claims as dependent on
plausibly alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act.

Next, the district court turned to the Securities Act claims.
Focusing on only the purported misstatements made in the Offering
materials, it concluded that the "touting" of a "partner-centric
model" was at best inactionable corporate puffery.  It also
concluded the Section 11 Securities Act claims were time-barred, as
Synchrony began disclosing its problems on April 28, 2017 and
Stichting filed its amended complaint filed on April 5, 2019—too
late for Section 11's one-year statute of limitations.   The
district court dismissed the Section 15 claim because a plausibly
alleged Section 11 claim was a prerequisite.  It also denied leave
to amend, concluding that amendment would be futile.

Stichting filed a timely notice of appeal.

The Second Circuit opines that securities fraud cases are often
complex and costly, so the pleading standards for such cases are
demanding.  However, even securities plaintiffs need not prove
their entire case within the confines of the complaint.  Equally as
important as concerns about facilitating overly burdensome and
expensive discovery and litigation are concerns about prematurely
dismissing cases where plaintiffs have plausibly alleged with
particularity the existence of securities fraud.  In applying
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Second Circuit must be careful
not to mistake heightened pleading standards for impossible ones.
Although the district court conducted a sound analysis as to many
of the instant allegations before dismissing the Plaintiffs' case,
the Second Circuit opines that one set of allegations was
materially distinct and should have survived.

The Second Circuit holds that the district court properly dismissed
several optimistic generalities about Synchrony's business
operations as inactionable corporate puffery.  But some of the
Plaintiffs' allegations paint a more specific narrative.  In
relevant part, the Plaintiffs allege that, in early 2018, Synchrony
representatives stated the company had received no "pushback" from
its retail partners in the face of certain changes to the company's
underwriting standards and credit portfolio.  However, multiple
former employees and the Wall Street Journal allegedly reported
that Synchrony's relationship with its then-largest retail partner,
Walmart, was swiftly deteriorating in 2017 because of those
changes.  The Plaintiffs thus plausibly alleged that Synchrony
misrepresented facts pertaining to events that had already
transpired, in violation of the Exchange Act, and those allegations
sufficed to survive a motion to dismiss.  As for the remaining
allegations, the Second Circuit affirms their dismissal.

The Second Circuit concludes that although it agrees with most of
the district court's well-reasoned ruling, the fraud allegations
premised on the statement about "pushback" from retail partners
were stated with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to
dismiss.  Accordingly, it reinstates only the portion of the
Exchange Act claims related to those allegations and otherwise
affirms the dismissal of the other Exchange Act and Securities Act
claims.  It has considered Stichting's remaining arguments and
finds them to be without merit.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit
affirms in part and reverses in part, and remands for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5bsbz4fy from Leagle.com.

SALVATORE J. GRAZIANO -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, (Adam H. Wierzbowski, Kate W.
Aufses, Matthew W. Traylor, on the brief), in New York City, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Gregg S. Levin --
glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, in Hartford, Connecticut,
and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

VICTOR L. HOU -- vhou@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP, (Jared Gerber -- jgerber@cgsh.com -- on the brief), in New
York City, for Defendants-Appellees Synchrony Financial, Margaret
M. Keane, Brian D. Doubles, Thomas M. Quindlen, David Melito, Paget
Alves, Arthur Coviello, Jr., William Graylin, Roy Guthrie, Richard
Hartnack, Jeffrey Naylor, Laurel Richie, and Olympia Snowe.

James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley LLC,
in Bridgeport, Connecticut (on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees
Synchrony Financial, Margaret M. Keane, Brian D. Doubles, Thomas M.
Quindlen, David Melito, Paget Alves, Arthur Coviello, Jr., William
Graylin, Roy Guthrie, Richard Hartnack, Jeffrey Naylor, Laurel
Richie, and Olympia Snowe.

Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Daniel C. Lewis --
daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, (on the
brief), in New York City, for Defendants-Appellees Barclays Capital
Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, TD
Securities (USA) LLC, Blaylock Van, LLC, CastleOak Securities,
L.P., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., R. Seelaus & Co., Inc., and
The Williams Capital Group, L.P.


TENNESSEE WHOLESALE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennessee Wholesale
Nursery, LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tennessee
Wholesale Nursery, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01490 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18,
2021).

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

Tennessee Wholesale Nursery --
https://www.tennesseewholesalenursery.com/ -- offers real wholesale
prices on quality nursery plants and woody perennial.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TENNESSEE: Bid to Certify Class in Green Prisoners Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVIN GREEN, ANTHONY HERVEY, JAMES JONES, KENDRICK
MERRITT, NATHANIEL WILMOTH, THOMAS PRUITT, and JEFFREY COFFEY,
Plaintiffs v. TONY PARKER, F/N/U SELLERS, AND TAUREAN JAMES,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn.), Judge John
T. Fowlkes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division:

   (1) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify case as class
       action;

   (2) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
       Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order Dismissing Complaint Without
       Prejudice and Granting Leave To Amend; and

   (3) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to
       amend complaint.

Certification Motion

In the Jan. 8, 2021 Order, the Court directed the Clerk to "remove
'Tennessee Prisoners' as Plaintiffs, as the matter was neither
filed as, nor certified as, a class action."  On Jan. 25, 2021, the
Plaintiffs moved to certify the case as a class action because
there are more than two Plaintiffs with all the same common facts.
Their Certification Motion offers no basis for class certification,
and the record itself suggests to the Court no plausible basis for
certification.

Judge Fowlkes finds that the Plaintiffs' Certification Motion falls
far short of meeting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)'s prerequisites to class
certification, which renders unnecessary any discussion of Rule
23(b)(3)'s requirements.  Their Certification Motion is denied.

As to Rule 23(a) numerosity, the Plaintiffs' mere statement about
there being "more than two plaintiffs" in the case is clearly
inadequate to meet Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity prerequisite.  As to
Rule 23(a) commonality, the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that
their claims and those of any putative class share a common legal
question that is capable of classwide resolution.  In fact, they do
not even explain what they refer to regarding "all the same
facts."

As to Rule 23(a) typicality, Judge Fowlkes is unable to determine
whether the three named Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same
occurrences as those of class members on whose behalf they purport
to sue.  Finally, as to Rule 23(a)'s adequacy of representation
prong, the Certification Motion is completely silent as to the
adequacy of representation prong and leaves the Court unable to
conduct the mandated rigorous analysis.

Reconsideration Motion

The Jan. 8, 2021 Order ruled that Green failed to state a claim to
relief for deprivation of prison employment and education.  The
Plaintiffs' Jan. 25, 2021 Reconsideration Motion argues that the
Order misconstrued plaintiff factual allegations.  It contends that
the Section 1983 complaint in the case alleges deprivation of
constitutional rights regarding jobs and education in society not
in prison.

Judge Fowlkes construes the Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion as
an application pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).  Under Rule
60(b), a court may grant a party relief from a final judgment
because of one of several defined reasons, including mistake or
inadvertence, newly discovered evidence, fraud, if there is a
defect in the judgment, or for any other reason justifying relief.
As a prerequisite to relief under Rule 60(b), a party must
establish that the facts of its case are within one of the
enumerated reasons contained in Rule 60(b) that warrant relief from
judgment.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion does
not fit within this framework.  The Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, newly discovered evidence,
fraud, or defect in the Order.  Their Reconsideration Motion's
theory of a constitutional right to private employment is fatally
flawed.  As the Order found, the inability to participate in inmate
transitional programs for education and employment does not violate
the Constitution.  Nothing in the Reconsideration Motion persuades
the Court that the Order was incorrect about prisoners'
constitutional rights to jobs, whether within or outside a jail.
For all of these reasons, the Reconsideration Motion is denied.

Extension Motion

The Plaintiffs' Extension Motion seeks a stay of the filing of an
amended complaint until disposition of the Reconsideration Motion.
Given that the Order previously afforded leave to amend; the
Plaintiffs are appearing pro se; and they demonstrated interest in
clarifying the Order's ruling before proceeding to the next phase
of prosecuting their claims, Judge Fowlkes finds good cause for
extending their deadline to amend.  He granted the Extension
Motion.  Any amendment must be filed within 21 days after the date
of the order and must be filed under the terms set forth in the
prior Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/125ui0fx from Leagle.com.


TFC PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked, Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JONES, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TFC PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG21087839 (Cal. Super., Alameda
Cty., Feb. 4, 2021) seeks penalties and/or damages under the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code, resulting from the Defendant's failure to provide off-duty
meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages for all hours worked,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to maintain accurate time records.

The Plaintiff contends that as a pattern and practice, the
Defendants regularly required employees to work their meal periods
without proper compensation and denied him and Class Members right
to take proper meal periods as required by law. He adds that such a
pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy is
unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by him and the
Class in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid
premium compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant. He was
employed by the Defendant as a Concierge from March 29, 2020, to on
December 31, 2020. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, he
worked as a non-exempt employee.

TFC Partners was founded in 2010. The company's line of business
includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kelsey A. Webber, Esq.
          WEBBER LAW GROUP
          333 University Ave, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 588-0683
          Kelsey.Webber@WebberLawGroup.com

TV GUIDE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TV Guide Magazine,
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. TV Guide Magazine, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01439 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

TV Guide Magazine, LLC -- https://www.tvguidemagazine.com/ --
publishes and prints magazines. The Company publishes news,
articles on celebrities, television shows, and other contents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


TYSON FOODS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Tyson Foods, Inc. ("Tyson" or "the Company") (NYSE:TSN) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 13,
2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 5, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tyson knew that coronavirus was both
highly contagious and spreading around the world. The Company
failed to implement appropriate safety protocols for its employees.
Based on this failure, the Company's employees spread coronavirus
throughout its facilities. The Company's production was thereby
hampered, including complete shutdowns at some facilities, causing
financial harm. 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 Tyson,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hefter, Esq. -- michael.hefter@hoganlovells.com -- Ryan
Philp, Esq. -- ryan.philp@hoganlovells.com -- William Regan, Esq.
-- william.regan@hoganlovells.com -- and Jon Talotta, Esq., of
Hogan Lovells, in an article for JDSupra, provided Quarterly
Corporate / M&A Decisions Update for decisions in Q4 2020.

This update is designed to highlight selected important M&A,
corporate, and commercial court decisions on a quarterly basis.
Brief summaries of each decision appear below with links to more
robust discussions.

In re Nine West LBO Sec. Litig., No. 20 MD. 2941 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4,
2020)

Summary

In 2014, Sycamore Partners Management LP (Sycamore) acquired The
Jones Group (Jones) in a leveraged buyout. The merger provided for
five different components: (1) Jones would merge with a Sycamore
affiliate and become "Nine West Holdings" (Nine West); (2) Sycamore
would contribute at least US$395 million in equity to Nine West;
(3) Nine West would increase its debt from US$1 billion to US$1.2
billion; (4) Jones shareholders would receive US$15 per share; and
(5) two high-end brands, along with another business unit, would be
sold to other Sycamore affiliates for less than fair market value.

The Jones board approved the merger unanimously. Before the deal
closed, however, Sycamore changed the terms, contributing less
equity and causing Nine West to incur more debt. Following the
closing of the deal, several stockholders filed suit. Nine West
created a special litigation committee (SLC) to investigate the
claims; the SLC recommended the company not pursue the stockholder
claims, which were subsequently settled.

Four years after the merger closed, Nine West filed for bankruptcy.
Nine West's litigation trustee and indenture trustee filed suit
against the former officers and directors of Jones, alleging breach
of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
fraudulent conveyance, unjust enrichment, and violations of state
law, all in connection with the 2014 merger. Both the officers and
directors moved to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in
part the motions.

The court began its analysis by addressing several procedural
arguments the defendants made.

First, the court found that the litigation trustee was not a
"Releasing Person" under the settlement, and thus the 2014
settlement of the stockholder derivative claims did not release any
claims he had against the officers and directors.
Second, the defendants argued that the litigation trustee's claims
were barred by res judicata based on the 2014 litigation. The court
disagreed, finding that the stockholder claims and the litigation
trustee's claims pursued different interests. The 2014 stockholder
claims alleged that the defendants sold the company for too little,
while the litigation trustee alleged that the defendants
distributed too much money to shareholders, thereby bankrupting the
company. Therefore, the shareholders that brought the derivative
claims did not represent the interests of the litigation trustee.

Third, the court found that as a matter of applicable state law,
the conclusion of the company's special litigation committee bore
only on the stockholder claims, not claims asserted by the company
or the litigation trustee.

Moving on to the defendants' substantive arguments, the court
denied the director defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against the directors. The court considered whether
the litigation trustee had rebutted the application of the business
judgment rule by alleging either (1) that the majority of the board
was interested in the transaction, or (2) the directors did not
approve the transaction in good faith after a reasonable
investigation. The court found that the litigation trustee failed
to plead that the directors were interested in the transaction.

However, the court concluded that the litigation trustee
successfully pleaded that the directors failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation into whether the 2014 transaction "as a
whole" would render Nine West insolvent. Rejecting the argument
that the director defendants had no obligation to investigate the
impact of post-closing transactions that they would not be asked to
authorize on Nine West's solvency, the court found that the
litigation trustee adequately pleaded that the multiple steps of
the LBO transaction "collapse into a single integrated plan" and
that the harm -- potential insolvency -- was "foreseeable." The
court also found evidence of recklessness, thereby precluding the
application of the company's exculpatory clause. However, the court
granted the non-director officers' motion to dismiss the fiduciary
duty claims, finding that the litigation trustee failed to allege
that the officers had the ability to halt the transaction.

As for the remaining claims, the court also found that the
fraudulent conveyance claims against the officers could go forward
against certain officers, while the claims against others were
time-barred. The officers' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claims was uncontested, and therefore the court dismissed those as
well.

AB Stable VIII LLC v. MAPS Hotels and Resorts One, LLC, No.
2020-0310-JTL (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2020)

Summary

On September 10, 2019, a subsidiary of a Chinese conglomerate (the
Seller) agreed to sell its interests in Strategic Hotels & Resorts
LLC, a company that owns fifteen luxury hotels, to Mirae Asset
Financial Group (the Buyer), a Korean financial services company,
for US$5.8 billion. Closing was to occur on April 17, 2020, but the
Buyer declined to close, asserting that the pandemic constituted an
MAE excusing the Buyer from performing and that the Seller had not
satisfied its obligation to operate the business in the ordinary
course, including because the Seller had taken extraordinary steps,
such as shutting down hotels, in response to the pandemic. On April
27, 2020, the Seller sued in an attempt to force the sale, and the
Buyer responded by filing for declaratory relief.

The court rejected the Buyer's MAE argument, finding that the
pandemic fell within a contractual MAE exclusion for "calamities"
even though the exclusion did not cover pandemics expressly.
Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court held that
a plain reading of the exception for "calamities" encompassed the
effects resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic with reference to
certain dictionary definitions of the term, among other things. The
court agreed with the Buyer, however, on the issue of whether the
Seller had operated the target business in the ordinary course. The
court found that the Seller had operated the business in an
extraordinary manner that was not consistent with the Seller's past
practice in response to the pandemic, thus violating the Seller's
ordinary course covenant, satisfaction of which was a condition to
closing. In so holding, the court rejected the Seller's argument
that management must be afforded flexibility to engage in "ordinary
responses to extraordinary events[,]" such that management should
be deemed to have "operated in the ordinary course of business
based on what is ordinary during a pandemic."

The court also found that the Seller was not able to produce clean
title insurance, as required in the contract, after failing to
disclose numerous pending lawsuits.

Pettry v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0173-KSJM (Del. Ch.
Nov. 24, 2020)

Summary

In 2001, Gilead received FDA approval for a life-saving HIV drug,
Viread® (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)). In late 2019 and
early 2020, four sets of plaintiffs sent Gilead books and records
demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporate Law. The
demands alleged that Gilead sought to protect the market for TDF by
delaying market entry of generic versions of TDF and delaying the
development of a safer substitute of TDF, tenofovir alafenamide
(TAF). The plaintiffs sought to inspect documents relating to these
allegations.

After Gilead declined to provide documents in response to the
demands, each of the plaintiffs filed suit. Gilead answered the
complaints and requested that the court order the plaintiffs to
coordinate their efforts, which the parties subsequently stipulated
to do. Gilead moved for a protective order against discovery
requests directed at it, which the court denied. The court held a
trial on June 23, 2020 and the parties completed post-trial
briefing on August 26, 2020.

Based on all the evidence before it, the court ordered that Gilead
produce certain categories of documents and pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys fees. In Delaware, "[w]hen a stockholder seeks inspection
for the purpose of investigating wrongdoing, the stockholder must
demonstrate a credible basis to suspect possible wrongdoing." The
"credible basis" standard imposes "the lowest possible burden of
proof," which does not require a stockholder to prove that the
wrongdoing "actually occurred," or "to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that wrongdoing is probable." The court concluded that
the plaintiffs met this standard, rejecting all of Gilead's
arguments, which the court characterized as largely going to the
merits of the dispute. Ultimately, the court found that the
plaintiffs had put forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
there was a "credible basis" to seek books and records from Gilead
under Section 220. In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs
leave to move for fee-shifting.

In re Mindbody, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, No. 2019-0442-KSJM
(Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2020)

Summary

Richard Stollmeyer founded Mindbody, Inc. (Mindbody or the Company)
in 2001 and became the Chairman of the board of directors and CEO
of the company in 2004. In 2012, venture capital firm Institutional
Venture Partners (IVP) purchased stock in Mindbody and, in 2014,
IVP's general partner, Eric Liaw, was appointed to the Mindbody
board of directors. Following two key acquisitions in 2018,
Mindbody's stock price increased significantly.

Before Mindbody went public in 2015, and again in 2017, Stollmeyer
communicated with Vista Equity Partners (Vista) regarding the
prospect of a take-private sale of Mindbody. Vista, however, "chose
not to engage in buyout talks at that time because Mindbody stock
was trading 'at an all-time high.'" In 2018, however, Vista changed
its mind and expressed interest in acquiring Mindbody. Following
the expression of interest, Mindbody management lowered the
Company's guidance and, on the earnings call for Q4 2018, noted
several challenges facing the Company. In response, Mindbody's
stock price fell.

Later in November 2018, Mindbody pursued a take-private
transaction, forming a Transaction Committee that hired a financial
advisor to select potential bidders, including Vista. After some
price negotiation, on December 23, 2018, the board approved the
sale to Vista, which was announced on December 24, 2018.

Following the announcement of the transaction with Vista, the
plaintiffs brought suit against Stollmeyer, Brett White, Mindbody's
CFO and COO, and Liaw, alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties by "initiating, timing, and tilting the sales process in
favor of Vista in their own self-interest" and by "failing to
disclose all material information to Mindbody stockholders' in
advance of the stockholder vote on the Merger." The shareholders
asserted that each was conflicted because: (1) Stollmeyer was
motivated by his desire to obtain liquidity and the prospect of
future employment, (2) Liaw was motivated by IVP's desire to exit
the investment, and (3) White was motivated by the prospect of
future employment.

The court declined to dismiss the claims against Stollmeyer and
White. Applying enhanced scrutiny under Revlon, the court found
that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Stollmeyer was
motivated by his own desire for liquidity and his own employment
prospects, and that Stollmeyer purposely drove down the stock price
and provided Vista with "information and timing advantages"
throughout the sales process. In so holding, the court held that
the formation of an independent committee to oversee the
transaction, standing alone, was insufficient to overcome a
pleading-stage inference of conflict. Similarly, the court
concluded that the plaintiffs' adequately alleged that White either
acted with gross negligence or reckless indifference throughout the
sales process, including in altering Mindbody's forecasts and
providing timing and informational advantages to Vista.

With regard to Liaw, however, the plaintiffs' allegations that Liaw
was motivated to liquidate IVP's investment were insufficient to
allege a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court found the
complaint lacked any allegations that Liaw was involved in lowering
the Company's guidance or in providing Vista any advantages during
the sales process.

Finally, the court declined to find that a fully informed
stockholder vote supported dismissal under Corwin. Based on the
allegations against Stollmeyer, the court stated that "[g]enerally,
where facts alleged make the paradigmatic Revlon claim reasonably
conceivable, it will be difficult to show on a motion to dismiss
that the stockholder vote was fully informed." Here, the court
found that the allegations regarding Stollmeyer's alleged
undisclosed conflicts were sufficient to defeat a Corwin defense at
the pleading stage.

In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, No. 413, 2019 (Del. Oct.
23, 2020)

Summary

Solera Holdings, Inc. (Solera), a software company, carried excess
D&O insurance policies, with coverage up to US$55 million, from
three different insurers. The Delaware Superior Court previously
found that the D&O insurance policies covered costs stemming from
an appraisal action against Solera following Solera's acquisition
by an affiliate of Vista Equity in 2016 for US$55.85 a share. After
a full hearing, the trial court determined that fair value was
US$53.95, less than what Solera's shareholders received in the
acquisition. But Solera was ordered to pay US$38 million in
pre-judgment interest, and incurred US$13 million in fees in
connection with those proceedings. Solera sought to recover those
amounts under its D&O policies. The D&O policy language at issue
related to losses resulting from "any Securities Claim," a term
specifically defined in the policy as "any actual or alleged
violation" of a securities law.

The court's analysis centered on whether an appraisal action could
reasonably be described as stemming from a "violation" of a law or
rule regulating securities and whether allegations of wrongdoing
were required for a matter to be a "Securities Claim" under the D&O
Policy. The trial court held that a "violation" did not require an
allegation of wrongdoing, and thus a demand for appraisal - which
"is an allegation that the company contravened" the right of
shareholders to receive fair value - was a "Securities Claim" under
the policy.

Reversing that decision, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the
plain meaning of "violation" indicates an element of wrongdoing and
that the wrongdoing is largely irrelevant to an appraisal action.
The statutory appraisal action, the court held, was designed to
remedy a specific problem of individual shareholders withholding
consent and blocking mergers by providing a method for such
shareholders to obtain a neutral, "independent" assessment of fair
value. The court acknowledged that there are cases in which courts
look at indicators of unfairness in the sales process in
ascertaining fair value, which could suggest that wrongdoing was an
important consideration, but held that this inquiry only went to
the weight of the corporation's evidence of fair value, but was not
otherwise relevant to an appraisal action.

In re Uber Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
GCG-19-579544 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2020)

Summary

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County
Employees Retirement Fund that state and federal courts have
concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under the Securities
Act of 1933. That decision led to a significant increase in
securities class action lawsuits filed in state courts.. In
response to the Cyan ruling, numerous corporations added a
provision to their certificate of incorporation or charter
requiring that any claims brought under the Securities Act be
brought exclusively in federal court. If enforced, these provisions
could limit or prevent plaintiffs from bringing securities class
actions in state court under Cyan. In re Uber joins a growing list
of cases in which these clauses have been tested and found to be
enforceable.

The plaintiffs in Uber brought Securities Act claims in California
state court against Uber and certain officers, directors, and
underwriters involved in Uber's IPO, alleging that Uber's offering
documents omitted material facts necessary to make other statements
not misleading. The plaintiffs filed similar claims in federal
court, but violated the forum selection clause in Uber's charter by
also bringing suit in state court. The charter provided that
federal court "shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of
any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the
Securities Act."

The court found that Uber's forum selection clause was enforceable
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including with respect
to the underwriter defendants, who were not parties to the charter.
The court found that the forum selection clause did not violate the
Securities Act's bar on removal to federal court, and did not
violate Cyan because Cyan dealt with jurisdiction rather than the
enforceability of a contractual forum selection clause. The court
also found that the forum selection clause was not substantively
unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable because Uber's
stockholders were on notice of the terms of Uber's charter when
they purchased Uber's stock, and that enforcing the forum selection
clause was therefore within a reasonable buyer's expectations. The
court agreed with the plaintiffs that the forum selection clause,
which was located deep within Uber's governing documents, was
procedurally unconscionable, but this finding was insufficient to
invalidate the clause because the court found it was not
substantively unconscionable, including because the clause did not
eliminate or otherwise limit the plaintiffs' substantive rights
under the Securities Act and only affected the forum in which those
claims could be brought. Finally, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims against the underwriter defendants involved in
Uber's IPO on the grounds that Uber's forum selection clause was
broadly drafted to cover "any complaint" arising under the
Securities Act.

Travelport Ltd and others v WEX Inc; Olding and others v WEX Inc
([2020] EWHC 2670 (Comm)) (English High Court, Queen's Bench
Division (Commercial Court))

Summary

In this case, the first English commercial court dispute which was
brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the court was asked, at a
preliminary hearing, to construe Material Adverse Effect (MAE)
provisions in a share purchase agreement (SPA). WEX Inc, a fintech
providing corporate payments solutions, entered into an SPA to
purchase 100 percent of the shares in eNett Ltd and Optal Ltd
(together, the Target) for US$1.7 billion. The Target's business
was providing virtual payment solutions, with 97 percent of its
client base in the travel industry.

The MAE provisions in the SPA at the center of the dispute operated
such that, if conditions resulting from the pandemic caused a
disproportionate effect on the Target's financial condition as
compared to other participants in the Target's industry, WEX was
not obliged to close. WEX alleged that a MAE had occurred due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The sellers, being the shareholders of the
Target, alleged otherwise and brought an action seeking specific
performance.

The central question at the preliminary hearing was which
"industry" the Target should be measured against for purposes of
determining if the Target had suffered a disproportionate impact
from the COVID-19 pandemic that could constitute an MAE. WEX
contended that the term "industry" should be construed as referring
to the business-to-business (B2B) payments industry, which is the
broad industry the Target operates in. The Sellers contended that
it was the travel payments industry (TPI), which comprises
participants who deal in B2B payment products in the travel
industry and is effectively a sector within the broader B2B
payments industry.

The court found that the word "industry" should be given its
ordinary and natural meaning because in a heavily negotiated
contract the court "must assume that all wording has been carefully
scrutinized by lawyers and is used wittingly and advisedly." The
court also considered Delaware law, particularly Akorn Inc v
Fresenius Kabi AG, No. 2018-0300-JTL, 2018 WL 4719347 (Del. Ch.
October 1, 2018), for guidance as to the purpose of MAE provisions
in M&A agreements, which indicated that they operate to allocate
market/industry risk to the buyer, and company-specific risk, to
the seller. The court noted that foreign law was informative rather
than binding, and that the parties were ultimately at liberty to
allocate risks through an MAE clause through the language they
chose.

Given the dearth of English case law on MAE provisions, this was a
significant decision, which illustrates the need for careful
drafting of MAE provisions in M&A agreements. In its ruling, the
court stated that the term "industry," in a sense, "helped no-one"
and that "it may well be that one result of this case is that
future drafters will do differently." [GN]


UBS AG: Tel Aviv Court Tosses LIBOR Manipulation Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erdinast, Ben Nathan, Toledano & Co, in an article for Lexology,
reports that in a recent decision, the Tel Aviv District Court
dismissed a class action filed against five foreign banks.

Some of the foreign banks asked to dismiss a motion to certify a
personal claim as a class action which was filed by "Hatzlacha" -
The Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society, that promotes
proper civil enforcement of economic regulation and compliance in
Israel. Hatzlacha sought to represent a group of banks, insurance
firms, funds, and other financial institutions that had been
directly injured by an alleged LIBOR manipulation, a rate-fixing
scheme, in which several major banks manipulated the London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), causing financial harm to many
financial institutions worldwide. Two private investors that had
investments in the allegedly injured financial institutions filed
the motion as indirect victims of the LIBOR manipulation.

The District Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove that
they have a cause of action against the foreign banks.

The Court ruled that there was no need for Hatzlacha to represent
the financial institutions directly injured by the LIBOR
manipulation. The Court stated that the financial institutions
allegedly injured by the manipulation are able to file claims
themselves, if they believe they have a cause of action, and there
is no room for a private, indirect, plaintiff to step in.

Furthermore, the court ruled that only the financial institutions
themselves have a credible cause of action against the foreign
banks, whereas private investors lack privity. The Court also ruled
that private investors do not own financial instruments which were
affected by the alleged LIBOR manipulation and in any case, such
financial instruments are affected by many variables and are
influenced by fluctuations in local and international economies.
Accordingly, the interests of plaintiffs, as indirect injured
parties, are remoted from the LIBOR rates.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the class action claims,
ruling that both the direct and indirect injured parties do not
have a credible cause of action against the foreign banks.

C.A. 65546-02-18, Hazlacha V. USB AG and others [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots & Attendants Classes Certified in Ward Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES E. WARD, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03423-LB (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, certifies
the Plaintiffs' two proposed classes, California-based pilots and
California-based flight attendants.

The Plaintiffs are a retired pilot and two flight attendants
who--on behalf of themselves and putative classes--sued their
employer United Airlines, claiming that United violates California
law by how it pays flight crew on "reserve" status.  Reserve status
means that the pilots and flight attendants are on call for flight
assignments (in contrast to other flight crew who bid for and fly
on assigned schedules).

Employment and payment for all pilots and flight attendants are
governed by negotiated provisions in collective bargaining
agreements ("CBAs").  The CBAs compensate flight crew on reserve
status based on the higher of (1) the time spent on flight-related
activity or (2) a minimum guarantee.

The Plaintiffs contend that this is illegal borrowing from flight
time to compensate for on-call reserve time, in violation of the
"no-borrowing" rule in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 9 Cal. 5th
762, 781 (2020).  They thus sued for recovery of allegedly unpaid
wages based on (1) unjust enrichment (on a theory of quantum
meruit/quasi-contract) for uncompensated hours (calculated by
multiplying the hourly rate by the unpaid hours on on-call reserve
status) (claim one), (2) unpaid minimum wages (for all hours on
reserve status) under the California Labor Code (claim two), (3)
unpaid contractual wages under the Labor Code (claim three), and
(4) restitution of unpaid wages for unfair business practices
(predicated on the Labor Code violations) under California's Unfair
Competition Law (claim five). The complaint has a derivative claim
for waiting-time penalties under the Labor Code (claim four) and
claims for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) predicated on the minimum-wage, unpaid-contractual-wage,
and waiting-time claims (claims six, seven, and eight).

Based on the alleged failure to pay wages, the Plaintiffs moved to
certify two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3) for California-based pilots and California-based flight
attendants:

   a. Pilot Class: "All pilots employed by United Airlines, Inc.
      at any time between April 2015 and the final judgment in
      this action (the Covered Time), who, at any time during the
      Covered Time were classified as a reserve pilot in any bid
      period in which they were also a California resident
      domiciled/home-based at a California airport, and who were
      compensated for that reserve bid period under a pay
      scenario that was not minimum page guarantee (e.g. MPG)."

   b. Flight Attendants Class: "All flight attendants employed by
      United Airlines, Inc. at any time between April of 2015 and
      the final judgment in this action (the Covered Time), who,
      at any time during the Covered Time were classified as a
      reserve flight attendant in any bid period in which they
      were also a California resident domiciled/home-based at a
      California airport, and who were compensated for that
      reserve bid period under any pay scenario that was not
      minimum pay guarantee (e.g. MPG)."

Magistrate Judge Beeler certifies Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) classes
because the Plaintiffs have met all Rule 23 prerequisites.  She
finds that (i) United does not dispute numerosity; (ii) the
Plaintiffs established a common question that predominates by
challenging how United pays its reserve pilots and flight
attendants; (iii) the named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the
classes' claims; and (iv) the named Plaintiffs' interests are
aligned with class members because their claims are identical.

She further finds that (i) the Plaintiffs established a common
question that predominates by challenging United's alleged
violation of Oman's no-borrowing rule when it pays the line-pay
value instead of the minimum-guarantee value; (ii) the
individualized factors do not affect the issue in the case: payment
of line-pay value instead of the minimum-guarantee value, which can
be determined from the pay statement; and (iii) the Plaintiffs here
seek a single injunction or declaratory judgment barring United's
continued payment of line-pay value instead of the
minimum-guarantee value.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Beeler certifies the
Plaintiffs' two proposed classes--California-based pilots and
California-based flight attendants--under Rules 23(b)(2) and (3).
Her Order disposes of ECF No. 42.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/34ner6to from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Banks Files Appeal in Martinez-Brooks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Movant Frederick Banks filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled DIANTHE MARTINEZ-BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs,
v. D. EASTER & MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-569, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New
Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on March 27,
2020, Congress gave federal prison officials an extraordinary tool
to confront the extraordinary threat posed by the novel coronavirus
within prison walls: the authority to transfer any federal inmate
from prison to confinement in his or her home. A week later, the
Attorney General of the United States urged the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to "maximize" the use of that tool as
soon as possible, stating in an April 3 memorandum that given the
speed with which the disease has spread through the general public,
and the Bureau's profound obligation to protect the health and
safety of all inmates, it is clear that time is of the essence.

The Attorney General's memo was triggered by an outbreak of
COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at the
Danbury Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury"), a low
security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and two other federal
prisons; the memo directed the BOP to immediately review all
inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors for potential placement in
home confinement, "starting with inmates incarcerated at FCI
Danbury and the other two facilities.

On April 27, the inmates ("Petitioners") filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against the Warden of
FCI Danbury and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
("Respondents"). They sought to represent a class consisting of all
inmates in the men's prison and the two women's prisons making up
FCI Danbury, as well as a "medically vulnerable" subclass
consisting of those inmates with COVID-19 risk factors.

They alleged that the only effective way to minimize the potential
devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and FCI
Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated
population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to
undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment
measures that public health and medical experts have recommended,
including effective social distancing. They further alleged that
the Respondents were violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to
use the BOP's available statutory authority to reduce the
population of FCI Danbury to mitigate the severe risk posed by
COVID-19, and by failing to take adequate safety measures to
protect inmates during the outbreak.

Mr. Banks, currently an inmate at FCI Oakdale, and who previously
filed a pro se motion to extend certain orders from Whitted v.
Easter (3:20-cv-569-MPS) to the inmates at FCI Oakdale, located in
Louisiana, is filing this appeal for review of the District Court's
Order dated January 6, 2021, returning his pro se motion submission
as deficient.

The appellate case is captioned as Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, Case
No. 21-231, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, February 5, 2021.[BN]

Movant-Appellant Frederick Banks appears pro se.

Respondent-Appellee D. Easter, Warden of Federal Correctional
Institution at Danbury, in their individual capacities, is
represented by:

          Sandra Slack Glover, Esq.
          Nathaniel Michael Putnam, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
           DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
          Connecticut Financial Center
          157 Church Street
          New Haven, CT 06510

               - and -

          David Christopher Nelson, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
           DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
          450 Main Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (203) 821-3700  

UNITED STATES: Evans Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
----------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Star L. Evans filed an appeal from the Federal Circuit's
Opinion and Order dated August 12, 2020, and Judgment dated August
13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY
HAGGART, ET AL., FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS
OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:09-cv-00103-CFL, in the United States Court
of Federal Claims.

The origins of the dispute concern land in the state of Washington
that was converted into a recreational train pursuant to Section
208 of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983. The
Plaintiffs filed suit over a decade ago, alleging that the
conversion constituted a taking of their property without just
compensation. The court certified an initial class of over 500
members, which was subsequently split into six subclasses. In 2012,
the court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding "the
government liable to certain class members within Subclass Two and
Categories A through D of Subclass Four" while also granting "the
government summary judgment as to class claimants in Subclass Four,
Category E."

The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class
regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same
grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court
held a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle,
Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On
January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and
entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement
approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of
whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs
beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement
itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its
approval of the settlement agreement from any determination
regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement.

On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed
this court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but
declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees
and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not
previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate was
issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or
groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of
motions practice in which the government sought to compel the
production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the
government individually responded to each of the fee motions on
June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART,
Husband and Wife, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, GORDON ARTHUR WOODLEY, Personal
Counsel for Kittinger Deed Claimants, DENISE LYNN WOODLEY,
WESTPOINT PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O FARAMARZ GHODDOUSSI, CLEVELAND
SQUARE, LLC, RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN
CHAMBERS, WILLIAM AMES, DENNIS J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES, LLC,
c/o David and Debra Deblois, Plaintiffs STAR L. EVANS,
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL B. JACOBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B.
LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI
ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M.
SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA
H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB,
PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 21-1658, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, February 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STAR L. EVANS is represented by:

          Mary Crego Peterson, Esq.
          Michael R. Scott, Esq.
          HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-1745
          Facsimile: (206) 623-7789
          E-mail: mary.peterson@hcmp.com
                  michael.scott@hcmp.com   

Defendant-Appellee United States is represented by:

          Lucinda J. Bach, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - (ENRD)
          150 M Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 616-9663
          E-mail: lucinda.bach@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Bruce Kenneth Trauben, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - (ENRD)
          P.O. Box 7611
          Washington, DC 20044-0663
          Telephone: (202) 305-0238
          Facsimile: (202) 305-0506
          E-mail: bruce.trauben@usdoj.gov

VIACOMCBS INC: Stockholder Class Action Over Merger Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Barker, Esq., David Callaway, Esq., Cassandra Desjourdy, Esq.,
Anthony Fiotto, Esq., and Dylan Schweers, Esq., of Goodwin, in an
article for JDSupra, report that on January 27, 2021, in In re CBS
Corporation Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Litigation, the
Delaware Court of Chancery partially denied a motion to dismiss in
a class action suit brought by stockholders against ViacomCBS, CBS
Board members and executives, National Amusements, Inc., and Shari
Redstone.

This case arises out of the 2019 merger between Viacom, Inc.
("Viacom") and CBS Corporation ("CBS"). Prior to the merger, both
CBS and Viacom were controlled by National Amusements, Inc.
("NAI"), which was, and continues to be, controlled by Shari
Redstone. As alleged in the complaint, after assuming control of
NAI in 2016, Redstone made several attempts between 2016 and 2019
to merge Viacom and CBS. As a result of Redstone's second
unsuccessful attempt to merge the two companies in 2018, a CBS
special committee sued NAI and Redstone, among others, asserting
breach of fiduciary duty claims. NAI and Redstone countersued CBS,
and the litigation was ultimately settled in September 2018. Under
the terms of the settlement, several CBS board members resigned and
Redstone and NAI were prohibited from proposing a merger between
CBS and Viacom for two years. However, just months later, Redstone
and CBS's new President and Acting CEO, Joseph Ianniello, met to
discuss a third merger attempt. As alleged in the complaint,
Ianniello's compensation was increased soon thereafter. CBS and
Viacom then engaged in a renewed set of negotiations and ultimately
agreed to merge. When the merger was announced in August 2019,
CBS's Class B stock price declined.

Various CBS stockholders filed complaints in the Delaware Court of
Chancery related to the merger without first serving a pre-suit
demand on CBS, and those lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment against
Redstone, NAI, Ianniello, CBS's directors, and others, primarily
alleging that defendants "engineer[ed]" a merger between the two
companies NAI controlled to "bail out Viacom," and provided
inadequate consideration to CBS stockholders.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the
court largely denied the motions. The court first held that
plaintiffs' disclosure claims concerning CBS's proxy statement for
the merger were not justiciable. Plaintiffs had alleged that the
proxy statement contained material omissions, as a result of which
CBS's stockholders were not given a full and fair opportunity to
decide whether to sell their shares prior to the merger. The court
held that plaintiffs improperly pleaded this claim as a class
action, which is impermissible under Delaware Supreme Court
precedent. The court also held that this claim was grounded in
fraud and that plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened standard
for pleading fraud.

The court then turned to the fiduciary duty claims. The court
declined to decide whether these claims were direct or derivative,
and thus whether plaintiffs were required to comply with Court of
Chancery Rule 23.1 and either make a pre-suit demand or plead
demand futility. Assuming without deciding that the claims were
derivative, the court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently
pleaded demand futility by alleging that a majority of the relevant
board members faced a substantial likelihood of liability stemming
from the merger. In conducting the demand futility analysis, the
court analyzed the claims on a claim-by-claim basis, and concluded
that each claim should be reviewed under the "entire fairness"
standard, rather than the more deferential "business judgment"
rule. The entire fairness standard looks at whether the transaction
is fair in both process and price, while the business judgment rule
simply asks whether a director acted in good faith as a reasonably
prudent person acting in the best interests of the entity.

The court concluded that the claims against NAI and Redstone were
subject to the entire fairness standard because NAI and Redstone
controlled CBS and "stood on both sides" of the merger. Whether or
not a control person standing on both sides of a merger is alone
sufficient to trigger more exacting entire fairness review, the
court also found that NAI and Redstone "extracted a non-ratable
benefit from the transaction," inasmuch as they were seeking to
save Viacom. The court also concluded that the claims against the
CBS board members should be reviewed under entire fairness because
the complaint pleaded facts supporting a claim that they had
"breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by favoring NAI's
interests over those of CBS's minority stockholders." The court
similarly determined that the entire fairness standard applied to
the claims against Ianniello, as he allegedly engaged in a "quid
pro quo" with Redstone regarding his compensation. While noting
that overcoming the entire fairness standard at the pleading stage
"is typically a Sisyphean task for defendants," the court found
that the complaint supported inferences of both unfair price and
unfair dealings.

Finally, the court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded
claims related to Ianniello's compensation, ruling that there were
sufficient allegations to support a claim that Ianniello was
compensated not for his service to the company, but rather for his
support of the merger.

NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF SECURITIES CLASS
ACTION AGAINST TESLA

On January 26, 2021, in Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the lower court's dismissal with prejudice of a putative
class action brought against Tesla, Inc., and two of its officers.

On behalf of the putative class, plaintiff alleged that Tesla made
a number of false and misleading statements in 2017 regarding its
production capacity for the company's first mass-market electric
car, known as the Model 3. According to the complaint, on May 3,
2017, Tesla announced 2017 production goals for the Model 3,
estimating that at some point in 2017 it would produce 5,000 cars
per week, which plaintiffs alleged Tesla knew it would not be able
to meet. In the subsequent months, Tesla repeatedly reaffirmed that
it was "on track" to meet its goal and that there were "no issues"
preventing the company from achieving the goal, even though Tesla
was allegedly aware of numerous obstacles, including problems
creating the automatic assembly line necessary to manufacture the
cars, as well as difficulties manufacturing the batteries. The
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead a material
misrepresentation that was outside the PSLRA's "safe harbor," under
which forward-looking statements are not actionable if they are
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language or made without
actual knowledge of their falsity.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court emphasized that the
definition of "forward-looking statement[s]" in SEC regulations
specifically includes "plans and objectives" and "statement[s] of
the assumptions" underlying such plans, and held that Tesla's
statements announcing a goal of producing 5,000 cars per week were
"unquestionably" within this category. Likewise, statements
reflecting that the company was "on track" to meet this goal and
that there were "no issues" that would prevent the goal's
achievement were forward-looking. In particular, because any
announcement of a goal "necessarily reflects an implicit assertion
that the goal is achievable," such "on track" statements were
"merely alternative ways of declaring or reaffirming the objective
itself." Although the plaintiffs did not specifically challenge
Tesla's cautionary statements, the court found that the statements
were sufficiently meaningful to provide protection under the safe
harbor. The court concluded that a few statements at issue in the
complaint were not forward-looking, such as a statement that Tesla
had "started the installation of Model 3 manufacturing equipment,"
but held that the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to
support an inference that those statements were false.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision
to deny leave to amend. Plaintiffs sought to add a new allegedly
misleading statement by Tesla in August 2017 suggesting that the
company was using an automated assembly line in July. The Ninth
Circuit held that even if plaintiffs were able to plead falsity and
scienter as to this statement, they would be unable to plead loss
causation because an October 2017 article disclosed that automated
assembly had not begun in July, and the disclosure had not been
followed by a material drop in price.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF SECURITIES ACTION AGAINST
SPENCER CAPITAL AS PREDOMINANTLY FOREIGN
On January 25, 2021, in Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. v. Stein, the
Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of securities
fraud claims against Spencer Capital Ltd. ("Spencer Capital") and
owner Kenneth Shubin Stein, finding that the suit was predominantly
foreign and therefore outside the scope of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. ("Cavello Bay"), which is
organized under Bermuda law, brought suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that
Spencer Capital, a holding company also organized under Bermuda
law, had violated § 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and § 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, in connection with a private offering in which Cavello Bay had
purchased restricted shares in Spencer Capital. According to the
complaint, Spencer Capital misrepresented its fee arrangement with
its portfolio manager, Spencer Management, when negotiating with
Cavello Bay. Although Cavello Bay understood that fees paid to
Spencer Management would be tied to financial gains from
operational activities or returns on investment, fees were actually
calculated based upon Spencer Capital's book value. As a result,
Spencer Capital paid Spencer Management $4.4 million in fees from
funds raised in the offering, despite the fact that it was
operating at a loss. Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that
the lawsuit sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of
the Exchange Act. The district court granted the motion.

The Second Circuit affirmed. The court first assumed, without
deciding, that the transaction was "domestic" because the
subscription agreement at issue was executed in New York.
Nevertheless, the court held that the transaction was
"predominantly foreign" and therefore barred. The court emphasized
that the claims at issue involved a private agreement between two
Bermudan entities for shares that are not listed on a U.S. exchange
or otherwise traded in the United States. The Court noted that
although the subscription agreement required Cavello Bay to
register the shares with the SEC in the event of resale, this
restriction was a "mere contractual impediment to resale" and did
not trigger a U.S. interest that Section 10(b) was meant to
protect. The court also found that the parties' invocation of New
York law in the subscription agreement was similarly insufficient
to overcome the transaction's predominantly foreign nature.

DELAWARE SUPREME COURT FINDS THAT FORMER SPECTRA ENERGY SHAREHOLDER
HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF MERGER PRICE BASED ON
DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST TARGET ENTITY

On January 22, 2021, in Morris v. Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP,
LP, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's
dismissal for lack of standing in a direct action brought against
Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP ("Spectra GP"), the general
partner of Spectra Energy Partners L.P. ("Spectra"). This case
arises from the 2015 merger between Enbridge, Inc. ("Enbridge") and
Spectra, and plaintiff Paul Morris's challenges to the fairness of
the merger price, specifically alleging that the merger ratio,
which established the price of the merger based upon the relative
value of Spectra and Enbridge stock, inadequately valued his
derivative claim against Spectra GP.

Prior to the merger between Enbridge and Spectra, Spectra's parent
company, Spectra Energy Corp., entered into a venture with a
third-party entity regarding two long haul natural gas pipelines.
The relevant assets were owned by Spectra, so the parties agreed to
a "reverse dropdown" to sell the assets to Spectra Energy Corp.
After the reverse dropdown was authorized, Plaintiff Morris, then a
shareholder of Spectra, filed a class action derivative complaint
against Spectra GP, alleging, among other things, that Spectra GP's
conflicts committee who recommended approval of the "reverse
dropdown" failed to comply with the partnership's good faith
obligations.

Plaintiff Morris's derivative action survived Spectra GP's initial
motion to dismiss, but during the discovery phase of the
litigation, Enbridge acquired Spectra Energy Corp. Thereafter,
Enbridge offered a stock-for-stock buyout of Spectra's public
unitholders. Morris's counsel then sent a letter to Spectra GP's
conflicts committee asserting that Morris's derivative claim was
worth more than $500 million and insisting that it be considered in
calculating the merger exchange ratio. Spectra GP's conflicts
committee ultimately assigned no value to the derivative claim and
the transaction was approved. The court then dismissed the
derivative claim pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

Morris filed this class action against Spectra GP, alleging that
Spectra GP breached Spectra's limited partnership agreement and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to
appropriately value his derivative claim in the merger exchange
ratio. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the claim, finding
that Morris lacked standing under the test announced in In re
Primedia, Inc. Shareholders Litigation. Under this test, to have
standing to challenge a merger's consideration based upon the
company's failure to adequately value existing derivative claims, a
plaintiff must allege: (i) a derivative claim sufficient to
withstand motion to dismiss scrutiny; (ii) that the claim's value
is material in relation to the merger consideration; and (iii) that
the claim is not reflected in the merger consideration and will not
be pursued by the buyer.

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding that Plaintiff Morris
did have standing to pursue his class action claims against Spectra
GP. The court reasoned that, generally, a merger extinguishes
standing for an equity holder's derivative claims on behalf of the
target entity, but that such holders in certain circumstances have
standing to challenge the validity of the merger itself through a
direct challenge. To determine whether Morris had standing to
challenge the merger, the court applied Primedia.

The parties did not dispute that Morris's derivative claim was
viable, as it had already survived a motion to dismiss. The parties
also agreed that Enbridge did not plan to assert the claim and had
assigned no value to it in the merger exchange ratio. Instead, the
dispute centered around whether the claim was material to the
merger value. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the lower court
had, in evaluating materiality, improperly discounted Morris's
claim to reflect a one-in-four chance of recovery and to reflect
the public unitholders' proportionate share of that potential
recovery. The Delaware Supreme Court faulted this approach for two
reasons. First, it held that courts conducting a Primedia inquiry
should apply the motion to dismiss standard and accept all factual
allegations as true. The Court held that, particularly because
Morris's initial complaint had previously survived a motion to
dismiss, the lower court's application of a further litigation risk
discount in assessing materiality was improper. Second, even if the
lower court properly discounted the recovery to reflect the public
unitholders' proportionate interest in a derivative recovery, the
Delaware Supreme Court found that it should have compared this
number to their proportional interest in the merger consideration.
Under this calculation, the Court found that the derivative claim
was material to the merger price.

After holding that Morris had standing, the Delaware Supreme Court
remanded to the Court of Chancery to address the defendant's
argument that his complaint failed sufficiently to state a claim.

THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSES FRAUD CONVICTIONS RELATED TO REGULATORY LOAN
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR "PAST DUE" LOANS
On January 12, 2021, the Third Circuit reversed the 2018
convictions of four former Wilmington Trust executives in U.S. v.
Harra, concluding that the company did not violate regulations that
require banks to report "past due" loans. Prosecutors charged the
bank and its executives with several counts of fraud, false
statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Prior to the Great Recession, Wilmington Trust, a commercial real
estate lender, issued short-term loans that typically financed
construction projects. Those loans gave borrowers the option to
make interest-only payments until the end of the loan period, at
which point the borrower could elect to repay the principal sum, or
extend or refinance the loan. In reporting "past due" loans to the
SEC and Federal Reserve, it was the bank's internal practice not to
classify extended or refinanced loans as "past due." Although the
SEC and Federal Reserve published some limited guidance, there was
no clear statutory or regulatory definition of when a loan should
be reported as past due. As a result, defendants argued that the
jury should be instructed that "to prove that any statement was
false, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
statement was not true under any reasonable interpretation of the
reporting standards." The trial court rejected defendants' argument
and they were found guilty on all counts.

The Third Circuit reversed, holding that it was the government's
burden to prove that a statement was false under each objectively
reasonable interpretation of "past due." The court held that the
government failed to meet its burden to prove that the bank's
classification of past due loans was unreasonable based on the
bank's interpretation of regulatory guidance, and accordingly
vacated defendants' convictions. [GN]


WALGREENS CO: Forth Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dorothy Forth, Lisa Bullard, Ricardo Gonzales,
Cynthia Russo, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 38 Health and Welfare Fund, International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 295-295C Welfare Fund, Steamfitters Fund Local 439,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Walgreens, Co., Defendant; Leehar Distributors Missouri, LLC doing
business as: CastiaRx, Movant; Case No. 4:21-mc-00014, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on Feb. 18, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00888 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Election Commission: Failure to
Enforce Compliance.

Walgreen Company, d/b/a Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ --
is an American company that operates as the second-largest pharmacy
store chain in the United States behind CVS Health. It specializes
in filling prescriptions, health and wellness products, health
information, and photo services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 226-1015
          Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AW LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Email: calexander@scott-scott.com
                 jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AW LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.o. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537
          Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Leib, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP - Chicago
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Phone: (312) 207-3928
          Email: mleib@reedsmith.com

The Movant is represented by:

          George B. Donnini, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG
          150 West Jefferson, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: (313) 225-7000
          Email: donnini@butzel.com


WEDDERSPOON ORGANIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wedderspoon Organic
USA, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Wedderspoon Organic
USA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01434 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Wedderspoon -- https://wedderspoon.com/ -- offers raw Manuka that's
brimming with living enzymes & potent chemical compounds and is a
flavorful, nourishing superfood that supports whole body
wellness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


WELD COUNTY, CO: Settlement in Martinez Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD HUNTER, Plaintiffs, on their
own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.),
Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the Proposed
Class.

On April 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought the case as a class action
alleging that Defendant Sheriff Reams acted with deliberate
indifference to the health of medically vulnerable persons in
custody at the Weld County Jail ("WCJ") by failing to take
necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

On April 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction.  On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on
the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion.  On May 11, 2020,
the Court issued a preliminary injunction that identified actions
the Defendant had to take to protect medically vulnerable inmates
at the WCJ.  The preliminary injunction was extended several times
and expired on Feb. 5, 2021.

On Nov. 30, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, certification of a class
and appointment of the class counsel, and permission to post the
class notice.  The Court ordered the parties to file a supplemental
brief on the issues of notice, the definition of the class, and
where objections to the settlement should be mailed.  Upon review
of the parties' supplement, the Court preliminarily approved the
proposed consent decree and final judgment, preliminarily certified
the proposed class, appointed the Plaintiffs' attorneys as the
class counsel, and set the case for a fairness hearing.

On Feb. 11, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion for final
approval of the class action settlement and certification of the
proposed class.  The Court held a fairness hearing on Feb. 12,
2021.  At the fairness hearing, the Court indicated that it would
grant the motion for final approval and would sign the proposed
consent decree and final judgment.

The class consists of "all present and future inmates housed within
the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19
Emergency End Date who are medically vulnerable."

Medically vulnerable means inmates who, pursuant to CDC guidelines
for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date
the proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to the
Court, have one or more of the following conditions: are 65 years
and older; have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate
to severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart
failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have sickle
cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe obesity (e.g. BMI
of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have chronic kidney disease and
are undergoing dialysis; have liver disease; have cancer; are
pregnant; or are former or current cigarette smokers.

The COVID-19 Emergency End Date is the date on which Executive
Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring
a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease
2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and
is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

There are no subclasses.  Key terms of the consent decree include
that: (1) WCJ will identify medically vulnerable inmates during
booking, protect them during the remainder of the intake process to
the extent possible, and provide them with a document stating their
status; (2) WCJ will attempt to single-cell medically vulnerable
inmates in the intake/transition units and will continue to limit
their exposure in the general jail population; (3) WCJ will
medically isolate COVID-19 positive inmates in a non-punitive
environment; (4) WCJ will continue enhanced sanitation and will
distribute masks to inmates; (5) healthcare professionals will
monitor medically vulnerable inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and will
provide testing to inmates consistent with CDC guidelines; (6) the
Defendant will maintain modified arrest standards to reduce jail
population and will advise Weld County police chiefs to be
judicious with jail space on a regular basis; (7) every two weeks,
WCJ will provide the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial
District of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a
list of all inmates housed at WCJ, with a request to the Chief
Judge for a docket review for potential judicial action; (8) the
Defendant will comply with data reporting requirements and the
Plaintiffs' counsel will not make additional requests; (9) the
Plaintiffs and the class will release claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief arising from COVID-19 at the WCJ, but that does
not include claims concerning conduct that occurs after the date
the Consent Decree is entered, and it does not include any money
damages claims; (10) the Defendant will pay the counsel for the
Plaintiffs $122,387.60 in attorney's fees and costs; and (11) there
is no admission of wrongdoing by the Defendant.

Judge Brimmer granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, and Final Certification of the Proposed
Class.  He denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and for the purposes of settlement only, the class is certified as
follows: "All present and future inmates housed within the Weld
County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19 Emergency End
Date who are medically vulnerable."

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge finds that the Consent Decree and Final Judgment is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly, he gives final approval to
the Consent Decree and Final Judgment in all respects and
authorizes and directs the parties to consummate the Consent Decree
and Final Judgment in accordance with its terms and provisions.

The parties and their counsel will fulfill their obligations and
duties under the Consent Decree and Final Judgment.

The Plaintiffs and all class members are permanently enjoined and
barred from asserting, initiating, prosecuting, or continuing any
of the claims released by the Consent Decree and Final Judgment.

The Defendant will pay the Plaintiffs' counsel $122,387.60 in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Consent Decree and
Final Judgment.

Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction to consider all further matters arising out of or
connected with the Consent Decree and Final Judgment, including its
implementation and enforcement.

The judgment will be entered dismissing the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1tnghyrk from Leagle.com.


WESTCHESTER METAL: Suit Seeks Prevailing Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS JIMENEZ BELLIARD, JOSE JIMENEZ BELLIARD, and ENMANUEL CASTILLO
BAEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
WESTCHESTER METAL WORKS INC., WESTCHESTER METAL WORKS II INC.,
OLIVEIRA FARMS INC., SUSANA OLIVEIRA, and DAVID OLIVEIRA, Case No.
7:21-cv-01056 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2021) seeks to recover the wages
Defendants allegedly failed to pay to the Plaintiffs in violation
of the the Fair Labor Standards Act and and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs at the
same hourly wage rate per hour worked, including hours worked over
40 per workweek, and failed to pay the Plaintiffs at the applicable
prevailing wage rates with supplemental benefits for their work on
public work projects. The Plaintiffs did not receive accurate wage
statements accompanying each payment of their wages or wage notices
when they were hired or whenever their rates of pay changed.

Mr. Belliard is an individual who resides in Westchester, New York.
The Defendants employed him as a welder from 2012 to April 2020.
Mr. Baez is an individual who resides in Westchester, New York. The
Defendants employed Baez as an iron worker from May 2013 to July
2020.

The Plaintiffs worked as welders, painters, steel detailers, and
iron workers for the Defendant.

Westchester Metal Works is a fabricator and erector of
miscellaneous metals and steel component for the construction
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  morales@pechmanlaw.com

WHAM-O INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wham-O, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Wham-O, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01449
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Wham-O Inc. -- https://wham-o.com/ -- is an American toy company
based in Carson, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: $445K Settlement in Delijanin Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELVIR DELIJANIN, individually and on behalf of: others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE INC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-7854 (LJL) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for:

     (i) Certification of the Settlement Class;
    (ii) Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement; and
   (iii) Approval of the FLSA Settlement.

On Aug. 2, 2018, Plaintiff Delijanin commenced the action as a
putative class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and as a putative
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The
Plaintiff alleged the Defendants violated various provisions of the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law
Article 6, Sections 190 et seq., and Article 19, Sections 650 et
seq., by failing to pay the minimum wage and provide proper wage
statements and notice to the Plaintiff and the Defendants' other
similarly situated employees, seeking backpay, liquidated damages,
and statutory damages.

The parties' proposed settlement resolves all claims in the action.
The Defendants filed an Answer on Oct. 29, 2018, disputing the
material allegations and denying any liability in the proposed
class and collective actions.  The parties engaged in settlement
negotiations, including private mediation, ultimately reaching a
proposed class and collective settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a total settlement amount
$445,000.  The Class Member payments are to be paid from a "Gross
Settlement Fund," which equals $445,000 less amounts approved by
the Court for any service awards to the class representatives,
attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the Court, and the settlement
administrator's approved fees and costs.  The settlement
administrator will distribute settlement payments to the Class
Members that did not opt out ("Active Class Members") pursuant to a
formula set forth in Section 3.5 of the Settlement Agreement.
Under the formula, the Active Class Members recover a payment
reflecting the weeks they were employed during the class period.
The Active Class Members will receive, on average, $475.59, with
the highest amount being $1,236.

However, the Gross Settlement Fund will be reduced by the various
awards the Plaintiff seeks in his pending motions.  Specifically,
the Plaintiff seeks (1) service awards for the class
representatives, comprised of himself and three other class
representatives, totaling $30,000 in service awards; (2) payments
for release of all claims to the same four individuals in addition
to their service awards, also totaling $30,000; (3) a payment in
the amount of $40,000 to ALS as the settlement administrator; (4)
$148,333.33 (or one-third of the Gross Settlement Fund) in
attorneys' fees; and (5) $7,383 in costs.

On June 23, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the settlement
class, preliminarily approved the collective settlement, authorized
the issuance of notice to the Class Members and granted the
parties' plan of allocation.  It also set a fairness hearing date,
which it subsequently adjourned, and held on Dec. 8, 2020.

The Defendants provided the claims administrator, Advanced
Litigation Strategies, LLC ("ALS"), with a list of the Class
Members which included, to the extent maintained by the Defendants,
the Class Members' names, employment dates, last known mailing
addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers.  ALS
determined that there were 421 unique Class Members in the class
list, all of whom had available mailing addresses, and mailed them
all Notice Packets via First Class Mail.  In summary, including the
initial and supplemental mailings, 407 out of 420 Class Members
received notice, with 25 permitted opt outs and no objections.

Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the supporting
declarations, the arguments presented at the fairness hearings, and
the complete record in the matter, for good cause shown, Magistrate
Judge Parker (i) certified the Class Action for the purposes of the
settlement; and (ii) granted final approval of the settlement
memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, as construed and modified
by her Opinion and Order.

Magistrate Judge Parker certified the Class and collective for
purposes of settlement and approved the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement as construed and modified.  The collective
consists of all hourly, tipped, front-of-house employees of
Defendants' New York City restaurants employed from Aug. 28, 2012
and June 23, 2020.

The Gross Settlement Fund for payment to Active Class Members is
$445,000.  The Plaintiff's requests for (1) service awards totaling
$30,000; (2) release payments totaling $30,000; (3) a payment in
the amount of $40,000 to ALS, the settlement administrator; (4)
$148,333.33 in attorneys' fees; and (5) $7,383 in costs are
granted.  Thus, the Judge Parker approved awards, totaling
$255,716.33, which are to be deducted from the Gross Settlement
Fund amount of $445,000.

The parties will proceed with the administration of the settlement
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  Pursuant
to Section 2.9 of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have
additionally requested, and Judge Parker ordered settlement
administrator ALS to distribute settlement checks to all the Active
Class Members as listed in Exhibit A to the Order.  Further, she
ordered the dismissal of the entire case on the merits and with
prejudice, with each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs
except as set forth in her Opinion and Order.

The Opinion and Order will serve as the final judgment of the Court
in the litigation and will bind and have res judicata effect with
respect to all the Active Class Members listed in Exhibit A.
Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court will retain
jurisdiction over the case following the entry of this Order until
completion of the terms contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement, neither the
Order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any other documents or
information related to the settlement of the action will
constitute, be construed to be, or be admissible in any proceeding
as evidence (a) that any group of similarly situated or other
employees exists to maintain a collective action under the FLSA, or
a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or comparable state law or rules, (b) that any party has
prevailed in the case, or (c) that Defendants or others have
engaged in any wrongdoing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pvc501op from Leagle.com.


WORLDWIND SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WORLDWIND SERVICES,
LLC. The case is styled as Amando Lopez, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WORLDWIND SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
BCV-21-100347 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

World Wind Services LLC -- https://worldwindsolar.com/ -- operates
as a renewable energy maintenance company. The Company offers
electrical construction, light installations, tower wiring, medium
voltage terminations and splicing, foundation grounding,
transformer testing, mechanical completion, and scheduled
maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq.
          REMEDY LAW GROUP LLP
          610 E Providencia Ave Apt B,
          Burbank, CA 91501-2495
          Phone: (818) 422-5941
          Email: andy@remedylawgroup.com


ZERO SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zero Skateboards LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Zero Skateboards LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01430 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021).

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

Zero Skateboards -- https://zeroskateboards.com/ -- offers
skateboard wheels and skateboard accessories namely curb wax, riser
pads, bearings, grip tape and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal



                            *********

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 ***