/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210225.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 35

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hull Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
A&L HOME: Asks Extension of Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
ADIGICA HEALTH: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AFSCME COUNCIL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Hoekman Plaintiffs
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Class Status Bid Filing Due July 12

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Casino-Style Apps
ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Isabel v. Reagan
AXEL GLADE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAR S SERVICES: Shaw Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Class of Laborers
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly

BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow, et al Seek to Expand Class Scope
BGIS GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
BIG FISH: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Aciton Settlements
BLUEBIRD BIO: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action
BLUEBIRD BIO: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 13 Deadline

BUILD REALTY: Investors Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
C&D SECURITY: Davis FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
CASILLAS OPERATING: Kernen Seeks Approval of Settlement Deal
CC-PALO ALTO: May 10 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
CHOWBUS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CLEANSPARK INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLIENT SERVICES: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CLOVER HEALTH: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
COOPERATIVE REGIONS: McCauley Files Suit in S.D. New York

COSTA SHIPPING: Qaoud-Pinales FLSA Suit Goes to E.D. Missouri
CREDIT CORP: Duran FDCPA and FCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CSAA GENERAL: M.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Siler Insurance Suit
CUSTOMER SERVICE: Pitre Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
CYTEC ENGINEERED: Jauregui Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

DAVID JENNINGS: June 30 Class Certification Filing Deadline Sought
DES MOINES, IA: Dunn Class Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
DHL EXPRESS: Vanegas Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
DIGITAL REALTY: McKenzie BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
DIRECTV: Mostly Averts Class Actions Over Unwanted Telephone Calls

DISCOUNT TWO WAY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Campbell Suit Claims
EHANG HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
ELKHART PRODUCTS: Production Workers Class Certified in McCoy Suit
ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson, et al. Seek FLSA Settlement Deal Approval
EXXON MOBIL: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit in California
FACEBOOK INC: May 13 Class Certification Bid Hearing Sought
FAIRSHARE VACATION: Nolen Suit Seeks Class Certification
FAMILY FOOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Deisinger Alleges
FBCS INC: Braun Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

FIRSTENERGY CORP: S.D. Ohio Refuses to Stay Smith Class Suit
FMK MANAGEMENT: Trial Unnecessary in Tessa Frank Suit
FOODSTIRS INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEICO GENERAL: Munoz, et al., Seek Class Certification
GOBBLE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

GOOGLE LLC: Alexander Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Blumberg Antitrust Suit Moved From D.D.C. to N.D. Cal.
GRAND CARIBBEAN: Arizona Court Dismisses Winters TCPA Class Suit
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims
HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California

ITO EN (NORTH AMERICA): Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. New York
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
JOHN HANCOCK: Agrees to Litigate 401(k) Plan Suit as Class Action
JOHN HANCOCK: Baker Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Ebe Sues Over Employee Retirement Benefits

KEITH PATRICK GILL: Hagens Berman Reminds of April 19 Deadline
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of March 22 Deadline
LUXIE INC: Jaquez Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Class Certification in Qasimyar Suit Upheld

MARY ANN'S BAKING: Vargas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Oregon Laborers Seek Class Action Certification
MDL 2979: Consolidation for National Rifle Assoc. Suits Denied
MELROSE GARDENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
MERCK & CO: Carver Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Adverse Effects

MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Winston Claims
MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Food Contains Aflatoxin, Foster Suit Alleges
MIKE STINSON: Gibbs Seeks to Certify Class of Virginia Residents
MINDGEEK: Faces Suit for Allegedly Hosting Child Pornography
MML INVESTORS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Massachusetts

MML INVESTORS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of Revived Painkiller Class Suit
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NCB MANAGEMENT: Blum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Sanctions in EMS Officers Suit Partly Granted

NURTURE INC: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Jain Suit Alleges
NYC HARLEM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Medina Suit Alleges
OGEE INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OLD DOMINION: Hang Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
QUEENSLAND: Class Action Over Paradise Dam Remediation Ramped Up

REALPAGE UTILITY: Moore's Bid to Certify Question for Appeal OK'd
RED PAYMENTS: Court Narrows Claims in Roller FCRA and EFTA Suit
REP PROCESSING: Robertson Seeks to Certify Class of Inspectors
RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERCO INC: Glasscock Seeks Initial OK of $1.2MM Settlement Deal

SHIPPERS WAREHOUSE: Norwood BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SHRI GANESH: Garcia Sues Over Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
SIMMONS FIRST: Faces Lococo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. Mo.
SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
SMITH & WESSON: Must Face Class Action Over Firearm Negligence

SONOMA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Suit Over PS5 Controller Drift Defects
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead COVID Class Action
SPEEDWAY LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 3
STEVEN DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dume Suit Claims

SUPERGOOP LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRANSUNION LLC: Organizations Submits Amicus Briefs to SCOTUS
TWIN CITY FIRE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Pure Fitness Insurance Suit
US BANK NA: IFCA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
US MORTGAGE: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California

WISE PLASTICS: Faces Sanchez Suit in Illinois Over BIPA Violations
[*] Class Action Settlements Launches Website for Business Claims
[*] Frydenberg Moves to "Discourage Opportunistic Class Actions"
[*] UK Legal System Lacks Generic Class Action Framework

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hull Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WAYNE HULL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00400-RMG
(D.S.C., February 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

A&L HOME: Asks Extension of Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY HOLDER, et. al., v.
A&L HOME CARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC; NILA IRBY; DAWNETTA ABBETT;
and RUTHIE LUCAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendants ask the Court for an order granting an extension of time
for them to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally
Certify a Collective Action in this case, filed February 11, 2021.

The Defendant A&L Home Care is a family-owned home health care
agency operating in Ironton, Ohio and surrounding counties in
Southeastern Ohio. The individual defendants are owners of A&L.

This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
the Ohio Minimum Wage Fair Standards Act. In the initial Complaint,
the Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were liable for additional
overtime on account of claimed unpaid travel time spent between
patient visits by certain of its employees. After learning of
problems with the then lead Plaintiff (Brooke Clark) including the
fact that she was an office employee who did not visit patients,
that she signed an arbitration agreement, and that she was engaged
in serious misconduct, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed her and
then changed their theory of the case.

The Plaintiffs, in their recently filed Amended Complaint, claim a
variety of issues on behalf of the remaining three Plaintiffs, such
as a new minimum wage claim and a claim for mileage expenses that
is contrary to the most recent Department of Labor authority on how
such expenses should be calculated. Most of the putative class
members are subject to an arbitration agreement.

A copy of the Defendants motion dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bCbapk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          M. Scott McIntyre, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
          Telephone: (513) 852-2622
          Facsimile: (513) 9290303
          E-mail: smcintyre@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory V. Mersol, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower, Suite 2000
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
          Telephone: (216) 861-7935
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: gmersol@bakerlaw.com

ADIGICA HEALTH: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adigica Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Adigica
Health, Inc. doing business as: BioClarity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00917
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Adigica Health -- http://www.adigicahealth.com/-- is an e-commerce
company focused on the development & marketing of innovative
healthcare products sold directly to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFSCME COUNCIL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Hoekman Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas P. Piekarski, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. AFSCME Council
No. 5, Case No. 0:18-cv-02384-SRN-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Richard Nelson entered an order that:

   1. The Hoekman Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is
      denied;

   2. The Education Minnesota Defendants' Cross-Motion for
      Summary Judgment is granted;

   3. The Plaintiff Piekarski's Motion for Summary Judgment is
      denied; and

   4. The AFSCME Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
      is granted.

The Court briefly addresses the Plaintiffs' requests for
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs seek
various prospective remedies, including declarations that they
cannot be compelled to pay fair-share fees without affirmative
consent as required by Janus and an injunction barring the
Defendants from violating Janus in the future. Because the
Defendants have ceased deducting fair-share fees from the
Plaintiffs' paychecks and have averred that the Plaintiffs will not
be required to pay union fees unless they voluntarily rejoin their
unions, the Plaintiffs do not have standing for prospective relief.
Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants as to the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective declaratory
and injunctive relief as well.

Hoekman has been a teacher employed by Anoka-Hennepin School
District 11 since 1997. Until approximately 2006, Hoekman was a
union member and paid full membership dues to the union
representing her bargaining unit. From 2006 to the Supreme Court's
decision in Janus, Hoekman was a non-union member and paid
fair-share fees. After the Supreme Court issued the Janus ruling on
June 27, 2018, the Education Minnesota Defendants immediately
ceased collecting fair-share fees from Hoekman's paychecks, and
Hoekman will not pay further fees unless she voluntarily rejoins
the union. Hoekman seeks a refund of the fair-share fees she paid
prior to Janus.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NyFBVC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas P. Seaton, Esq.
          James V.F. Dickey, Esq.
          Upper Midwest Law Center
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 105
          Golden Valley, MN 55426

               - and -

          Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701;

               - and -

          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Seventh Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201

The Attorneys for the Education Minnesota Defendants, are:

          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Patrick C. Pitts, Esq.
          Scott A. Kronland
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108

               - and -

          Cedrick Frazier, Esq.
          David Aron, Esq.
          Margaret A. Luger-Nikolai
          Education Minnesota
          41 Sherburne Avenue
          Saint Paul, MN 55103

The Attorneys for the AFSCME Defendants, are:

          April Pullium, Esq.
          Georgina Yeomans, Esq.
          Jacob Karabell, Esq.
          John M. West, Esq.
          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          Ramya Ravindran, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20005

               - and -

          Josie Doris Hegarty, Esq.
          AFSCME Council 5
          300 Hardman Avenue South
          South Saint Paul, MN 55075


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Class Status Bid Filing Due July 12
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYON JACKSON and MARIO
MENA, JR., v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV, LLC and MIAMI BEER
VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-23392-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Beth
Bloom entered an order amending scheduling order and certain
pretrial deadlines, as follows:

   April 23, 2021       Parties exchange expert witness
                        summaries or reports on issues of class
                        certification.

   May 7, 2021          Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness
                        summaries or reports on issues of class
                        certification.

   June 28, 2021        Deadline for completing class
                        certification discovery.

   July 12, 2021        The Plaintiffs file motion for class
                        certification.

   September 21, 2021   The Parties disclose experts and
                        exchange expert witness summaries or
                        reports.

   October 5, 2021      The Parties exchange rebuttal expert
                        witness summaries or reports.

   October 19, 2021     All discovery, including expert
                        discovery, is completed.

   November 2, 2021     The Parties must have completed
                        mediation and filed a mediation report.

   November 10, 2021    All pre-trial motions, motions in
                        limine, and Daubert motions (which
                        include motions to strike experts) are
                        filed. This deadline includes all
                        dispositive motions.

   January 31, 2022     Parties submit joint pre-trial
                        stipulation in accordance with Local
                        Rule 16.1(e), proposed jury instructions
                        and verdict form, or proposed findings
                        of fact and conclusions of law, as
                        applicable.

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, commonly known as AB InBev, is a
Belgian multinational drink and brewing company based in Leuven,
Belgium.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pJ64Ne at no extra charge.[CC]

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Casino-Style Apps
------------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed on Feb. 16 targets Apple for hosting and
profiting from casino-style apps through the App Store,
specifically titles developed by Zynga.

Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Columbia, the suit takes issue with free-to-play games that offer
micro-transactions, or in-app purchases, for digital currency or
other forms of digital goods.

Plaintiffs name "Zynga Casino Apps" as violating a number of state
statutes related to gambling, saying Apple is culpable in the
scheme by providing iOS development tools, hosting the titles on
the App Store and profiting from their sale. As the sole
administrator of the App Store, Apple allegedly "permits and
facilitates illegal gambling by operating as an unlicensed casino,"
allowing users to buy "coins" or "chips" for use in Las Vegas-style
games like blackjack, roulette, poker, keno, bingo, and other card
and gambling games.

Most games mentioned in the suit present a limited number of chips
to start, but users must purchase additional virtual funds once
that pot is exhausted. The consumer will ultimately run out of
coins or chips and "will be prompted to use real money to purchase
additional coins or chips for the chance to continue playing the
game," the suit alleges.

Importantly, according to plaintiffs, users are unable to collect
actual cash in the casino games, but they do have the ability to
win and therefore acquire more playing time. This system -- paying
money for a chance to win more playing time -- allegedly violates
anti-gambling laws in the 25 states at issue in the case.

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and West Virginia are named in the suit.

Causes of action include violation of the Civil Remedy Statutes for
Recovery of Gambling Losses and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek
an injunction, damages, restitution, and legal fees.

The suit is nearly identical to a case filed in October that claims
gambling apps violate state laws by prompting users to pay real
money to acquire more playing time. A more recent complaint, filed
in January, takes issue with the addictive nature of casino-style
games. [GN]


ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Isabel v. Reagan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DAVID ISABEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHELE
REAGAN, in her individual capacity; COUNTY OF MARICOPA; ADRIAN
FONTES, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-17397 (9th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims.

The case turns on whether Arizona residents, who registered to vote
on October 11, 2016, registered to vote in time to be eligible to
vote in the 2016 November General Election ("2016 November
Election"). Arizona law in effect in 2016 set the voter
registration deadline for the 2016 November Election on Monday,
October 10, 2016. But because Monday, October 10, 2016, was also
Columbus Day, a state and federal holiday, certain methods of voter
registration were not available on that day.

Appellant Isabel, along with roughly 2,000 others, registered to
vote on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Isabel now appeals the district
court's dismissal of his lawsuit brought to remedy the Appellees'
failure to count Isabel's and the other October 11 registrants'
votes.

Background

On October 9, 2018, sometime after Isabel learned that his
provisional ballot had not been counted, Isabel filed a class
action complaint against (1) former Secretary of State Michele
Reagan, in her individual capacity; (2) the Maricopa County
Recorder, Adrian Fontes, in his official capacity; (3) and Maricopa
County ("Appellees"). Isabel asserted a violation of the National
Voter Registration Act ("NVRA") and sought monetary relief pursuant
to Section 1983.  

Isabel further alleged that because two of the NVRA-mandated voter
registration methods--the post office and state motor vehicle
division offices--were closed on Monday, October 10, 2016, and the
preceding weekend days, Arizona residents who chose to register by
one of these methods were required to register to vote more than
thirty days before the election, which Isabel claims violates
Section 8 of the NVRA.

In response to the Secretary's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the district court, without addressing whether
Isabel had alleged a violation of the NVRA, concluded that Isabel's
NVRA-based claim failed as a matter of law because a plaintiff
wishing to assert an NVRA claim must sue directly under the NVRA,
not Section 1983. Isabel was granted leave to file a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").

Isabel's FAC reasserted his claim under the NVRA, but also added,
among other things, a claim alleging a violation of his fundamental
right to vote, again seeking monetary relief under Section 1983.
He asserted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution secures the right of qualified voters within a state
to cast their ballots and have them counted in Congressional
elections. Isabel further alleged that he, and all otherwise
eligible voters, who registered on October 11, were qualified
within the state of Arizona to cast their ballots for the 2016
November Election and, therefore, the Appellees' failure to count
their votes violated their right secured by Article I, Section 2.

Following a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
the district court dismissed Isabel's right to vote claim.  It
concluded that even assuming Isabel timely registered to vote and
was a qualified Arizona voter, he failed to show that the facts
alleged gave rise to a money-damages claim against Appellees under
Section 1983. The district court dismissed Isabel's FAC without
leave to amend.

The district court's dismissal of Isabel's NVRA and constitutional
right to vote claims are the subjects of the appeal.

Judge Mary H. Murguia, writing for the Panel, writes that the Panel
must determine (1) whether Isabel was eligible to vote in the 2016
November Election under Arizona law, and if so, whether he
sufficiently alleged a deprivation of his right to vote that
warrants monetary damages; and (2) whether the Arizona voter
registration deadline violated the NVRA, and if so, whether that
violation can be remedied under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Based on the specific facts of the case, the Arizona statute in
effect at the time, and the plain language of the NVRA, Isabel
failed to timely register to vote and was, therefore, not eligible
to vote in the 2016 November Election.

Judge Murguia points out that this conclusion alone precludes both
Isabel's claim under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution,
which secures the right to vote for qualified voters, and his claim
under Section 8 of the NVRA, which ensures voter eligibility for
persons who timely register. Accordingly, the Panel declines to
address whether Isabel adequately alleged a deprivation of his
right to vote that warrants money damages or whether violations of
the NVRA can be remedied under Section 1983, and the Appellate
Court affirms the district court's dismissal of Isabel's claims.

Notably, this rigid result is not likely to reoccur under Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Section 16-120, as amended.

In 2017, shortly after the 2016 November Election, the Arizona
Legislature amended Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 16-120--the Arizona
statute setting the voter registration deadline--to provide that
when the voter registration deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday,
or other legal holiday, voter registrations received on the next
business day immediately following the Saturday, Sunday, or other
legal holiday are deemed timely for purposes of voting in the
upcoming election. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 16-120(B) (2017). This
amendment directly addresses the circumstances presented in the
case, where the voter registration deadline fell on a legal holiday
and an Arizona resident registered on the following business day.
Therefore, the Opinion addresses only Arizona law as it was in
effect in 2016, before the 2017 amendment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mq2v6rth from Leagle.com.

Spencer G. Scharff -- spencer@scharffplc.com -- Scharff PLLC, in
Phoenix, Arizona; Nathan Fidel -- nfidel@mpfmlaw.com -- Miller Pitt
Feldman & McAnally P.C., in Phoenix, Arizona; Scott Caplan --
scott@scottcaplanlaw.com -- Law Office of Scott Caplan P.C., in
Long Island City, New York; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Timothy A. La Sota (argued), Law Office of Timothy A. La Sota PLC,
in Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellee Michele Reagan.

Joseph J. Branco -- brancoj@mcao.maricopa.gov -- Joseph La Rue --
laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov -- and Talia Offord --
offordt@mcao.maricopa.gov -- Deputy County Attorneys; Allister Adel
-- adela@mcao.maricopa.gov -- County Attorney; Civil Services
Division, County Attorney's Office, in Phoenix, Arizona, for
Defendants-Appellees County of Maricopa and Adrian Fontes.


AXEL GLADE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Axel Glade LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Axel Glade LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01494
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Axel Glade -- https://www.axelglade.com/ -- offers Spade which is
one the most efficient ways to clean ears and is the first and only
device that lets consumers look inside the ear while cleaning it
seamlessly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


BAR S SERVICES: Shaw Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Class of Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNY SHAW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAR S SERVICES
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00104-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting his motion for conditional
certification of and notice to:

   "all non-exempt hourly workers, such as load operators,
   roustabouts, swampers, crane operators, crane riggers,
   drivers and bed truck drivers employed by Bar-S in the United
   States from February 12, 2018 through the present whose
   regular rate of pay failed to include additional pay beyond
   their base hourly rate.

Plaintiff Shaw filed this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and related
damages owed to current and former employees of Bar-S Services
Inc.

Bar-S supports the oil and gas industry in parts of Colorado and
Wyoming and provides services related to Rig Moving, Water
Management Solutions, Excavation and Construction, Insulation,
Hydro Vac, Roustabouts, Welding and Fabrication, Crane Services,
Hotshot Services, and Commercial / Industrial Construction.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pJBljeat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1603 Capitol Ave. Suite 310, No. A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999-4225

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

               - and -

          Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza No. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON J. CANJAR D/B/A YEDINAK REGISTERED HOLSTEINS, 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-00181-GCS (S.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2021) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, several electronic sales platforms for
seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides,
and insecticides ("Crop Input") launched between 2016 and 2017.
These platforms aimed to provide a cheaper, more transparent way
for farmers to buy Crop Inputs by selling products acquired from
the Defendants directly to farmers, circumventing the opaque,
convoluted distribution system.

As an example, Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc.,
two leading electronic sales platforms, were extremely popular with
farmers upon launch, and both successfully raised millions of
dollars from leading venture capital firms to build out capacity to
meet that demand. However, these new platforms threatened the
Defendants' dominant market position and control over Crop Input
pricing. As a result, rather than compete fairly with these new
electronic platforms, the Defendants allegedly conspired to block
the platforms' access to Crop Inputs by engaging in a group
boycott. The Defendants repeatedly blocked FBN's access to Crop
Inputs by agreeing amongst themselves not to sell FBN products,
even though doing so would have opened a significant new sales
channel for any individual wholesaler or manufacturer acting
independently and in their unilateral best economic interest, the
suit says.

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:

          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Jamie Boyer, Esq.
          Carol O'Keefe, Esqs.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com
                  jboyer@koreintillery.com
                  cokeefe@koreintillery.com

               -and-

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          John Libra, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathon Byrer, Esq.
          Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  jlibra@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com
                  jbyrer@koreintillery.com
                  rcortazar@koreintillery.com

               -and-

          Marc Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: Medelson@edelson-law.com

               -and-

          Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
          CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA, 18507
          Telephone: (570) 342-9999
          Facsimile: (570) 457-1533
          E-mail: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com


BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow, et al Seek to Expand Class Scope
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs Jon M. Costellow, John M. Triplett, Carl
Hebert, and Bruce Hallman ask the Court for an order granting their
motion to expand the scope of the putative class to be nationwide
with Notice sent to the following putative class:

"Current and former hourly employees of Becht Engineering Co., Inc.
or Becht Field Services: (1) who worked for either company at any
location(s) within any state of the United States or the District
of Columbia between July 1, 2017 and the present; (2) who were paid
the same hourly rate for all hours worked in any workweek including
any hours worked over 40 in a workweek; and (3) who were not paid
1.5 times their hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek."

On July 1, 2020, the Named Plaintiffs filed an Opposed Motion to
Certify Collective Action seeking certification of a nationwide
class of similarly situated nonexempt current and former employees
of Defendant who were paid a single hourly rate for all hours
worked, including hours over 40 in a workweek.

Becht Engineering Co. Inc. provides engineering services. The
Company offers process consulting, reliability improvement, fitness
for service, laser scanning, technical training, and other related
services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37GPqaY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Werner, Esq.
          Mark Frasher, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          Post Office Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Telecopier: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawflrm.com
                  mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jose G. Galagaza, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1415 Louisiana, Suite 3325
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 650-0404
          Facsimile: (713) 650-0405
          E-mail: joseph.galagazajacksonlewis.com

BGIS GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21 CV3761 07
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.

BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US LLC provides commercial
services. The Company offers project delivery, professional,
workplace solutions, and real management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 9261 8
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379—6251
          E-mail: icampbell@aegis1awfirm.com


BIG FISH: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Aciton Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Washington federal judge has awarded more
than $50 million in fees and costs to lawyers representing
consumers in class actions over several game makers' allegedly
"predatory" slot machine phone games, granting the class attorneys'
bid for 25% of $199.5 million in settlements finalized last year.
U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted final approval of
class action settlement agreements and motions for attorney fees in
the consumer suits against Big Fish games and its former owner.
[GN]

BLUEBIRD BIO: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE)
securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
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, (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.

If you purchased shares of bluebird bio securities between May 11,
2020 and November 4, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at
lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or
through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss your legal rights.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

CONTACT:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 16 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BLUE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird securities between May 11,
2020 and November 4, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of bluebird bio, Inc.,
you may, no later than April 13, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of bluebird bio, Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose to investors that:

data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD
was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;

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;

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

as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
The price of Company shares dropped as much as 35% on February 16,
2020 intraday after the company announced the suspension of its
Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 studies of its sickle cell therapy
candidate.

The company suspended the studies due to a reported Suspected
Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) of acute myeloid
leukemia (AML). Bluebird placed the study on hold after receiving a
report that a patient who was treated more than five years ago in a
study was diagnosed with AML.

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

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

Contact:

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


BUILD REALTY: Investors Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COMPOUND PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., v. BUILD REALTY, INC. dba GREENLEAF
FUNDING, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00133-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action, naming
      Plaintiffs as Representatives of the Class and Subclass,
      defined as follows:

      -- The Class

         "The Plaintiffs and all other persons and entities in
         Ohio and Kentucky, individually and collectively, that
         invested in real property and were named as
         beneficiaries to a trust created through an unlawful
         real estate transaction engaged in by, through, or with
         any of the Defendants named herein, using the Build
         Scheme further described and defined herein, for the
         longest period allowed by law;" and

      -- The subclass

         "Members of the Class that had their properties
         reclaimed and resold as a result of default, without
         access to judicial foreclosure proceedings and the
         opportunity to redeem, and without receiving the excess
         proceeds (if any) upon subsequent sale of the property
         by Build;" and

   2. appointing the Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock
      & DeMarco, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

This is a proposed class action brought by five Build investors on
behalf of other Build investors who were all similarly injured by
the Build Scheme1 in which the Defendants are involved. In
violation of federal and Ohio law, the Defendants engaged or
conspired to engage in a pattern of deceptive transactions that had
the intended effect of damaging the Plaintiffs and putative Class
Members in similar fashion, by causing them to invest their monies
in real estate transactions that, in material and consistent
respects, were fraudulent.

The Plaintiffs are all Ohio limited liability companies with their
principal place of business in Hamilton County, Ohio.

Build Realty offers real estate investor services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3khicUA
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Paul M. DeMarco, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  jwalker@msdlegal.com
                  zschaengold@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Christopher P. Finney, Esq.
          Casey Taylor, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Heimlich, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Point Blvd., Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-6665
          Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
          E-mail: chris@finneylawfirm.com
                  casey@finneylawfirm.com
                  rebecca@finneylawfirm.com

C&D SECURITY: Davis FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C&D
Security Management, Inc. d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services,
and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal
Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, to certify this action as a class action, on
behalf of:

   "For the period beginning August 1, 2016, through the date of
   judgment, all applicants for employment with Defendant who:
   1) received a conditional offer of employment, 2) were
   subject of a consumer report that contained a "Level 2"
   designation, 3) who were not subsequently moved to a "Level
   1" designation."

According to the complaint, the Defendant systemically failed to
comply with the pre-adverse action notification provision of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a fundamental requirement for
employers using consumer reports (background checks) for employment
purposes.

The Plaintiff applied for employment as a security guard in August,
2019. On August 7, 2019, the Defendant extended the Plaintiff a
conditional offer of employment, pending successful completion of a
background check. Subsequently, the Defendant procured the
Plaintiff's consumer report from Sterling Infosystems, Inc., a
consumer reporting agency. Sterling designated the Plaintiff as a
"Level 2" and e-mailed the results to Mr. Brian Block, hiring
manager.

C&D Security provides integrated security solutions. The Company
offers protection programs and training services to government,
commercial, and industrial clients.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3um1iJ7at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 577-4761
          Fascimile: (813) 559-4870
          E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com
                  Amurthy@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

CASILLAS OPERATING: Kernen Seeks Approval of Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KERNEN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CASILLAS
OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00107-JD (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an Order:

   1. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes:

      "all non-excluded persons or entities to whom: (1)
      the Defendant (or the Defendant's designee) made a Late
      Payment of oil and/or gas proceeds from an Oklahoma well
      between July 28, 2016 and June 24, 2020, and (2) who have
      not been paid statutory interest on the Late Payment per
      the Production Revenue Standards Act. A "Late Payment" for
      purposes of this class definition means payment of
      proceeds from the sale of oil and/or gas production from
      an oil and/or gas well after the statutory periods
      identified in OKLA. STAT. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1)
      (i.e., commencing not later than six months after the date
      of first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day
      of the 2nd succeeding months after the end of the month
      within which such production is sold). Late Payments do
      not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner under
      OKLA. STAT. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay);
      (b) prior period adjustments; or (c) pass-through
      payments."

      The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (1)
      agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
      States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2)
      Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma
      (CLO); (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their
      affiliates; (4) persons or entities (and their affiliates)
      who are the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC)
      designated operator of more than fifty (50) Oklahoma wells
      in the month when this Class definition was originally
      filed; (5) persons or entities that the Plaintiff's
      counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7
      of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; including,
      but not limited to, Charles David Nutley, Danny George,
      Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, William L. Galbreath,
      Verdeen L. Slatten, Jack A. Slatten, Verdeen L. Slatten
      Family Limited Partnership, Neva M. Dorman, Ann Ellis
      Boles, Fischer-Jones, LLC, B.N. Taliaferro, Jr.
      individually and as Trustee of the B. N. Taliaferro
      Management Trust, Jack B. Searle, Tamara D. Searle, OGI,
      Inc., and their relatives; and (6) officers of the court.

   2. preliminarily approving the settlement agreement;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Barnes & Lewis, LLP, Nix Patterson, LLP, and
      Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, as
      Class Counsel;

   5. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
      Settlement to the Settlement Class;

   6. appointing a Settlement Administrator; and

   7. setting a hearing date for approval of the Settlement and
      application for an award of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation
      Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to the Plaintiff.

      The Settlement provides for:

      (1) a cash payment of $2,700,000 (the "Gross Settlement
          Fund") to compensate the Settlement Class for past
          damages; and

      (2) Future Benefits to the Settlement Class consisting of
          binding changes to the Defendant's statutory interest
          payment practices and policies in Oklahoma. These
          Future Benefits are estimated to have a present value
          of at least $5,000,000.00, bringing the total value of
          the Settlement to at least $7,700,000.00.

The Plaintiff initiated this action December 22, 2017, with the
filing of Plaintiff's Original Complaint in the District Court of
Garvin County, State of Oklahoma. On February 2, 2018, the
Defendant removed the Litigation to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, claiming diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and that the amount in controversy exceeded
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. On February 12, 2021,
the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint pursuant to the
Parties agreement.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3shGnVK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
          Patranell B. Lewis, Esq.
          Emily Nash Kitch, Esq.
          BARNES & LEWIS LLP
          208 NW 60th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 843-0363
          Facsimile: (405) 832-1007
          E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
                  plewis@barneslewis.com
                  ekitch@barneslewis.com

               - and -

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
          Drew G. Pate, Esq.
          Trey N. Duck, III, Esq.
          Cody L. Hill, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 N. Capital of TX Hwy.
          Bldg. B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
                  jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                  lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
                  dpate@nixlaw.com
                  tduck@nixlaw.com
                  codyhill@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
          Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
          Paula M. Jantzen, Esq.
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN
          PETERS & WEBBER PLLC
          400 North Walnut Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 239-6040
          Facsimile: (405) 239-6766
          E-mail: pryan@ryanwhaley.com
                  pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com
                  jryan@ryanwhaley.com
                  pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com

               - and -

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
          E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Whatley, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          P.O. Box 178
          Linden, TX 75563
          Telephone: (903) 215-8310
          E-mail: swhatley@nixlaw.com

CC-PALO ALTO: May 10 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA COLLINS CORK, an
individual; GEORGIA L. MAY, an individual; THOMAS MERIGAN, an
individual; and JANICE R. ANDERSON, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, v. CC-PALO ALTO, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership; and CC-DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD
(N.D. Calif.), the parties stipulate and agree, and request that
the Court order the following:

   1. The discovery cutoff deadline currently set for March 31,
      2021 be vacated and a new discovery deadline be set at the
      Trial Setting Conference on June 3, 2021 in connection
      with the setting of a trial date;

   2. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file their class
      certification motion be continued from April 8, 2021 to
      May 10, 2021;

   3. The deadline for the defendants to file their opposition
      to plaintiffs' class certification motion be continued
      from April 29, 2021 to June 1, 2021;

   4. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file their reply in
      support of their class certification motion be continued
      from May 11, 2021 to June 15, 2021; and

   5. The hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification be continued from June 3, 2021 to July 8,
      2021, or as soon thereafter as the court is available.

CC-Palo Alto, Inc is an assisted living facility in Palo Alto,
California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3usLKTJ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          200, Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: amurphy@cpmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James McManis, Esq.
          Matthew Schechter, Esq.
          Hilary Weddell, Esq.
          Andrew Parkhurst, Esq.
          McMANIS FAULKNER
          50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 279-8700
          Facsimile: (408) 279-3244
          E-mail: hweddell@mcmanislaw.com

CHOWBUS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chowbus, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Chowbus,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00916 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Chowbus -- https://www.chowbus.com/ -- is a food delivery platform
providing Asian food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLEANSPARK INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CLSK) securities between December 31, 2020 and January 14,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled
"Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can," alleging, among other
things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its
business, including purported customers and contracts" and is also
"rife with undisclosed related party transactions."

On this news, the Company's share fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to
close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby injuring
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15,
2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the 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.

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

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

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


CLEANSPARK INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
March 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased CleanSpark, Inc.
securities between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled
"Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can," alleging, among other
things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its
business, including purported customers and contracts" and is also
"rife with undisclosed related party transactions."

On this news, the Company's share fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to
close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby injuring
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15,
2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CleanSpark securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 22,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com

URL: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Deutsch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00939 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2021).

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

Client Services, Inc. -- https://www.clientservices.com/ -- is a
full service Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm offering a
diverse selection of collection and recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


CLOVER HEALTH: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 16 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Clover Health
Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.
III (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) (NYSE: IPOC) who: (1) purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Clover securities between
October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Clover
securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger of
Clover and Social Capital III.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=clover-health-investments-corp&id=2582
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the April 6, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that-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; the DOJ's investigation
presented an existential risk to the Company, since it derives most
of its revenues from Medicare; Clover's sales were driven by a
major undisclosed related party deal and misleading marketing
targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class"
technology; a significant portion of Clover sales were by way of an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage
firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

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


COOPERATIVE REGIONS: McCauley Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooperative Regions
of Organic Producer Pools. The case is styled as Lauri McCauley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, Case No.
7:21-cv-01548 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, doing business as
Organic Valley -- https://www.organicvalley.coop/ -- is an organic
food brand and independent cooperative of organic farmers based in
La Farge, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


COSTA SHIPPING: Qaoud-Pinales FLSA Suit Goes to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM QAOUD-PINALES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. COSTA SHIPPING & DELIVERY INC.,
Case No. 20SL-CC04975, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court
of St. Louis County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00216 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri's Wage and Hour Laws, quantum
meruit, unjust enrichment, and workers compensation retaliation.

Costa Shipping & Delivery Inc. is a shipping company located in
Saint Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Bryan R. Kelly, Esq.
         Timothy A. Pullin, Esq.
         WALLACE SAUNDERS
         10111 West 87th Street
         Overland Park, KS 66212
         Telephone: (913) 888-1000
         Facsimile: (913) 888-1065
         E-mail: bkelly@wallacesaunders.com
                 tpullin@wallacesaunders.com

CREDIT CORP: Duran FDCPA and FCCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRESLY DURAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
CACE-21-000862 (12), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60393-MGC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

Credit Corp Solutions Inc. is a receivables management company that
purchases and collects consumer debt based in Draper, Utah. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Seth P. Robert, Esq.
         Connis O. Brown, III, Esq.
         BROWN ROBERT, LLP
         150 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 832-9400
         Facsimile: (954) 832-9430
         E-mail: srobert@brownrobert.com
                 cbrown@brownrobert.com

CSAA GENERAL: M.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Siler Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled SANDRA
SILER, Plaintiff v. CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-96 (M.D. Pa.).

On January 17, 2020, CSAA removed the action to the Court. The
action involved an accident that occurred on November 2, 2017,
wherein Siler was driving her 2009 Suzuki SX4, which was insured
under an automobile policy issued by CSAA.

Ms. Siler filed a claim with CSAA. The value of the vehicle was
determined to be $5,654.57 and, after subtracting the $500
deductible, CSAA issued a final payment of $5,242.55 to Siler
"based on the vehicle's market value just before the loss." CSAA's
settlement letter indicated that the "market value represents the
dollar amount you could expect to receive if you sold the vehicle
in the marketplace prior to the incident." That amount did not
include title fees, title lien fees, registration fees, county
fees, or safety and emissions inspection fees, which are mandatory
fees necessary to replace a vehicle in Pennsylvania.

In the "Coverage for Damage to Your Auto" section of Siler's
policy, it stated that CSAA would "pay for direct and accidental
loss to 'your covered auto' minus any applicable deductible shown
in the Declarations." Under the "Limit of Liability" section, it
stated that that CSAA's limit of liability is the lowest of: (1)
"Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property"; or (2)
"Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other
property of like kind and quality." Actual Cash Value ("ACV") is
not defined in the policy.

Ms. Siler brings the action on behalf of herself and other putative
class members, alleging that CSAA systematically underpaid
policyholders by refusing to pay for title, title lien,
registration, county, and safety and emissions inspection fees on
all total loss vehicles when calculating ACV. She alleges these
fees are "mandatory, unavoidable fees" that are "incontrovertibly
part of the costs to replace a total loss vehicle." CSAA's refusal
to pay them, Siler alleges, is a breach of CSAA's insurance
policies, which requires them to pay ACV on total loss claims. She
seeks both repayment of the costs and fees that should have been
calculated in the ACVs and injunctive relief.

On February 19, 2020, CSAA filed a motion to dismiss. Siler filed a
brief in opposition on March 26, 2020. CSAA has filed a reply
brief.

On July 15, 2020, Siler filed a notice of supplemental authority,
alerting the Court to a recent similar case in the Middle District
of Florida. She attached Sos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.
14-cv-890, 2020 WL 5534483 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 8, 2020), in which the
court held the defendant had to pay the ACV or replace the vehicle
where the policy stated that, if there was a total loss to the
auto, the defendant must pay one of those two things.

On July 20, 2020, CSAA filed its own notice of supplemental
authority, attaching two cases which, it contended, presented
identical circumstances as the underlying case. These cases were
Pappas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, No. 20-cv-983, 2020 WL 3303004
(N.D.Ill. June 18, 2020), and Pieczonka v. Progressive.

On July 22, 2020, Siler filed a "response" to CSAA's supplemental
authority, objecting to CSAA's representation that the two cases
presented "identical circumstances." CSAA filed a letter the
following day objecting to Siler's response arguing that there is
no authority for such a filing in the Local Rules. CSAA
subsequently filed three more notices of supplemental authority.
The supplemental authority included Sigler v. GEICO Cas. Co., 967
F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2020); Williams-Diggins v. Permanent Gen.
Assurance Corp. of Ohio, 157 N.E.3d 220 (Ohio Ct.App. 2020); and
Sylvester v. Depositors Ins. Co., _ F.Supp.3d _, 2020 WL 4934361
(E.D.Pa. Aug. 21, 2020), which held that an insurance company was
not obligated to pay the ACV because it was a limit of liability
and not a promise to pay.

On September 24, 2020, Siler filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, and a brief in support, CSAA filed a brief in
opposition. CSAA also filed three more notices of supplemental
authority. Siler filed two more "Responses" to the notices of
supplemental authority, attempting to distinguish the cases. CSAA
responded with two letters reiterating that such filings were
inappropriate under the Local Rules and this time requested that
the responses be stricken.

In its motion to dismiss, CSAA argues that Siler fails to state a
breach of contract claim. CSAA argues that, among other things,
based upon the express language of the policy, ACV does not mean
replacement value of the vehicle. It emphasizes that the policy
states its liability is limited to the lower of either ACV of the
damaged property or the amount necessary to repair or replace the
damaged property.

In the case, the Court will adopt the persuasive and thorough
reasoning of Sylvester since the issue decided in that case does
not differ in any material way from the instant one. Siler's policy
does not provide that CSAA must or will pay for the replacement
costs of the vehicle but, instead, requires only that CSAA pay for
the value that was lost to the vehicle in the collision. When that
loss is a total loss, CSAA must pay the full value of the vehicle
but, once again, that does not include replacement costs. As a
result, Siler's complaint, which asserts CSAA breached the policy
by refusing to pay replacement costs and fees, has failed to state
a breach of contract claim and CSAA is entitled to dismissal.

District Judge Malachy E. Mannion holds that Siler's motion for
leave to amend her Complaint will be denied as doing so would be
futile. Siler seeks to amend the Complaint in order to state
explicitly what her current Complaint alleges implicitly--that the
amount of "loss" exceeded the vehicle's pre-loss ACV and, "because
CSAA chose not to pay to repair the vehicle, but instead chose to
total the vehicle and invoke the ACV limitation on liability (which
is called a "total loss"), CSAA is bound by such decision and is
obligated to pay the ACV of the totaled vehicle."

Siler admits that "the proposed Amended Complaint merely clarifies
allegations to address potential deficiencies, if any, in the way
the allegations were phrased--the substance of the allegations and
the nature of the claim are unchanged." Siler indicates her motive
in moving for leave to amend is to distinguish Sylvester, which,
she contends, CSAA is "opportunistically attempting to take
adventive of," apparently by submitting a notice of supplemental
authority, despite her belief that its holding is inapplicable
here.

Ms. Siler contends that central to the Sylvester's holding was the
fact that the amount of the loss was less than ACV. Because the
loss here exceeded the ACV--a fact which she desires to make
explicit in the Amended Complaint--Siler maintains that Sylvester
is inapposite.

Even if the desire to distinguish one's case from supplemental
authority provided by an opposing party were a valid basis for
amending a complaint, Siler's amendment here would be futile, Judge
Mannion holds. The fact Siler wishes to clarify--and which CSAA
does not dispute--fails to nullify the direct applicability of
Sylvester.

Sylvester, in analyzing the case of Bastian v. United Servs. Auto
Ass'n, 150 F.Supp.3d 1284, 1288-89 (M.D.Fla.2015), stated that it
stood "for the proposition that the insurer must pay the limit [of
liability] in the event of a total loss when the affirmative
obligation to pay is greater than or equal to the limit of
liability." Sylvester, _ F.Supp.3d at _, 2020 WL 4934361, at *7.
However, as with Siler, "Bastian is inapposite in that here there
is no express promise to pay for the replacement costs and there is
no definition of loss that includes the cost of repairing or
replacing such that the affirmative obligation to pay exceeds the
limit of liability," Judge Mannion opines.

Because of this, and because Siler does not seek to add any new
claims, parties, or facts, amendment would be futile, Judge Mannion
points out. Siler's amended complaint would do nothing to correct
Siler's inability to succeed on the breach of contract claim she
alleges.

Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Siler's motion for leave to
amend is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3np8dw9v from Leagle.com.


CUSTOMER SERVICE: Pitre Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Customer Service
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Gina Pitre, Individually and on
Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Customer Service Center,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00045-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC - Ocean Springs
          429 Porter Avenue
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Phone: (228) 875-0572
          Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com


CYTEC ENGINEERED: Jauregui Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE JAUREGUI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CYTEC ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.; CYTEC
INDUSTRIES INC.; CYTEC AEROSPACE MATERIALS (CA) INC.; CYTEC PROCESS
MATERIALS (CA) INC.; SOLVAY USA INC.; SOLVAY CHEMICALS, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01182900-CU-OE-CXC,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00320 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and the
California Business and Professions Code including unfair
competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements,
and failure to reimburse required expenses.

Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. is a global chemical company based
in Tempe, Arizona.

Cytec Industries Inc. is a specialty chemicals and materials
technology company based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.

Cytec Aerospace Materials (CA) Inc. is part of Cytec Industries
Inc. based in Costa Mesa, California.

Cytec Process Materials (CA) Inc. is a company based in Santa Fe
Springs, California.

Solvay USA Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty chemicals based in
Princeton, New Jersey.

Solvay Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical company based in Houston,
Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Rick Bergstrom, Esq.
         Josh Dutton, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 314-1200
         Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
         E-mail: rbergstrom@jonesday.com
                 jdutton@jonesday.com

DAVID JENNINGS: June 30 Class Certification Filing Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA
RIVAS, et al., v. DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02731-VC
(N.D. Calif.), the parties stipulate to the case management
deadlines and briefing schedule as follows:

   Last day to serve written fact discovery    Feb. 15, 2021

   Close of fact discovery                     April 30, 2021

   Close of expert discovery                   June 15, 2021

   The Plaintiffs' class certification         June 30, 2021
   and summary judgment motions due

   The Defendants' class certification and     July 28, 2021
   summary judgment oppositions and
   cross-summary judgment motions due:

   The Plaintiffs' class certification         August 25, 2021
   and summary judgment replies and
   cross-summary judgment oppositions due:

   The Defendants' cross-summary judgment      Sept. 15, 2021:
   replies due:

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZJHelP at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Freeman, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm St
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 621-2493

The Attorneys for the Federal Defendants are:

          David L. Anderson, Esq.
          Sara Winslow, Esq.
          Wendy M. Garbers, Esq.
          Adrienne Zack, Esq.
          Shiwon Choe, Esq.
          Neal C. Hong, Esq.
          450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3495
          Telephone: (415) 436-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 436-6748
          E-mail: wendy.garbers@usdoj.gov
                  adrienne.zack@usdoj.gov
                  shiwon.choe@usdoj.gov
                  neal.hong@usdoj.gov

DES MOINES, IA: Dunn Class Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled CIERRA DUNN, VERCHON DEBROSSARD, MICHAEL
KLINGENBERG, MAKENZIE MOLER, and JAQUAN PATTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHN DOE 1–60, TRUDY
PAULSON, TYLER MOFFATT, JACOB HEDLUND, KYLE GRUVER, NICHOLAS
VALENTINE, DEB VANVELZEN, JEREMY SPRAGUE, CLARK ALLEN, ERNESTO
ESCOBAR HERNANDEZ, CHAD NICOLINO, JEFFREY GEORGE, BRADLEY
YOUNGBLUT, SHAWNA ISAAC, JAKE FORRESTER, KIRK BAGBY, DANIEL BLOM,
DANA WINGERT, and CITY OF DES MOINES, Case No. LACL149462, was
removed from the Iowa District Court for Polk County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on February 19,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Iowa assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00053-RGE-CFB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments for illegal
seizure, excessive force, retaliation, and conspiracy.

City of Des Moines is a city in Iowa. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         John O. Haraldson, Esq.
         City Hall, 400 Robert D. Ray Dr.
         Des Moines, IA 50309-1891
         Telephone: (515) 283-4072
         Facsimile: (515) 237-1748
         E-mail: JOHaraldson@dmgov.org

                - and –

         Gregory R. Brown, Esq.
         DUNCAN, GREEN, BROWN & LANGENESS, P.C.
         400 Locust Street, Suite 380
         Des Moines, IA 50309-2331
         Telephone: (515) 288-6440
         Facsimile: (515) 288-6448
         E-mail: gbrown@duncangreenlaw.com

DHL EXPRESS: Vanegas Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RUDI VANEGAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC. and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16014, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01538 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to authorize and/or permit meal breaks,
failure to authorize and/or permit rest breaks, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices.

DHL Express (USA), Inc. is a shipping, tracking and courier
delivery services company, headquartered in Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Richard B. Lapp, Esq.
         Chantelle C. Egan, Esq.
         Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
         Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: rlapp@seyfarth.com
                 cegan@seyfarth.com
                 emacgregor@seyfarth.com
                 pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com

DIGITAL REALTY: McKenzie BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PASHA MCKENZIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DIGITAL REALTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2020 CH 05661, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00933 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using a door
entry-authentication system that collected, stored and used the
biometric identifiers and biometric information of the Plaintiff
and Class members when they accessed the Defendant's facility in
Chicago, Illinois.

Digital Realty Management Services, LLC is an information
technology and services company based in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Kevin M. Cloutier, Esq.
         David M. Poell, Esq.
         John E. Swinney, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         70 West Madison Street, 48th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 499-6300
         Facsimile: (312) 499-6301
         E-mail: kcloutier@sheppardmullin.com
                 dpoell@sheppardmullin.com
                 jswinney@sheppardmullin.com

                - and –

         Kari M. Rollins, Esq.
         SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         30 Rockefeller Plaza
         New York, NY 10112
         Telephone: (212) 634-3077
         Facsimile: (917) 438-6173
         E-mail: krollins@sheppardmullin.com

DIRECTV: Mostly Averts Class Actions Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Georgia federal judge has stamped out a class
action against DirecTV over unwanted calls to customers, leaving
intact only a complaint that will be headed to arbitration and that
claims the satellite giant divulged some consumers' personal data
amid the litigation. U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen said DirecTV
could not be held liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for unsolicited cold calls that Telecel Marketing Solutions
Inc. placed to existing DirecTV customers in hopes of signing up
new subscriptions.[GN]

DISCOUNT TWO WAY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Campbell Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL STREET COMPLEX L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT TWO WAY RADIO
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00057 (Feb. 16, 2021)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Discount Two Way Radio Corporation distributes electronic
communication equipment. The Company offers mobile and handheld
radios, batteries, chargers, antennas, headsets, and accessories,
as well as provides repair and maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


EHANG HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EH) 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
12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 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. EHang's approvals in North America and
Europe for the EH216 were for use as a drone and not as a passenger
vehicle. The Company's purported relationship with its primary
customer is in fact fraudulent. In fact, the Company has only
collected on a small fraction of its reported sales since December
2019. The Company's manufacturing facilities appeared empty,
lacking both advanced manufacturing equipment and employees. 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 EHang, 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.

Contacts:

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

ELKHART PRODUCTS: Production Workers Class Certified in McCoy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas grants
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
styled SHEILA McCOY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELKHART PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-CV-05176 (W.D. Ark.).

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification to provide notice to
all hourly-paid production facility employees, who worked for the
Defendant at any time on or after October 1, 2017. The Defendant
manufactures screw machine products, various copper and aluminum
tubular components, and tube fittings for the public, air
conditioning, and refrigeration industries.

Since October 1, 2017, the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant
as an hourly employee. From January 2020 to September 2020, the
Plaintiff worked in the Defendant's rotary department. The
Plaintiff alleges her job duties regularly required her to clock in
before her shift was scheduled to start and clock out after her
shift ended, but that the Defendant adjusted her time to show she
had only worked the scheduled time. She contends she and other
hourly employees were regularly paid for fewer hours than they
worked.

The Defendant has two production facilities, one in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and one in Elkhart, Indiana. The Defendant also has 18
hourly employees in a facility in Oklahoma. The Plaintiff argues
hourly employees at all of the Defendant's locations were subject
to the same pay practices. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant has
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq. ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann.
Section 11-4-201, et seq. ("AMWA").

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of her FLSA claim as
a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), approval
of authorization to issue notice to putative class members,
disclosure of contact information, and approval of the proposed
notice and consent-to-join forms.

District Judge P.K. Holmes, III, notes that district courts within
the Eighth Circuit have historically utilized a two-stage approach
for collective action certification under Section 216(b), citing
Resendiz-Ramirez v. P & H Forestry, L.L.C., 515 F.Supp.2d 937, 940
(W.D. Ark. 2007). Nothing in Eighth Circuit or United States
Supreme Court precedent requires district courts to utilize this
approach; rather, the decision to create an opt-in class under
Section 216(b), like the decision on class certification under Rule
23, remains soundly within the discretion of the district court,
citing Bouaphakeo, 564 F. Supp. 2d at 891.

The Defendant argues the Court should not follow the two-stage
approach because the two-stage approach has resulted in courts
approving conditional certification without reviewing if potential
class members are similarly situated. It further argues that any
argument raised in opposition to conditional certification is met
with a dismissive citation that no consideration of the merits is
appropriate at the initial notice stage.

The Defendant requests the Court to follow the recent Fifth Circuit
opinion in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., No. 19-60847,
2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan 12, 2021). In Swales, the Fifth Circuit
rejected the two-stage approach and instead found that a "district
court should identify, at the outset of the case, what facts and
legal considerations will be material to determining whether a
group of employees is similarly situated and then it should
authorize preliminary discovery accordingly."

Judge Holmes holds that the Court will follow the historical,
two-stage approach, which has proven to be an efficient means of
resolution of this issue. Although the burden of proof is low at
the first stage of the two-stage approach, it is not non-existent,
and the Defendant's complaint that the two-stage approach leads
courts to grant conditional certification without reviewing if
potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated is unfounded,
the Judge opines.

The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff has failed to show
employees at the Indiana facility are similarly situated to her or
others at her facility. The Plaintiff argues the Defendant has
standard pay policies that are uniform from location to location
and all employees were subject to the same pay practices, and that
her declaration should demonstrate hourly employees at the Indiana
facility are similarly situated.

Judge Holmes explains that the decision to certify a class is
typically determined based solely on the affidavits presented by
plaintiffs. The Plaintiff's affidavit states she had personal
knowledge of other employees regularly being paid fewer hours than
they had worked because of conversations she had with other
employees.

This is sufficient to demonstrate a similarly situated class in the
location the Plaintiff worked, but she has presented no evidence to
show employees in the Defendant's Indiana facility were similarly
situated, Judge Holmes notes. The Defendant agrees it has 18 hourly
employees in a facility in Oklahoma, but if the Court conditionally
certifies a collective action, the Defendant suggests the
definition be amended because these employees are on the
Fayetteville, Arkansas payroll and can be included as potential
opt-in plaintiffs by referencing that factor.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met her burden at this stage
to demonstrate that she is similarly situated with other putative
class members on the Fayetteville, Arkansas payroll. Accordingly,
the Court will conditionally certify the action. Regarding the
class definition, the Plaintiff requests that the Court
conditionally certifies and approves notice for the following
class: all hourly-paid production facility employees who worked for
Defendant at any time on or after October 1, 2017.

The Defendant proposes the following class definition: all
hourly-paid production facility employees who worked for Defendant
at any time on or after October 1, 2017 in the Defendant's
Fayetteville, Arkansas facility or on Fayetteville payroll.

Because the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that conditional
certification should include Indiana employees, the Court agrees
with the Defendant's proposed definition, and the definition is
amended to read as follows: all hourly-paid production facility
employees who worked for the Defendant at any time on or after
October 1, 2017 in the Defendant's Fayetteville, Arkansas facility
or on Fayetteville payroll.

The Plaintiff has submitted a proposed notice, a consent to join,
and a second notice of right to join (to be sent to non-responding
class members 30 days after the initial notice is sent). The
Defendant objects to certain aspects of these documents and
proposes certain changes.

The Court says it will manage the preparation and distribution of
notice so that it is "timely, accurate, and informative." When
determining the details, the Court is "guided by the goals of the
notice: to make as many potential plaintiffs as possible aware of
this action and their right to opt in without devolving into a
fishing expedition or imposing undue burdens on the defendants,"
citing Diaz v. N.Y. Paving Inc., 340 F.Supp.3d 372, 386 (S.D.N.Y.
2018).

Just as it is not the purpose of notice to solicit participation in
litigation, it is not the purpose of notice to discourage
participation, Judge Holmes states.

The Defendant argues Paragraph (3) of the proposed first notice
should be modified to conform to the allegation in the Plaintiff's
complaint. The paragraph as proposed states "Plaintiff filed a
lawsuit against Defendant asserting that Defendant violated federal
law in failing to pay its hourly-paid production facility employees
correctly." The Defendant requests this sentence be changed to read
"Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant asserting that
Defendant violated federal law in failing to pay its hourly-paid
production employees overtime by consistently adjusting employees'
hours to reflect only forty hours worked each week."

The Court agrees and orders Paragraph (3) must be changed to read

   (3) DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT: Plaintiff in this case is a
   former hourly-paid production facility employee for Defendant
   Elkhart Products Corporation (Defendant). Plaintiff filed a
   lawsuit against Defendant violated federal law in failing to
   pay its hourly-paid production employees overtime by
   consistently adjusting employees' hours to reflect only forty
   hours worked each week.

   Defendant denies Plaintiff's claims and allegations. Defendant
   asserts that it complied with the law, and properly
   compensated all of its hourly-paid production facility
   employees.

   This case has been set for trial the week of November 1, 2021.
   If the case is not settled between the parties, a trial will
   be held at the United States District Court for the Western
   District of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The Court has not ruled
   on or decided any of the issues, including the merits of the
   claims or defenses.

The proposed notice must also be updated to reflect the class
definition as defined.

The title of the postcard should also be changed from "Second
Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit" to "Reminder of Right to Join
Lawsuit." This change will ensure the putative class members are
informed of the Court's neutrality on the matter and rephrasing the
title of the postcard will only improve its accuracy.

The Court will grant the request to provide notice through U.S.
Mail and email and to require the Defendants to post the notice in
a physical location. The Court will also grant Plaintiffs' request
to send a second notice of right to join lawsuit via U.S. Mail. The
Court finds that it is reasonable to permit the Plaintiffs to send
notice through email, not because of necessity but because it is a
method reasonably calculated to provide timely actual notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Defendant must provide the email addresses it does have for
potential opt-in plaintiffs, but the Defendant is not expected to
take affirmative steps to obtain email addresses from those
employees for whom the Defendant does not already have that
information. The Plaintiff's request for potential opt-in
plaintiffs to sign the consent electronically will also be
granted.

The Court finds the request to use a reminder postcard should be
granted. Though a reminder may run the risk of appearing to
encourage participation, it also increases the likelihood that
potential opt-in plaintiffs will receive actual notice of this
action, reducing the probability that the Court and parties will
need to address multiple requests to allow late opt-ins.
Plaintiff's request that Defendant be required to post the notice
in a conspicuous location at its facilities will be granted.

The Court will not authorize notification by text message. The
Court will grant the Plaintiff's request that the Defendant provide
them with a list of names, last known mailing addresses, and work
and personal email addresses, but not telephone numbers.

The Plaintiff also requests the deadline to file the opt-in
Plaintiffs' consent-to-join forms be set no earlier than 90 days
after the Plaintiff mails notice. The Court finds that a 60-day
opt-in period, beginning after the Plaintiff receives contact
information, is sufficient and will serve the interests of
efficiently facilitating notice without further delaying the
litigation. The Plaintiff asks the Court to require the Defendant
to produce the contact information in Excel within seven days of
the Court's order, the Defendant requests 14 days. The Defendant
does not provide any reason why it requires 14 days and the Court
finds seven days is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
of a collective action and approval of notice is granted.

The motion is granted as follows: The Court conditionally certifies
the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and authorizes notice to be sent to the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs. The opt-in class will consist of all hourly-paid
production facility employees, who worked for the Defendant at any
time on or after October 1, 2017, in the Defendant's Fayetteville,
Arkansas facility or on its Fayetteville payroll.

Within 10 days after receiving the contact information for the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff must prepare and
distribute notice to all the putative Plaintiffs as allowed by this
order. They must file any opt-in Plaintiffs' signed consent-to-join
forms with the Court within 60 days after receiving the contact
information of the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Defendant is directed to provide the names, mailing addresses,
and email addresses of all putative members of the collective
action. It may provide this information in any reasonable format.
The Defendant has until February 18, 2021, to deliver the contact
information to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent-to-join forms are
approved with the changes set forth by the Court.

The Defendant is directed to post a copy of the notice in a
conspicuous location at their facilities in an employee common area
or where other notices of employee rights are posted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fsbbvud from
Leagle.com.


ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson, et al. Seek FLSA Settlement Deal Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, ANGEL
HERNANDEZ, GORDON LUNSTED, and GREG HUGGINS individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.,
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC. And CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT-TIR, LLC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01080-WSS-LPL (W.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. approving the form and content of the proposed Notice and
      the manner and method of distributing notice of this
      Settlement to the Class;

   2. directing the mailing and e-mailing of the Notice to
      members of the Class;

   3. approving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement
      and preliminarily approving the Rule 23 Settlement;

   4. preliminarily certifying the Rule 23 Class for purposes of
      Settlement only;

   5. approving Class Counsel and the named Plaintiff to
      represent the Class; and

   6. setting a date for a Fairness Hearing within 120 days.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Robertson, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated employees, filed a class and
collective action lawsuit against Enbridge alleging violations of
the FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Subsequently,
Joshua Brimmer, Francisco Castro, Joseph Linsicombe, Deano Trott,
and Merwin Hoover joined the action. Together, Robertson and the
opt-in plaintiffs sought damages for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, other damages, attorneys' fees
and litigation costs under the FLSA and Pennsylvania wage and hour
laws.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qOnZmV  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

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

EXXON MOBIL: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 17
disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against
Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon") on behalf of investors who
purchased or acquired Exxon (NYSE: XOM) securities between February
28, 2018, and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action, captioned Bentler v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00335 (the "Bentler Action"), was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
(Dallas Division) (the "District").

There is a related class action case pending against Exxon in the
District captioned Yoshikawa v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-194. That action issued a notice of its filing
pursuant to the federal securities laws on January 28, 2021, which
triggered the deadline of March 29, 2021, for any investors who
purchased Exxon securities to seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. The filing of the Bentler
Action does not change the March 29, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
action please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James
Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435;
toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/exxon-mobil-corporation-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=exxon.

Exxon, headquartered in Irving, Texas, is one of the world's
largest oil and gas companies. Exxon operates through three
business segments: Upstream, through which Exxon explores for and
produces crude oil and natural gas; Downstream, through which Exxon
manufactures and sells petroleum products; and Chemical, through
which Exxon manufactures and sells petrochemicals.

Prior to the beginning of the Class Period, in 2017, Exxon doubled
its Permian Basin oil resources through the acquisition of
companies that held approximately 250,000 acres of leasehold in the
region—primarily in the Delaware Basin, a subregion of the
Permian Basin reserve -- with an estimated 3.4 billion barrels of
oil equivalent (the "2017 Acquisition"). In announcing the 2017
Acquisition, Exxon stated that the "investment gives [Exxon] an
exceptional Delaware Basin position in a proven multi-stacked play
that can generate attractive returns in a low-price environment."

The Class Period commences on February 28, 2018, when Exxon filed
its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2017, with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on a Form
10-K. In its annual report, Exxon reported that it had
approximately $348.7 billion in total assets as of December 31,
2017. The annual report also reported asset impairments of $521
million in Exxon's U.S. Upstream segment, and represented that
Exxon "has a robust process to monitor for indicators of potential
impairment across its asset groups throughout the year."

Thereafter and throughout the Class Period, defendants made
repeated positive representations about the quality and potential
of Exxon's Permian Basin assets, assuring investors that Exxon was
equipped to maximize the value of its holdings in the Permian Basin
and to dramatically and quickly increase production there.

Investors began to learn the truth about the value of Exxon's
Permian Basin assets on September 13, 2020, when The Wall Street
Journal reported, among other things, that "[e]ven before the
pandemic, some of Exxon's growth plans in Texas were viewed as
unrealistic by some workers, according to current and former
employees." Specifically, while "some Exxon managers in 2018 had
initially pegged the net present value of [its Delaware Basin]
holdings at about $60 billion," The Wall Street Journal reported
that "[s]ome involved in the project estimated last summer that the
area's net present value was closer to $40 billion because they
believed Exxon was overestimating how quickly it could drill."
Following this news, the price of Exxon's common stock declined
$0.24 per share, or approximately 1%, from a close of $36.90 per
share on September 11, 2020, to close at $36.66 per share on
September 14, 2020.

Then, on January 15, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that
the SEC had launched an investigation of Exxon after an employee
filed a whistleblower complaint in the fall of 2020 alleging that
Exxon had overvalued its Permian Basin assets. Following this news,
the price of Exxon's common stock declined $2.42 per share, or
nearly 5%, from a close of $50.31 per share on January 14, 2021, to
close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021.

The Bentler Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exxon
had overstated the value of its assets in the Permian Basin by at
least $10 billion to $20 billion; (2) Exxon's aggressive production
goals in the Permian Basin were unrealistic and overly optimistic;
(3) Exxon therefore faced an increased risk of heightened
regulatory scrutiny; (4) Exxon lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' statements about Exxon's Permian Basin assets lacked a
reasonable basis.

Exxon investors may, no later than March 29, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance
reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of
institutional and individual investors from the United States and
around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers, and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that plaintiff
Joe Kovacevich filed a lawsuit on Feb. 15 in the Northern District
of California against the social media giant alleging that the
platform illegally monopolized the social network market. The
complaint accuses Menlo Park, California-based Facebook, Inc. of
both misusing user data and quashing emergent competitors with its
"acquire, copy, or kill" strategy.

Like other antitrust suits filed against Facebook, the instant
complaint claimed that Facebook obtained and held dominance in the
social network market through predatory and exclusionary behavior.
In turn, the plaintiff averred, he and other putative class
members, any person who maintained a Facebook profile since 2007,
suffered economic injury.

The 75-page complaint also argued that Facebook made false claims
about the level of protection it afforded users' data. It explained
that had rivals been able to contend with the defendant, "fair
competition would have required Facebook to provide consumers
greater value in return for their data, but Facebook instead took
that data without providing adequate compensation." The complaint
seeks recovery of Facebook users' losses, and other equitable
relief to stop Facebook from continuing "to destroy competition and
harm consumers."

The plaintiff is represented by Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Wexler
Wallace LLP, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., The Miller
Law Firm, P.C., and NastLaw LLC.

Notably, the complaint comes shortly after Judge Lucy H. Koh issued
an order relating eight antitrust cases similarly alleging that
Facebook monopolized the social network, social media, social data,
and/or social advertising markets. According to the court's Feb. 9
order, the consolidated complaint is due Apr. 22, followed by the
motion to dismiss on May 20. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: May 13 Class Certification Bid Hearing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as
INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM, LLC, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Calif.), the parties stipulate and agree as
follows:

   1. The Defendant shall file its Motion for Partial Summary
      Judgment on February 12, 2021;

   2. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including March 19,
      2021, to file its opposition to Defendant's Motion for
      Partial Summary Judgment;

   3. The Defendant shall have up to and including April 2, 2021
      to file its reply brief in support of its Motion for
      Partial Summary Judgment;

   4. The hearing on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
      Judgment, if necessary, shall be held on May 13, 2021, or
      at the convenience of the Court; and

   5. The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification shall be held on May 13, 2021, or at the
      convenience of the Court.

Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along
with his fellow roommates and students at Harvard College.

A copy of the Parties' Stipulation dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NW16zi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024

               - and -

          J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952

               - and -

          Steven F. Molo, Esq.
          Caleb Hayes-Deats, Esq.
          Eugene A. Sokoloff, Esq.
          Lauren F. Dayton, Esq.
          Leonid Grinberg, Esq.
          Megan Cunniff Church, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          430 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

The counsel for the Defendant Facebook, Inc., are:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Christian S. Briggs, Esq.
          Jason S. Kim, Esq.
          Ethan Dettmer, Esq.
          Abbey A. Barrera, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

FAIRSHARE VACATION: Nolen Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN NOLEN, WINDY
KELLEY, CARA KELLEY and PAULA LITTON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-00330-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons and entities who are citizens of the United
   States of America and who on or after March 14, 2008: (1)
   purchased a timeshare with a Property Interest (or the Use
   Rights therein) subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use
   Management Trust or (2) purchased (including upgrading or
   refinancing) a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein)
   previously subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use
   Management Trust."

The case involves a timeshare exchange program. Consumers, such as
the Plaintiffs, purchase timeshare interests from WVR which are
then placed into the Trust. Once subject to the Trust -- also known
as Club Wyndham Plus or the Fairshare Program -- timeshare
purchasers can use their points to book stays at other resort
affiliated with the Fairshare Program, rather than just at their
home resort locations. Specifically, Fairshare is named as the
Trustee for the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust
Agreement. As Trustee, Fairshare has extensive duties and
obligations, as set out, in section 6.01 of the Trust, and in the
Arkansas Trust Code. Yet, Fairshare has not taken any steps to
understand and comply with its obligations as a trustee has under
Arkansas Trust law. Fairshare does not have any employees, offices,
or other property or assets. Rather, Fairshare is operated by a
Board of Directors, all of whom, throughout the class period, have
exclusively been employees of Wyndham Vacation Ownership (WVO)
and/or WVR.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MmYzy0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Rodney E. Miller, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
          STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Ave. S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                  Rem@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 369
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Telephone: (918) 341-8402
          Facsimile: (918) 515-4691
          E-mail: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com

FAMILY FOOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Deisinger Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA DEISINGER; and JESSICA DEISINGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY FOOT
AND ANKLE CLINIC, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00107 (W.D. Wis., Feb. 15,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as podiatry
assistants.

Family Foot & Ankle Specialists L.L.C. was founded in 1989. The
company's line of business includes offices and clinics of
podiatrists. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


FBCS INC: Braun Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc. The case
is styled as Solomon Braun, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00940
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2021).

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

FBCS -- https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a debt collection agency
out of Pennsylvania and specializes in debt collection for the
consumer credit, healthcare, commercial, auto, education, and
utilities industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: S.D. Ohio Refuses to Stay Smith Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACOB SMITH, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-3755 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio denied the Defendants' Motion to
Stay.

The lawsuit is a civil conspiracy and corruption case stemming from
the alleged criminal actions of the former Speaker of the Ohio
House of Representatives, Larry Householder, and his alleged
co-conspirators ("Householder Enterprise"). According to the
Complaint, the Householder Enterprise and Defendants FirstEnergy
Corp. and FirstEnergy Service Co. participated in an illegal
bribery scheme, lasting from 2017-2020 ("Criminal Action").

At base, the alleged scheme was a quid pro quo. The Householder
Enterprise received $60 million from FirstEnergy to further their
political and personal interests. In exchange, the Householder
Enterprise "coordinated" the passage of House Bill 6 ("HB6"), a
billion-dollar energy bailout that purportedly saved two failing
Ohio nuclear power plants, both affiliated with FirstEnergy. As
part of the bailout, Ohio residents and businesses will soon see
"monthly surcharges" on their electric bills.

The Plaintiffs, Ohio residents and businesses allegedly injured by
these surcharges, brought the putative class action, along with
seven related cases, in July 2020. The Court consolidated the cases
on September 29, 2020, and the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Class Action Complaint the next month. Broadly speaking, the
Plaintiffs allege that FirstEnergy, along with numerous individual
Defendants, including, for example First Energy's CEO, CFO, and
President, violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as the Ohio Corrupt Activity
Act ("OCRA"). The Defendants moved to dismiss on October 21, 2020,
and moved to stay the next month.

The Defendants take three shots at staying discovery. First, they
seek to defer discovery until after the Criminal Action is
resolved. They assert that having this action and the Criminal
Action proceed contemporaneously will impede their ability to
defend themselves in the Criminal Action, which should take
priority. Next, the Defendants propose an alternative--even if
discovery does not wait for the Criminal Action to be resolved, it
at least should wait until the Court resolves the Defendants'
pending Motion to Dismiss. Finally, they note that the pending
securities actions against FirstEnergy likely will be statutorily
stayed, so the case should be stayed, too.

The Plaintiffs respond that none of the Defendants' arguments
justify a wholesale stay, and limited stays and the use of
protective orders can provide adequate protections. They also
assert that the alleged scheme injured them, and an indefinite stay
would injure them only further. The Court agrees with the
Plaintiffs.

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes in its
docket, Judge Jolson notes, quoting F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide,
Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 626 (6th Cir. 2014). The Defendants make three
attempts at staying the case, and different standards apply to
their requests.

The Court begins with the status of the Criminal Action. Under this
factor, a stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to
the civil case has already been indicted for the same conduct. This
makes sense, Judge Jolson observes. The likelihood that a defendant
may make incriminating statements is greatest after an indictment
has issued, and any prejudice to the civil plaintiffs is reduced
since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to
Speedy Trial Act considerations.

Judge Jolson notes that none of the Defendants in the case has been
indicted. Nor do the Defendants contend that they are currently
being criminally investigated. But even if they were, a stay of
civil proceedings due to a pending criminal investigation is an
extraordinary remedy that is not generally granted in the absence
of an indictment. Without indictments against any of the
Defendants--or, at the very least, strong evidence of a criminal
investigation--"the case for staying civil proceedings is weak."

The second factor tilts the other way, Judge Jolson says. The
Defendants assert that "the thrust of the civil and criminal cases
is identical: an alleged bribery scheme involving the Householder
Enterprise." Just look at the Complaint, they say. The Plaintiffs
do not dispute this point. And the Court agrees there is a nexus
between the parallel proceedings sufficient to show that such
proceedings are related and involve substantially similar issues.
This factor weighs in favor of the Defendants' request for a stay,
Judge Jolson holds.

The third consideration favors the Plaintiffs. The Court must
balance Plaintiffs' interest in proceeding expeditiously against
the prejudice that a delay would cause. While the Defendants
emphasize the early stage of this case, they are effectively asking
to stay the case indefinitely, Judge Jolson holds.

As the Plaintiffs note, it may be many months--if not years--until
the Criminal Action is resolved. The Defendants do not challenge
this. If the parties wait that long to start discovery, there is a
"particularly harmful" risk of spoliation of evidence, failed
memories, or witness availability. While the Criminal Action will,
one day, come to an end, an indefinite stay is tantamount to
denying the Plaintiffs their day in court, Judge Jolson opines.
Another strike against a stay.

The Court must also consider the Defendants' interests and any
prejudice they might suffer without a stay. At first glance, the
Defendants' prejudice argument appears to be one of constitutional
significance. Indeed, they rely heavily on the Fifth Amendment, and
courts often stay a civil case where the defendant may be compelled
to answer questions in the civil case that he would have the right
to refuse to answer in the criminal case.

But upon closer examination, Judge Jolson finds, the Defendants'
concern is less about self-incrimination and more about what
discovery they will be able to receive from others. Many key
witnesses in the case, including Larry Householder, have been
indicted. The Defendants anticipate that he and other witnesses
will invoke their right to remain silent in response to civil
discovery. Given this posture, the Defendants fear that their
"access to key testimony and documents" will be "restricted,"
"prejudicing them by hindering their ability to defend
themselves."

The Court is not convinced. To begin, the cases on which the
Defendants rely do not fit here. For example, in Eastwood v. United
States, the court stayed discovery where there was a pending
criminal investigation against the defendants, making it likely
that they would risk being forced to choose between waiving their
Fifth Amendment rights or asserting the privilege and losing the
civil case. Likewise, in Ashworth v. Albers Medical, Inc., the
court stayed the civil case for only two months, as the government
expected to file indictments against the defendants by that date.

Judge Jolson also finds that no Defendant has been indicted, and
the Defendants present no evidence of an ongoing criminal
investigation against them. Should that change, the Court can
revisit the reasonableness of a stay or consider other mechanisms
to protect the Defendants.  Moreover, any prejudice to the
Defendants would be minimal in terms of the discovery.  In sum,
Judge Jolson says, the Defendants have not shown that potential
discovery challenges outweigh the Plaintiffs' interest in swiftly
resolving this case. So this factor, too, goes against a stay.

The remaining two factors are also in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge
Jolson says. The convenience of the courts is best served when
motions to stay proceedings are discouraged, citing Mooney, 2005 WL
8156550, at *2. Even more so in the case--where the Defendants
essentially ask to stay these proceedings indefinitely, and the
matter would languish on the Court's docket, the Judge holds.

The Court must balance this interest in expeditiously resolving the
cases on its docket with its interest in upholding the rights of
one who is criminally accused. There is no need for such a balance
here because the Defendants have not been criminally charged, Judge
Jolson notes.

Additionally, the public also has an interest in expeditious
litigation. As a putative class action alleging a fraudulent scheme
potentially affecting Ohio residents and businesses, an indefinite
stay of the case harms the public interest.

To summarize, only one factor--the overlap of the issues between
this case and the Criminal Action--favors a stay, Judge Jolson
holds. So the Defendants have not shown that this case should be
stayed for the duration of the Criminal Action.

The Defendants alternatively propose that discovery be stayed until
the Court rules on their Motion to Dismiss. The District Judge has
denied their Motion to Dismiss, so this request is denied as moot.

The Defendants make one last appeal to the Court. They note that,
under the automatic stay provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, the pending federal securities and
derivative actions in this Court will be automatically stayed
pending resolution of any motion to dismiss. But the cases on which
the Defendants rely involved numerous claims, including securities,
so it made sense to stay discovery as to all claims, Judge Jolson
opines.

He points out that the case is only a civil corruption and
conspiracy case. The cases pending before Chief Judge Marbley,
while similar at the margins, are separate. Congress included a
stay provision governing securities cases--but did not do so for
RICO actions. Accordingly, the Defendants' final argument for a
stay fails.

For these reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Stay is denied. The
parties will meet and confer and file a revised Rule 26(f) Report
within 14 days of the date of the Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/fuik0yr6 from
Leagle.com.


FMK MANAGEMENT: Trial Unnecessary in Tessa Frank Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TESSA FRANK, v. FMK
MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00372-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Response;

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class;

   4. directing the Clerk of Court to enter Final Judgment in
      favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff; and

   5. directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.

The Court underscores that the Defendant's argument is that, even
if the Defendant improperly tipped out money to other employees,
the record is undisputed that the Plaintiff still earned well above
minimum wage. In other words, because the Plaintiff earned well
above minimum wage, on average, during each applicable workweek,
the Plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim for unpaid minimum wages
under either the FLSA or the Florida Constitution. The Plaintiff
does not explain how discovery on this matter would create a
genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. In sum,
the Court concludes that the record is clear Plaintiff earned above
minimum wage, "tip out" or not, for each workweek. It is immaterial
under the FLSA's and the Florida Constitution's minimum wage
provisions whether the Defendant miscalculated the Plaintiff's
hourly rate so long as the Plaintiff still earned over minimum wage
for each hour worked in a workweek.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as Bluefin Bar &
Grill. Defendant employs several servers, bartenders, hosts,
bussers, and runners. The Plaintiff Tessa Frank worked for the
Defendant as a server from approximately April 2018, through April
2020. The Plaintiff was responsible for serving food and beverages
and adhering to company standards for food and beverages. Plaintiff
typically worked thirty to forty hours per week. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage that was
less than the federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff earned tips in
addition to her hourly wage. Defendant paid Plaintiff according to
what is commonly referred to as the "tip credit."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required her to share her
tips with other workers. Specifically, the Defendant required
Plaintiff to "tip out" other "back of house," non-tipped employees.
Servers were required to share tips with expeditors who worked
primarily in the kitchen with little or no customer interaction.
The Plaintiff avers that servers should not share tips with back of
the house employees. As a result, the Defendant was not entitled to
utilize the Federal Labor Standard Act's ("FLSA") tip credit
provision to credit Plaintiff's tips toward a portion of her
minimum wage obligations.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dGTRpZ  at no extra
charge.[CC]


FOODSTIRS INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foodstirs, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Foodstirs, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01495 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Foodstirs -- https://foodstirs.com/ -- is an American cooking and
lifestyle company that produces baking kits, mixes and baked treats
for sale online, by subscription, or in retail stores
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


GEICO GENERAL: Munoz, et al., Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munoz, et al., v. GEICO
General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs Cindy Ventrice-Pearson and Poonam Subbaiah,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, will
move for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the following
Actual Cash Value ("ACV") Regulatory Fees Class:

   "All individual insureds under a California policy issued by
   GEICO covering a vehicle with private-passenger auto physical
   damage coverage with comprehensive or collision coverage, who
   made a first-party claim, filed within four years of the date
   the lawsuit was filed through the date of a certification
   Order, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and
   where GEICO did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle
   ("total-loss") and where GEICO did not include all ACV
   Regulatory Fees in the total-loss claim payment(s)."

   The Plaintiffs request that they be appointed Class
   Representatives of the ACV Regulatory Fees Class.

Plaintiff Subbaiah also seeks class certification pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the
following ACV Sales Tax Class:

   "All individual insureds under a California policy issued by
   GEICO covering a leased vehicle with private-passenger auto
   physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision
   coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four
   years of the date the lawsuit was filed through August 27,
   2020, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and
   where GEICO did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle
   ("total-loss") and where GEICO did not include complete ACV
   Sales Tax in the total-loss claim payment(s)."

   Plaintiff Subbaiah requests that she be appointed Class
   Representative of the ACV Sales Tax Class.

The Plaintiffs further request that their counsel, Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, Edelsberg Law, PA, Kirtland & Packard LLP, Normand PLLC, and
Shamis & Gentile, P.A., be appointed as Class Counsel for the
Classes.

The Plaintiffs said that the case is ideally suited for class
treatment because it involves uniform insurance policy contracts
issued by the Defendant GEICO to Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
In its form Policy, GEICO promises to pay the vehicle's pre-loss
ACV when a vehicle is determined to be a "total loss." GEICO
breached its form Policy when it systematically failed to pay ACV
to the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members when they submitted
valid claims.

GEICO disagrees on the merits, claiming it is not required by the
Policy to pay ACV Sales Tax or ACV Regulatory Fees, and need only
comply with what it contends are the insurance code's minimum
regulatory requirements.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dFJxia
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Mallory Morales, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: mmorales@tzlegal.com

GOBBLE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gobble, Inc. The case
is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Gobble,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00913 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Gobble Inc. -- https://www.gobble.com/ -- operates as a marketplace
for fresh meals from local chefs. It also provides simpler dishes,
balanced foods, and smaller portions for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE LLC: Alexander Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00018, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on February 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01201-JD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of federal
antitrust laws, including Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
by engaging in monopolistic conduct to establish Google Play Store
as the dominant store by which other applications can be downloaded
for use by consumers on the Android environment.

Google LLC is a technology company that provides Internet-related
services and products, with its principal place of business in
Mountain View, California.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Anthony M. Carter, Esq.
         Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
         TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 278-2600
         Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
         E-mail: acarter@tostrudlaw.com
                 jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Blumberg Antitrust Suit Moved From D.D.C. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BENJAMIN BLUMBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-03557, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01231-JD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged monopolization of the
Android mobile application market by coercing the purchase of
Android mobile apps and in-app products and services at artificial
prices and by their patently exclusionary conduct in violations of
the Sherman Act.

Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, with its principal place of business in
Mountain View, California.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [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) 640-1160
         Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

               - and –

         Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
         LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
         12870 US Highway 98 West, Suite 200
         Miramar Beach, FL 32550
         Telephone: (850) 837-6020
         E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

GRAND CARIBBEAN: Arizona Court Dismisses Winters TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismisses the
Second Amended Complaint in the lawsuit styled Richard Winters,
Jr., et al., Plaintiffs v. Grand Caribbean Cruises Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00168-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.).

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs
Richard Winters, Jr., Joseph Brem, and David James against
Defendant Grand Caribbean for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Grand
Caribbean moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims for lack
of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim and moves
to dismiss Counts One and Two of the Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On January 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the action by filing
a complaint. On March 9, 2020, before Grand Caribbean responded to
the original complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint. On August 12, 2020, with Grand Caribbean's consent, the
Plaintiffs filed the SAC.

On August 26, 2020, Grand Caribbean filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On
November 5, 2020, it filed a motion to dismiss Counts One and Two
of the SAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally,
the Plaintiffs have filed several notices of supplemental authority
concerning it.

Because jurisdiction is a threshold question, and because a
dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction would obviate
the need to address the other issues raised by the parties, the
Court first addresses personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs argue that Grand Caribbean is subject to specific
personal jurisdiction in Arizona because (1) it engaged in "direct
contact" with Arizona residents, or alternatively (2) its agents'
contacts with Arizona residents may be imputed to it.

District Judge Dominic W. Lanza finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden of establishing specific personal
jurisdiction under either of these theories.

The Court agrees with Grand Caribbean that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden of establishing specific personal
jurisdiction based on an agency theory. The Plaintiffs do not
distinguish between entities when setting out the challenged
conduct, instead using the term "Defendant" as shorthand throughout
the SAC. But as noted, the Plaintiffs define "Defendant" to
simultaneously mean Grand Caribbean alone and Grand Caribbean plus
an unspecified group of subsidiaries and/or agents.  The bottom
line is that the Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts or
proffered sufficient evidence to justify the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Grand Caribbean in Arizona. The Court, therefore,
grants Grand Caribbean's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs request leave to amend in the event of dismissal.
This request is granted because it may be possible to cure the
identified deficiencies, Judge Lanza holds. Finally, because the
SAC has been dismissed in its entirety based on a lack of personal
jurisdiction, it is unnecessary (at least for now) to address Grand
Caribbean's other potential grounds for dismissal. If the
Plaintiffs file a third amended complaint ("TAC") in an attempt to
address the deficiencies raised, Grand Caribbean may re-raise its
other dismissal arguments at that time.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

   (1) Grand Caribbean's first motion to dismiss is granted;

   (2) The SAC is dismissed;

   (3) Grand Caribbean's second motion to dismiss is denied
       without prejudice.

   (4) The Plaintiffs may file and serve a TAC within 30 days
       from the date of this order. If the Plaintiffs file a TAC,
       the changes will be limited to curing the deficiencies
       raised in this Order and the Plaintiffs will, consistent
       with LRCiv 15.1(a), attach a redlined version of the
       pleading as an exhibit; and

   (5) If the Plaintiffs do not file and serve a TAC within 30
       days from the date of this Order, the Clerk of Court will
       enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fu8vnxm from Leagle.com.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities class
action claims on behalf of investors of Healthcare Services Group,
Inc. ("Healthcare Services") (NASDAQ: HCSG) and Range Resources
Corporation ("Range Resources") (NYSE: RRC) to determine whether
the companies engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

Healthcare Services

On February 10, 2021, Healthcare Services issued a press release
announcing their financial and operating results for Q4 2020. The
press release also provided an update on a previously disclosed SEC
investigation into Healthcare Services' earnings-per-share ("EPS")
calculation practices, announcing, among other things, that "[t]he
Company and the SEC have recently commenced discussions regarding a
potential resolution of the investigation, which focuses on periods
prior to 2018. As discussions regarding a potential resolution are
ongoing, Mr. John C. Shea, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
has notified the Company that he is taking a temporary leave of
absence from his duties."

On this news, HCSG's stock price fell $3.01 per share, or 8.88%,
closing at $30.90 per share on February 10, 2021.

Range Resources

Media outlets recently reported that Range Resources paid a
$294,000 civil penalty to the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. According to Gant News, Range Resources
paid the civil penalty " . . . for violations of the 2012 Oil and
Gas Act . . . regarding wells ineligible for inactive status listed
on its inactive status request to DEP."

On this news, the stock price of Range Resources fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, RRC OR HCSG
SECURITIES AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $250,000 ARE ENCOURAGED
TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215)
792-6676, EXT. 802, KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

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. [GN]


HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SARAH BLOUNT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOST HEALTHCARE, INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00041775-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00310-MMA-WVG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the
Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay all regular and
minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period
violations, rest period violations, untimely payment of wages, wage
statement violations, waiting time penalties, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.

Host Healthcare, Inc. is an employment agency based in La Jolla,
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Craig Schloss, Esq.
         Brett Greving, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 234-1700
         Facsimile: (619) 234-7831
         E-mail: cschloss@cozen.com
                 bgreving@cozen.com

ITO EN (NORTH AMERICA): Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ito En (North
America) Inc. The case is styled as Peggy Rodriguez, Erika Zeidler,
Melissa Jimenez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Ito En (North America) Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00894
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

ITO EN (North America), INC., is a a subsidiary of ITO EN LTD. --
https://itoen.com/ -- which is a Japanese multinational drinks
company specializing in tea production, distribution, and
sales.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Fax: (914) 824-1561
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Feb. 17 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Guttentag v.
Jianpu Technology Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01419) on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Jianpu
Technology, Inc. ("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") between May 29, 2018 and
February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

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

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, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 or otherwise acquired the Jianpu ADSs during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


JOHN HANCOCK: Agrees to Litigate 401(k) Plan Suit as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that John Hancock
Life Insurance Co. agreed to litigate a dispute over the affiliated
investment options in its 401(k) plan as a certified class action
covering about 9,800 people, the plan participants told a federal
judge in Boston.

The participants' unopposed motion for class certification, filed
Feb. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, comes seven months after Judge Richard G. Stearns
allowed the entirety of Jennifer Baker's proposed class action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to move forward
over John Hancock's motion to dismiss. Baker claims John Hancock
mismanaged its workers' 401(k) plan. [GN]


JOHN HANCOCK: Baker Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Baker and Jean
Greenberg, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Investment-Incentive Plan for John
Hancock Employees, v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.)
and the John Hancock US Benefits Committee, Case No.
1:20-cv-10397-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certify the proposed class:

   "all participants and beneficiaries of the Investment-
    Incentive Plan for John Hancock Employees at any time
    between February 27, 2014 and the date of final judgment,
    excluding any members of the John Hancock US Benefits
    Committee or the John Hancock US Investment Subcommittee."

The Plan is a 401(k) plan offered to eligible employees of John
Hancock and certain affiliates. The Plan Document authorizes the
John Hancock US Benefits Committee to designate the investment
funds in which participants may invest. All participants select
from the same menu of investments chosen by the Plan's
fiduciaries.

In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that
"Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the
Plan by applying an imprudent and inappropriate preference for John
Hancock products within the Plan, despite their poor performance,
high costs, and lack of traction among fiduciaries of
similarly-sized plans. The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendants failed to monitor or control the Plan's administrative
expenses, resulting in allegedly excessive fees.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company is a Boston-based insurance
company. Established April 21, 1862, it was named in honor of John
Hancock, a prominent patriot. In 2004, John Hancock was acquired by
the Canadian life insurance company Manulife Financial.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3aFdooUat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:


          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP4700 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Ste. 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

JOHNSON CONTROLS: Ebe Sues Over Employee Retirement Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
JACK EBE; MICHAEL BROWN; RICK LIMBAUGH; and THE INTERNATIONAL UNION
UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO CLC (UAW), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00180 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 15, 2021)
alleges violation of the Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA")
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

According to the complaint, pursuant to the Plant Shutdown
Memorandum of Agreement ("Shutdown Agreement") between the UAW and
the Defendant, dated November 18, 1994, the Plaintiffs received
healthcare from the Defendant under the Cluster 194 plan offered by
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan.

On  October 30,2020, the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that
their medical, vision, and prescription drug coverage in the
Cluster 194 Plan would end on December 31, 2020, and be replaced by
a Health Reimbursement Account ("HRA") administered by Mercer
Marketplace 365. The complaint alleges that the modification
substantially reduced the Plaintiffs and the Class, and their
spouses and dependents' benefits and is neither substantially
commensurate with the benefits provided to these retirees and their
spouses and dependents.

Johnson Controls, Inc. produces electronics and HVAC equipment. The
Company offers HVAC equipment, building automation, security, fire
detection, batteries, and other related products, as well as
building control systems, energy management, and integrated
facility management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Saks, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 E. Erie St., Ste. 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          E-mail: rsaks@hq-law.com

               -and-

          William E. Parsons, Esq.
          409 E. Main St.
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-0400
          E-mail: wparsons@hq-law.com


KEITH PATRICK GILL: Hagens Berman Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on Feb. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Keith Patrick Gill ("Gill"), MML Investors
Services, LLC ("MML"), and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company over the price manipulation of GameStop stock. The firm
urges GME investors who have suffered losses to submit their losses
now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses.

Class Period: January 22, 2021 – February 2, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 19, 2021

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

Contact An Attorney Now: GME@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

Hagens Berman's GameStop Corp (NYSE: GME) Securities Class Action:

The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, and captioned Iovin v. Keith Patrick
Gill, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10264, is brought on behalf of all
those individuals and entities who during the period of January 22,
2021 through February 2, 2021 (the "Class Period"), (i) either (a)
purchased GameStop shares (b) purchased back an option on GameStop
shares, (c) had an option for GameStop shares called away from
them, (d) purchased GameStop shares to cover a short position, or
(e) had their options expire, and (ii) suffered losses as a result
of any transactions identified by clauses (a)-(e) (the "Class").

The case seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 9(a)(2)-(4), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Defendants, and common law failure to
supervise against MML and MassMutual.

If you are a member of the Class defined above you have until 60
days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
here. Click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

"Investors from all walks of life were significantly damaged by the
price manipulation incited by Keith Gill and his unsuspecting
followers who hung on his every word. We are focused on what MML
and Massachusetts Mutual knew about Keith Gill's activities," said
Steve Berman, Hagens Berman managing partner. "Trades and social
media of his magnitude does not go unnoticed."

Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased GME securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a
motion with the Court no later than April 19, 2021, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of February 16, 2021. Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain
part of the proposed Class.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA HILL, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00560-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying the class defined in her First Amended
      Complaint:

      "All natural persons who (1) were the subject of LNRS
      Consumer Report (which may include one or more of the
      following reports: (1) C.L.U.E. (TM) Report-Auto, (2)
      C.L.U.E. (TM)  Report- Property, (3) Current Carrirer (TM)  
      Reports, (4) InsurView (TM), (5) Traffic Violation Search,
      (6) Banko (TM)  Report, (7) Benefits Assessment Report,
      (8) Collections Decisioning Report, (9) Life Public
      Records Disclosure Report (TM), and (10) RiskView Report
      (2) within five years of the filing of this lawsuit (2)
      where the LNRS Consumer Report shows a civil judgment was
      entered and (3) that civil judgment was subsequently set-
      aside, dismissed, satisfied, appealed, or vacated, but (4)
      90 days or more after the civil judgment was set-aside,
      dismissed, satisfied, appealed, or vacated, LNRS sold,
      disclosed or furnished the consumer report to a third-
      party without reflecting that the civil judgment has been
      set-aside, dismissed, satisfied, appealed, or vacated;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the Class
      and her undersigned counsel as class counsel, and

   3. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and appropriate.

The Plaintiff brings the class action against the Defendant under
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that the Defendant
violated section 1681e(b) by failing to maintain reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of civil
judgment and public record information in consumer reports.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37DKQdo
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class, are:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
          A.J. Stecklein, Esq.
          Michael Rapp, Esq.
          Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
          STECKLEIN & RAPP, CHTD.
          748 Ann Avenue
          Kansas City, KS 66101
          Telephone: (913) 371-0727
          E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
                  mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
                  msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com

LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of March 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI),
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT), CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK),
and 9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI)

Class Period: American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") purchased
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about January 17, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering")

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

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

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

The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the
time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the
home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its
employees, and its customers; (2) the complications associated with
the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business,
as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment,
or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and
monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior
to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to,
Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial
condition and prospects; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the Lizhi class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LIZI

Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the
bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned subsidiaries in
U.S. and Hong Kong.

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

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

The complaint, filed on January 20, 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
Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

For more information on the Bit Digital class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BTBT

CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK)

Class Period: December 31, 2020 to January 14, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

CleanSpark provides advanced software and controls technology
solutions, including end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy
market communications, and energy management solutions.

On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of
its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that
it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.63, or 9%, to close
at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15,
2021.

The complaint, filed on January 20, 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
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.

For more information on the CleanSpark class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CLSK

9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or about August 14,
2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or between August 14, 2019 and
September 29, 2020 (the "Class Period")

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021

In August 2019, defendants held the IPO, selling approximately 8.9
million American depositary shares ("ADSs") to the investing public
at $9.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement

By the commencement of this action, the Company's shares trade
significantly below the IPO price.

The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the
materials supporting the Offering, and defendants throughout the
Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the
Company's financial institution partners and its tri-party
cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were
materially overstated, given that 9F and Property and Casualty
Company Limited ("PICC") had been engaged in an ongoing contractual
dispute regarding payment of service fees under the Cooperation
Agreement; (2) the collectability of service fees owed to 9F by
PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in doubt and at serious
risk of non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC
would no longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection
to investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's platform, business model, reputation
and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

For more information on the 9F class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/JFU

               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 www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]


LUXIE INC: Jaquez Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUXIE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01456-RA (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.luxiebeauty.com, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (1) failure to accurately describe the contents of graphical
images, (2) failure to properly label title, (3) failure to
distinguish one page from another, (4) presence of multiple broken
links, (5) headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and
(6) the keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the
keyboard focus indicator is visible.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Luxie, Inc. is a makeup products company based in San Jose,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
         MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
         701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
         Asbury Park, NJ 07712
         Telephone: (732) 695-3282
         Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
         E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Class Certification in Qasimyar Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirms the tax
court's order granting motion for class certification in the
lawsuit titled AHMAD ZAKY QASIMYAR, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees v.
MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 1 CA-TX 19-0008
(Ariz. App.).

The tax dispute arises from a challenge by property owners
("Taxpayers") to the Maricopa County Assessor's decision to apply
what is known as "Rule A," see A.R.S. Section 42-13301, to
calculate the limited property value ("LPV") of their single-family
residences ("Properties"). Taxpayers contend that reclassifying the
Properties because they were owner-occupied primary residences was
a "change in use" that required the LPVs to be calculated pursuant
to "Rule B," see A.R.S. Section 42-13302(A). The tax court agreed
with Taxpayers and granted partial summary judgment on that
theory.

In the memorandum decision, the Appellate Court considers whether
the tax court erred in granting the Taxpayers' motion for class
certification.

The Properties are located in Maricopa County. For tax year 2016,
the Assessor classified each Property as class four, under A.R.S.
Section 42-12004 (including residential property not otherwise
falling into another classification). For tax year 2017, the
Assessor maintained the classifications for the Properties and used
Rule A to determine their LPVs under A.R.S. Section 42-13301.
Taxpayers unsuccessfully petitioned the Assessor for administrative
review, arguing that because the Properties were in fact
"owner-occupied," the Assessor should have classified them as class
three, not class four. See A.R.S. Section 42-12003(A)(1) (class
three includes owner-occupied primary residences).

The Taxpayers appealed the Assessor's decision to the State Board
of Equalization, which reclassified the Properties as class three
but did not change the Properties' LPVs. They appealed the Board's
decision to the tax court, alleging a "change in use" had occurred
because of the change from class four to class three based on the
owners' occupation of the Properties as primary residences,
requiring the Assessor and Board to calculate the LPVs pursuant to
Rule B, not Rule A.  According to them, a Rule B calculation would
have reduced their LPVs, resulting in lower property tax bills.
Taxpayers requested revised LPVs calculated under Rule B and
refunds for the overpaid tax.

The Taxpayers later filed a motion for class certification,
asserting they "brought the litigation on behalf of themselves and
the class of others similarly situated to redress the County's
failure to follow the law." They included analysis under Arizona
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, asserting the Class met all the
requirements for certification.

While that motion was pending, the parties filed competing motions
for summary judgment. After briefing and oral argument, the tax
court granted partial summary judgment for Taxpayers, agreeing that
"where there is a change in classification based upon the change in
use of a residential property, as is the case when its use changes
from a class four to a class three property, a new limited property
value must be established."

The tax court later granted Taxpayers' motion for class
certification, summarily finding the proposed class met the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Taxpayers' counsel was appropriate to serve as class
counsel.

Consistent with Taxpayers' motion, the court described the Class as
follows:

     All real property owners and taxpayers in the taxing
     jurisdiction of Maricopa County, Arizona, whose property
     classification was changed from class three to class four,
     or from class four to class three, for the 2017 tax year,
     where the limited property value was inappropriately
     calculated pursuant to Rule A instead of Rule B and
     application of Rule A led to a higher limited property
     value than application of Rule B.

Because its summary judgment ruling is "outcome determinative with
respect to alleged valuation claims" of the absent Class members,
the tax court said the only remaining matters were adjudication of
issues relating to notice, and a final determination of the Class
members and their damages, as well as other remedies, such as
attorneys' fees and costs. The County timely appealed.

The County asks the Appellate Court to reverse the tax court's
order on the grounds that Taxpayers failed to satisfy
jurisdictional requirements and Rule 23. The Appellate Court
reviews a class-certification order for an abuse of discretion,
citing Godbey v. Roosevelt Sch. Dist. No. 66, 131 Ariz. 13, 16
(App. 1981).

Under Rule 23(c), an order that certifies a class action must,
among other things (i) set forth the court's reasons for
maintaining the case as a class action; and (ii) describe the
evidence supporting the court's determination.

Judge Michael Brown, writing for the Court of Appeals, finds that
the tax court failed to include such detail. But the County did not
object to the certification order on this basis in the tax court or
raise it as an issue on appeal. The Appellate Court, therefore,
declines to further address the level of detail in the order.

Jurisdiction/Exhaustion of Remedies

The County argues the tax court lacked jurisdiction to issue its
class certification order because Taxpayers failed to appeal, or
exhaust their remedies, "in such a 'representative' way that would
actually preserve the ability to seek class certification." The
County acknowledges it did not raise the issue in the tax court,
but contends waiver is inapplicable because its argument invokes
subject-matter jurisdiction.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, however,
"does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction," Judge Brown
holds, citing Medina v. Ariz. Dept. of Transp., 185 Ariz. 414, 416
(App. 1995). The County has, therefore, waived this issue on
appeal.

Waiver aside, the Appellate Court is not persuaded by the County's
argument. Citing Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200
Ariz. 515 (2001) and McNutt v. Department of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 255
(App. 1998), the County asserts that "none of the Plaintiffs appear
to have filed a 'representative' claim" with the Assessor or the
Board.

Judge Brown opines that those cases are inapposite.  He opines that
Dougherty does not support the County's position because the law at
issue in Dougherty required exhaustion of administrative remedies.
For the same reason, McNutt is also distinguishable.  

Taxpayers faced no administrative exhaustion requirements before
they filed suit in the tax court, Judge Brown notes. Thus, without
the exhaustion requirements, the relevant inquiry is whether Class
members could have filed "separate, individual" claims at the time
Taxpayers filed their representative claim, thus, preserving their
remedy by the filing. The County does not dispute that Class
members could have done so or that Taxpayers timely asserted claims
on behalf of Class members in tax court when the first amended
complaint was filed in November 2018. Therefore, consistent with
Dougherty, the tax court had jurisdiction to consider Taxpayers'
request for class certification, Judge Brown points out.

Judge Brown also states that the County correctly notes that if a
taxpayer (1) did not timely pay taxes and failed to cure the
delinquency, or (2) filed an administrative claim and did not
appeal the decision within 60 days, the tax court would lack
jurisdiction to include such a taxpayer in the Class. But that does
not deprive the tax court of jurisdiction over the entire class
action as a whole. Thus, Taxpayers could properly pursue a class
action.

Amendment of Class Definition

The County argues that even if the Class was properly certified,
the Class definition must be modified to: provide for the express
exclusion of: (1) any person or entity who was not a record owner
of a subject property at some point in 2017; (2) property owners
who held multiple parcels in 2017, at least some of which were
given a lower LPV as a result of the application of Rule A than
they would have been assigned if Rule B had been applied; (3) all
parcels who reclassified from class three to class four; (4) all
parcels whose reclassification to class three to class four in 2017
was subsequently reversed; (5) all parcels for which taxes for 2017
were not timely paid; and (6) all parcels whose owners filed
administrative appeals obtaining adverse determinations that became
final and were no longer appealable before November 28, 2016.

Although Taxpayers do not address the County's assertion, the
Appellate Court concludes the tax court is in the best position to
ensure that any person or entity not properly fitting the Class
definition, whether for jurisdictional reasons or otherwise, will
not be included in the Class.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Taxpayers request an award of their attorneys' fees incurred on
appeal pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-348(B), which authorizes a fee
award to any party, other than the state or a city, town or county,
that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in an action brought
by the party against a county challenging  the assessment  of
taxes.

In its discretion, the Appellate Court declines to address the fee
request at this stage of the proceedings. Taxpayers may submit an
appropriate request for fees incurred in the litigation, including
fees relating to this appeal, in the tax court in due course. The
Appellate Court expresses no opinion as to whether fees should be
awarded. Because Taxpayers are the successful parties on appeal, it
awards them taxable costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirms the tax court's order granting
Taxpayer's motion for class certification.  Judge Brown delivered
the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M.
Perkins and Judge David B. Gass joined.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rfufj3m from
Leagle.com.

Bart Wilhoit -- bwilhoit@mwmwlaw.com -- Paul Moore --
pmoore@mwmwlaw.com -- Jim L. Wright -- jwright@mwmwlaw.com -- Paul
J. Mooney -- pmooney@mwmwlaw.com -- Mooney, Wright, Moore & Wilhoit
PLLC, in Mesa, Arizona, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

Roberta S. Livesay -- livesay.roberta@hlwaz.com -- Joshua W.
Carden, Helm, Livesay & Worthington LTD, in Mesa, Arizona, Counsel
for Defendant/Appellant.

Jerry A. Fries, Lisa A. Neuville, Arizona Attorney General's
Office, in Phoenix, Arizona, Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Arizona
Department of Revenue.


MARY ANN'S BAKING: Vargas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SILVIA MADRIGAL VARGAS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MARY ANN'S BAKING CO., INC. and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00292191, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00320-JAM-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, wage
statement violations, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse
expenses, and unfair competition.

Mary Ann's Baking Co., Inc. is a family-owned industrial bakery in
Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         G. Daniel Newland, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: dnewland@seyfarth.com

                  - and –

         Sophia S. Kwan, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: skwan@seyfarth.com

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Oregon Laborers Seek Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS
PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
HOWARD L. LANCE, and ANIL WIRASEKARA, Case No.
1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Lead Plaintiff Oregon
Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), on behalf of the:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of Maxar Technologies, Inc.
      during the period from May 9, 2018 through October 30,
       2018, inclusive and were damaged thereby."

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants, present or former
      executive officers of Maxar and their immediate family
      members.

   2. appointing Oregon Laborers as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller as Class Counsel.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Oregon Laborers is a
multi-employer pension plan with approximately 31,000 participants
and beneficiaries. Based in Portland, Oregon, the Plaintiff holds
approximately $300 million in assets. Oregon Laborers purchased
9,230 shares of Maxar common stock during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices up to $50.33 per share, and suffered
substantial losses when the truth was revealed to the market
through five partial disclosures.

Maxar is a space technology company headquartered in Westminster,
Colorado, United States, specializing in manufacturing
communication, Earth observation, radar, and on-orbit servicing
satellites, satellite products, and related services.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb.
12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3boLEE6 at no extra charge.[CC]

Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, are:

          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Henry Rosen, Esq.
          Trig R. Smith, Esq.
          Debashish Bakshi, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  henryr@rgrdlaw.com
                  trigs@rgrdlaw.com
                  dbakshi@rgrdlaw.com

MDL 2979: Consolidation for National Rifle Assoc. Suits Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: National Rifle Association Business
Expenditures Litigation, No. 2979," the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
has entered an order denying the motion for centralization of
individual actions filed each in the Northern District of New York
and Middle District of Tennessee and two in Northern District of
Texas.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), in two actions and defendant
in a third, moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern
District of Texas or, alternatively in the Northern District of New
York. Defendant in the Northern District of Texas action supports
the motion. All remaining responding parties oppose centralization,
including the New York Attorney General, who is defendant to the
Northern District of New York action, plaintiffs in the Middle
District of Tennessee action and Ackerman McQueen, Inc., Mercury
Group, Inc., Henry Martin, Melanie Montgomery, William Winkler and
Jesse Greenberg, who are defendants in one Northern District of
Texas action and one of which is plaintiff in another.

The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation noting that only a minimal
number of actions are involved saying that there are just four
actions pending in three districts, and proponents have not
demonstrated any attempt at informal coordination or transfer via
other means before seeking Section 1407 centralization. The panel
further says that, although there may be factual overlap among some
of the actions as to particular expenditures by the NRA and its
relationship with Ackerman et. al., but it appears to be limited
and overshadowed by the many individual questions presented by the
alleged facts, claims, and parties in each action.

In the Northern District of Texas Ackerman action, the NRA alleges
that Ackerman's website presents a false association between itself
and the NRA. The Ackerman action examine the parties' obligations
under their services agreement, including the applicability of a
confidentiality provision. The other Northern District of Texas
action is a straightforward defamation action in which the NRA is
not named as a party, centering on whether the defendant, a former
NRATV host, falsely stated in an affidavit that Ackerman made
misrepresentations to the NRA about NRATV and its viewership
metrics.

In the Northern District of New York action, the NRA alleges the
New York Attorney General's investigation and an underlying New
York state court enforcement action constitute retaliation for the
NRA's political advocacy and selective enforcement of New York's
not-for-profit law. That state court action concerns far broader
allegations that the NRA is not serving the interests of its
members and advancing its charitable mission. It asserts that the
NRA was not governed properly, failed to follow state and federal
laws, failed to institute an effective compliance program and filed
false regulatory statements.

Finally, plaintiffs in the Middle District of Tennessee action
claim the NRA fraudulently induced donations to the organization.
This is the only action brought as a putative class action and,
therefore, will entail class certification proceedings not
applicable to the other three actions, the panel says. The panel
further notes that, in these circumstances, the purported factual
overlap is not sufficient to overcome the differences in these
actions, which each will involve some different discovery and
pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/37GmyQe


MELROSE GARDENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELSY RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MELROSE GARDENS LA, LLC; DENISE ROMERO; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV05842 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as receptionist.

Melrose Gardens LA, LLC is a senior living community in Los Angeles
specializing in memory care services. [BN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com
                  kevin@hbklawyers.com


MERCK & CO: Carver Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Adverse Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS CARVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and XYZ CORP (FICTITIOUS NAMES),
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00760-HB (E.D. Pa., February 19, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care in the design,
formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality
control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of
Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product
caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for
administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise
due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to
consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to
the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection,
resulting from its use, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff
sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as
significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional
distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and
injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.,
         Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
         SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
         155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
         Englewood, NJ 07631
         Telephone: (201) 266-5670
         Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
         E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com

MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Winston Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY A. WINSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00751 (E.D. Pa., February 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation,
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control,
labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax
because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused
viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to
consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their
healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious
bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well
as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Nicole Lovett, Esq.,
         Michael Goetz, Esq.
         T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 222-4737
         E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com
                 MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
                 MMorgan@ForThePeople.com

MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Food Contains Aflatoxin, Foster Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES FOSTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00360-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 15, 2021) alleges that
the Defendant's pet food products containing excessive levels of
aflatoxin, a toxin created by the mold Aspergillus flavus.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, warrants,
advertises, and sells a variety of pet foods under several brand
names, including Sportmix CanineX, Earthborne Holistic, Pro Pa,
Venture, Wholesomes, Sportmix, Sportstrail, Splash, Nunn Better and
Unrefined ("Pet Food Products" or "Products.")

The Defendant has marketed and advertised its Pet Food Products as
suitable for animals, has represented that the Pet Food Products
provide "targeted nutrition," and as more fully described below,
has guaranteed the Pet Food Products for taste and nutrition, the
suit says.

Allegedly, the Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Pet
Food Products is false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable
consumers because the Pet Food Products contained dangerous or
toxic levels of aflatoxin, and thus were not as advertised,
represented, or guaranteed. The Pet Food Products were not suitable
nor safe for their intended purpose, namely, feeding dogs and cats
healthy, nutritious food.

Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., is engaged in the manufacturing of dog
and cat food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake P. Holler, Esq.
          Scott S. Morrisson, Esq.
          KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
          12800 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 566-1110
          Facsimile: (317) 636-1507
          E-mail: bholler@kdlegal.com
                  smorrisson@kdlegal.com

               -and-

          Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
          BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
          747 Stafford Avenue
          Bristol, CT 06010
          Telephone: (860) 583-5200
          Facsimile: (860) 589-5790
          E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com


MIKE STINSON: Gibbs Seeks to Certify Class of Virginia Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE GIBBS, et al., v.
MIKE STINSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court for an order granting their motion for
class certification on behalf of:

   "all individuals who resided in Virginia at the time he or
   she obtained any loan: (i) from Great Plains Lending, (ii)
   from Plain Green prior to June 1, 2016, or (iii) from
   MobiLoans prior to May 6, 2017, who made any payment on the
   loan.

The Plaintiffs seek damages consisting of any usurious amounts paid
on the illegal loans, plus any doubling or trebling of damages as
permitted under the applicable statutes. The Plaintiffs also move
to be appointed representatives of the Virginia Class, and for the
appointment of Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g). According to RSM, who has administered the other class
action settlements involving Think Finance and related defendants:
Virginia borrowers paid "$172,639,754" on these illegal loans,
including "$68,494,967.09 in interest over 12%." There are 43,598
unique consumers who meet the class definition.

The Plaintiffs are Virginians, who in a moment of desperation, took
out high-interest loans with Plain Green, Great Plains, and/or
MobiLoans. Each of the Plaintiffs' loans carried triple-digit
interest rates -- often more than 40 times the 12% interest rate
cap established by Virginia's legislature.

The Defendants are the founders, funders, and closely held owners
of Think Finance, a payday lending company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pMZDbSat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

MINDGEEK: Faces Suit for Allegedly Hosting Child Pornography
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that two survivors of
childhood sex trafficking who allege their sexual abuse was
recorded and posted on Pornhub have sued the pornographic website's
parent company, retaining two Philadelphia firms as part of their
national legal team.

The class action alleges that MindGeek is liable for hosting child
pornography depicting Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2 being sexually
abused, which the defendants profited from. [GN]



MML INVESTORS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Arya Hodjat, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that Keith Gill,
the Massachusetts financial educator turned basement YouTuber
turned Reddit folk hero for his early investment in GameStop before
a massive surge -- and subsequent drop -- in the company's stock,
is being sued in a class-action suit.

The suit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that
Gill "took on the fake persona of an amateur, everyday fellow, who
simply was looking out for the little guy" in order to recruit
investors to the short squeeze, thus constituting securities
fraud.

Gill -- who has over 400,000 subscribers on his YouTube account,
Roaring Kitty -- was acting in his capacity as a securities broker
for Massachusetts Mutual, according to the lawsuit.

When a user named DeepFuckingValue made their first post on
Reddit's r/WallStreetBets forum in September 2019, it didn't make
too many waves on a message board where retail traders frequently
share their strange stock bets and losses. "Holy shit bro, what
made you drop 53K on gamestop?" one user commented.

At that point, the video game store's stock was trading at about $5
a share. Yet Gill, then posting anonymously on the account, kept
sharing his updates; and Reddit retail investors, along with some
hedge funds, soon jumped on the train. By January, $GME stock was
trading at just under $500 a share, with Gill's initial investment
reaching a payout of as much as $48 million, according to the
lawsuit.

A post Gill wrote on Jan. 27 about his peak payout, "is replete
with [WallStreetBets] users' recounting how Gill encouraged them
not only to buy GameStop shares, but further inspired them to hold
their shares so as to manipulate the market into ensuring a loss
for those holding short positions," the lawsuit reads.

The lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, a Washington state man named
Christian Iovin, "used approximately $200,000 in collateral to sell
call option contracts for GameStop shares when the stock was below
$100," the suit reads. Iovin and his attorney, Reed Kathrein,
declined to comment for this article.

On his YouTube channel, where he offers "educational live streams
where I share my daily routine of tracking stocks and performing
investment research," Gill repeatedly directed viewers to a
potential short squeeze of GameStop stock, where investors purchase
a stock being heavily bet against. Of the 80 videos on Gill's
channel, 56 reference GameStop, the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit also names MassMutual, Gill's former employer, as a
defendant, alleging that the insurance company had "legal and
regulatory obligations to supervise Gill to prevent this very
conduct."

According to The Wall Street Journal, Gill resigned from his job at
MassMutual on Jan. 28, the day after his peak payout, and the day
before his first public interview, also with the Journal, was
published.

Gill's actions have drawn attention from state and federal
officials, as well. William Galvin, Massachusetts' secretary of the
commonwealth, issued a subpoena against Gill earlier this month,
with the goal of investigating whether his day job affected his
trading, according to The New York Times.

MassMutual told the Times that it didn't know about Gill's trading
until he submitted his resignation on Jan. 21, and would have asked
him to stop, had they known. MassMutual did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on this article.

Gill is due to testify on Thursday, along with the CEOs of Reddit
and Robinhood, at a congressional hearing on the stock surge
organized by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), chair of the House
Financial Services Committee.

In prepared remarks released on Feb. 17 ahead of his congressional
testimony, Gill denied any wrongdoing.

"The idea that I used social media to promote GameStop stock to
unwitting investors is preposterous," Gill's remarks read. "I was
abundantly clear that my channel was for educational purposes only,
and that my aggressive style of investing was unlikely to be
suitable for most folks checking out the channel."

GameStop investors also filed a class-action lawsuit against
trading app Robinhood last month after it restricted trades to
GameStop and other stocks popular on r/WallStreetBets, sending
Redditors and app users into a meltdown. [GN]


MML INVESTORS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Keith Patrick Gill ("Gill"), MML Investors
Services, LLC ("MML"), and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company over the price manipulation of GameStop stock. The firm
urges GME investors who have suffered losses to submit their losses
now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses.

Class Period: January 22, 2021 – February 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 19, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/gme
Contact An Attorney Now: GME@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Hagens Berman's GameStop Corp (NYSE: GME) Securities Class Action:

The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, and captioned Iovin v. Keith Patrick
Gill, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10264, is brought on behalf of all
those individuals and entities who during the period of January 22,
2021 through February 2, 2021 (the "Class Period"), (i) either (a)
purchased GameStop shares (b) purchased back an option on GameStop
shares, (c) had an option for GameStop shares called away from
them, (d) purchased GameStop shares to cover a short position, or
(e) had their options expire, and (ii) suffered losses as a result
of any transactions identified by clauses (a)-(e) (the "Class").

The case seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 9(a)(2)-(4), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Defendants, and common law failure to
supervise against MML and MassMutual.

If you are a member of the Class defined above you have until 60
days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.

"Investors from all walks of life were significantly damaged by the
price manipulation incited by Keith Gill and his unsuspecting
followers who hung on his every word. We are focused on what MML
and Massachusetts Mutual knew about Keith Gill's activities," said
Steve Berman, Hagens Berman managing partner. "Trades and social
media of his magnitude does not go unnoticed."

Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased GME securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a
motion with the Court no later than April 19, 2021, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of February 16, 2021. Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain
part of the proposed Class.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]



NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of Revived Painkiller Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a lawyer for the National Football League urged a federal judge on
Feb. 17 to reject a twice-revived class action claiming the NFL
negligently let teams push painkillers on hurt athletes to get them
back on the field, causing permanent injuries.

NFL attorney Daniel Nash of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld said the
court must consider the terms of labor contracts between unions and
NFL teams that the league believed would adequately protect players
from prescription drug misuse.

"Both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court law is clear that you can't
ask the court to ignore directly relevant collective bargaining
agreement provisions," Nash said during a telephonic hearing on
Feb. 17.

Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear and NFL Hall of
Famer, sued the league in May 2014. He claimed the NFL instructed
team doctors from at least 1969 to 2012 to dole out unprescribed
drugs without warning players of harmful side effects. Dent says he
ended his career with an enlarged heart, permanent nerve damage in
his foot and an addiction to painkillers.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the suit in 2014,
finding because the claims were governed by labor contracts between
players and 32 individual NFL teams, the case must go to
arbitration.

In 2018, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel overturned the
dismissal, finding the NFL's duty to handle drugs with reasonable
care was governed by federal laws, not labor contracts.

A year later, Alsup again dismissed the case, finding the former
players lacked adequate support for claims that the NFL played a
role in team doctors doling out unprescribed medications to hurt
athletes. Last year, the Ninth Circuit partly reversed, finding the
league could be held liable under a "voluntary undertaking theory
of negligence" under California law.

Applying that theory, the Ninth Circuit in 2018 overturned the
dismissal of another lawsuit, Mayall v. USA Water Polo, claiming
the governing body for U.S. water polo didn't do enough to protect
young athletes from concussions.

On Feb. 17, plaintiffs' attorney Philip Closius of Silverman
Thompson Slutkin White insisted labor contracts are irrelevant to
whether the NFL acted reasonably when it took steps to address
problems associated with painkillers. The league required teams to
report the volume of drugs given to players, funded studies and
commissions to prevent the misuse of drugs, performed audits of
each team's practices, required each club to register storage
facilities for medications, and forced teams to make players sign
waivers before they could receive Toradol, a strong prescription
painkiller.

The Ninth Circuit wrote in its August 2020 opinion that "it was
within the NFL's control to promulgate rules or guidelines that
could improve safety for players" and that the lawsuit alleges the
NFL "already demonstrated its ability to create better policies,
regarding Toradol use for example, but has failed to enforce
them."

Despite those findings, Nash argued on Feb. 17 that labor contracts
are still relevant to the case because they detail what medical
care players are entitled to and how return-to-play decisions must
be made.

"We've identified numerous collective bargaining agreements going
back decades where we did many things," Nash said. "It's clearly
essential in addressing whether the NFL acted reasonably."

The NFL cited a 1997 substance abuse prevention policy and program
established under a labor contract between players and teams.

"It would be 'reasonable' for the NFL to view the specifically
bargained-for provisions as sufficient for plaintiffs' protection,"
the league stated in its motion to dismiss.

Closius countered that the drug abuse program was about players
taking steroids and other medications on their own. It had "nothing
to do" with club doctors doling out medications, he said.

The NFL also argues that under the terms of labor contracts,
players could file grievances for issues relating to team doctors
distributing painkillers and making return-to-play decisions. In
1995, lead plaintiff Dent filed a grievance claiming he was given
painkillers by a club doctor and returned to play without being
warned of the harmful side effects.

"There is a [collective bargaining agreement] provision that
requires the club doctor to provide written notification to the
players of the risks of going back to the field," Nash said.

The NFL lawyer insisted it was reasonable for the league to assume
that requirement would adequately protect players, just as Dent
relied on it when he filed his grievance.

"This is about as clear a case of labor preemption that one could
imagine," Nash said. "There are so many provisions that bear
directly on their return-to-play theory."

Closius countered that the 1995 grievance is completely immaterial
to negligence claims asserted against the league. The grievance was
filed against an NFL team, not the league, he said.

"It's irrelevant," Closius said. "It's against the club. Again
we're conflating the club with the NFL."

After more than 90 minutes of debate, Alsup took the arguments
under submission.

"It's remotely possible I will want to hear more from you as I dig
deeper," the judge said before concluding the hearing. [GN]


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nature's Bounty
Co. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Nature's Bounty Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-00915 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19,
2021).

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

The Nature's Bounty Company -- https://www.bountifulcompany.com/ --
offers vitamins, supplements, minerals, herbals, protein bars,
protein powders, and ethical beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCB MANAGEMENT: Blum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Blum, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB Management Services
Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-01541 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2021).

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

NCB Management Services, Inc. -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- provides
business process outsourcing (BPO) services. The Company offers
accounts receivable, call center management, and information
technology sourcing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Sanctions in EMS Officers Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for
sanctions in the lawsuit titled LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION,
DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 4476 (LJL) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs, a union (Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO) and two employees of the New York City Fire
Department ("FDNY") bring the putative class action against the
City of New York, the FDNY, the Department of Citywide
Administrative Services ("DCAS"), and several John and Jane Does,
alleging that employees in the FDNY's Emergency Medical Services
Bureau ("EMS") who seek promotions above the rank of lieutenant are
subject to disparate treatment and disparate impact based on
impermissible considerations. The Plaintiffs assert claims under 42
U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, and the New York State and New York
City Human Rights Laws.

Currently before the Court is the Defendants' motion for sanctions,
asking that the current class certification briefing schedule be
stayed until the Plaintiffs produce Local 3621 President Vincent
Variale for a one-hour deposition, as required by the Court's
December 9, 2020 Order, and the Plaintiffs' cross motion to compel
the Defendants to accept Variale's declaration in lieu of a live
deposition.

As is relevant to the Motion and Cross-Motion, in the December 9
Order, the Court granted in part the Defendants' motion to compel
Variale's testimony, ordering that they could take Variale's
deposition for no longer than one (1) hour on four topics that had
arisen during his earlier deposition but as to which the
Plaintiffs' counsel had objected on the grounds of a "Labor Union
Leader Privilege" and directed him not to answer. The Court
subsequently suggested that the parties meet and confer on whether
the Defendants would accept Variale's answers to the Four Topics by
affidavit rather than a deposition, but did not require the
Defendants to give up the right to depose Variale and in fact
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the December 9 Order.

The Four Topics are: (1) The identity of the veteran, who was told
they took too much time off, and that was why they weren't going to
be promoted; (2) the identity of the two other black male
lieutenants that were trying to obtain an interview because they
had investigation going on with BITS; (3) the name of the close
friend of Barbara Aziz who told Variale that Barbara Aziz was going
to be promoted, before the decision regarding promotions was
released; and (4) the identity of the three members who told
Variale that Barbara Aziz knew prior to the promotional process
that she was going to be promoted.

Following the December 9 Order, the Defendants' counsel sent
several emails to the Plaintiffs' counsel seeking to schedule
Variale's deposition, but the Plaintiffs' counsel stated that
Variale's testimony was "not an issue relevant to the motion for
class certification," and that they "would like to provide an
affidavit rather than a deposition for Variale." The Defendants
declined the alternative of an affidavit, to which the Plaintiffs'
counsel responded, "he is only asking the questions ordered so why
waste the time deposing him."

On February 2, 2021, the Defendants filed the Motion, asking the
Court to stay the briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification (the Defendants' opposition to which was due on
February 18, 2021), order the Plaintiffs to produce Variale for his
deposition, and direct the Plaintiffs to reimburse the Defendants
for the cost of obtaining an expedited transcript of Variale's
deposition for use in their opposition to the Class Motion.

On February 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the Cross-Motion, asking
the Court to require th Defendants to accept an affidavit from
Variale answering the Four Topics and produce a Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) witness regarding demographic data on February 28, 2021,
or, in the alternative, directing the Defendants to meet and confer
regarding scheduling of the Demographic Data Witness and Variale's
deposition.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have not met the standards
for imposing sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iv), that
the Defendants are the ones avoiding their obligation to produce
the Demographic Data Witness, and neither deposition need delay the
Class Motion briefing schedule.

The parties' inability to schedule a one-hour deposition of a
witness whose deposition the Court ordered two months ago is
inexplicable, says Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. She notes that
both parties, both with respect to the current dispute, as well as
to many others, have acted inefficiently and out of pure
gamesmanship rather than to progress this case toward a resolution
on the merits.

The Court ordered that Plaintiffs produce Variale for a deposition
on the Four Topics. While an affidavit is a reasonable alternative,
the Court did not require the Defendants to accept an affidavit in
lieu of a deposition or impose any of the other prerequisites, and
in fact denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the December 9
Order. The record could not be clearer that there is a court order
in place requiring Variale's deposition, and the Plaintiffs have
failed to comply with that order.

In exercising its broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate
sanction for noncompliance with a discovery order, Residential
Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir.
2002), the Court considers (1) the willfulness of the non-compliant
party or the reason for non-compliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance; and (4)
whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences
of noncompliance. The Court may also consider prejudice to the
moving party (quoting Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. U.S. Bank Nat'l
Ass'n, 319 F.R.D. 122, 126 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2016)).

Applying these considerations, the Court finds that the exhibits to
the Motion and Cross-Motion demonstrate that the Plaintiffs'
refusal to make Variale available for his Court-ordered deposition
has been intentional, and the reasons they assert for not doing
so--that the December 9 Order did not include a deadline by which
it was to occur and that providing his affidavit is more
efficient--while true, are beside the point, Judge Cave holds. The
fact that, only after two motions by the Defendants did the
Plaintiffs finally provide names in answer to the Topics seems the
opposite of good faith.

Although two months is a relatively brief period, it does span the
time during which briefing on the Class Motion has been pending,
Judge Cave finds. The Court has not previously warned the
Plaintiffs about consequence for not complying with the December 9
Order, although the fact that it was less than one month ago that
the Court ruled in the January 14 Order on the Plaintiffs' own
motion for sanctions under the same Rule tends to negate any
inference that the Plaintiffs are unfamiliar with the consequences
of not complying with a Court order.

Where the Court's analysis ends, however, is on the question of
prejudice to the Defendants. The Defendants have not articulated in
the Motion why Variale's answers to the Topics are required for
their opposition to the Class Motion, and the Court is unable to
otherwise glean why his testimony is necessary for that purpose.
While the Court does not condone the Plaintiffs' foot-dragging in
making Variale available for his deposition, the harm to the
Defendants is not apparent, and therefore, the Court does not deem
monetary sanctions, such as requiring the Plaintiffs to pay the
costs of an expedited transcript, appropriate.

As to the Class Motion briefing schedule, that was set by Judge
Liman, and the Court is not authorized to amend it. Any request for
an extension must be directed to Judge Liman, as the Court has
reminded the parties previously.

As to Variale's Affidavit, the Court finds that it is insufficient
to supplant his deposition testimony. It lists only individuals'
names, without any identifying information, such as rank, dates of
employment, or address, that would facilitate the Defendants' use
of the information. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' suggestion, the
Defendants are entitled to ask follow up questions regarding the
identities of the individuals listed in Variale's Affidavit, and
will be very skeptical of any objections to such limited follow-up
questions, Judge Cave notes.

Finally, the Court is at a loss to understand why the parties have
not yet been able to find time for a one-hour deposition of a
single witness in the two months since the December 9 Order nor why
they have not scheduled the deposition of the Defendants' Rule
30(b)(6) Demographic Data Witness, which was the subject of
numerous motions, orders and conferences.

Thus, while the Court does not find that Variale's deposition must
occur before the Defendants' deadline for their opposition to the
Class Motion, there is little reason to delay it any further.
Accordingly, Variale's deposition will have occurred no later than
February 19, 2021. In addition, the parties must schedule the
deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) Demographic Data Witness to take
place no later than February 28, 2021.

For the reasons set forth, the Defendants' Motion is granted in
part, to the extent that the Plaintiffs are ordered to make Variale
available for the one-hour deposition required by the December 9
Order by February 19, 2021, and is otherwise denied. The
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion is granted in part, to the extent that the
Defendants are ordered to make a Rule 30(b)(6) witness available
for a deposition on the demographic data no later than February 28,
2021, and is otherwise denied.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the Motion at ECF No. 308.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wr6yr3d from Leagle.com.


NURTURE INC: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Jain Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NITA JAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NURTURE, INC., d/b/a Happy Family Brands,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01473-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading labeling of its baby food products under Happy
Family Brands. The Defendant advertises and markets its baby food
products as safe and healthy for children. However, contrary to the
representations on the products' label, the products contain heavy
metals in high concentrations. The Plaintiff and the Class were
unaware that the products contain any level of heavy metals. Had
they known about it, they would not have purchased or paid a
premium for the products, the suit says.

Nurture, Inc., doing business as Happy Family Brands, is a baby and
toddler food company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         David K. Lietz, 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
                 dlietz@masonllp.com

                - and –

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM 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 –

         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

                - 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 –

         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

NYC HARLEM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Medina Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MARISOL MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NYC HARLEM FOODS INC.; BRONX 163 FOODS INC.;
BRONX MARKET FOODS INC; NYC 143 FOODS INC; NYC 96 FOODS INC; NYC 89
FOODS INC; NYC PARK FOODS INC; NYC 125 FOODS INC; NYC 159 FOODS
INC; NYC 155 FOODS INC; SUNNYSIDE BK QSR INC; NYC 116 BK QSR INC;
NYC 116 FOODS INC; NYC 121 FOODS INC; NYC 114 FOODS INC; BRONX
PROSPECT FOODS INC.; NYC 145 FOODS INC.; NYC LENOX FOODS INC.; NYC
178 FOODS INC.; BRONX 138 FOODS INC.; RV EASTCHESTER FOODS INC.;
NYC 148 FOODS INC.; NYC LEXINGTON FOODS INC.; NYC 161 FOODS INC.;
BRONX 170 FOODS INC.; ANDHRA FOODS INC.; SOMYA FOODS; INC.; RVN
FOODS INC.; and SRINIVASA RAO TUMMALAPENTA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01321 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.

NYC Harlem Foods Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bouklas, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          E-mail: james@bglawny.com


OGEE INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ogee, Inc. The case
is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Ogee,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00909-LDH-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Ogee -- https://ogee.com/ -- is an organic skin care platform that
provides organic beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OLD DOMINION: Hang Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAI HANG and ROBERT CANALES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
LINE, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2025678,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on February 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00287 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide legally-compliant rest periods,
failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods, failure to
timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay
all wages due at the time of termination of employment, and unfair
competition.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a truckload shipping company
headquartered in Thomasville, North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
         Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 315-8200
         Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
         E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                 abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                 ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com

                - and –

         Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 844-9944
         Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
         E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com

QUEENSLAND: Class Action Over Paradise Dam Remediation Ramped Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Harden, writing for Queensland Country Life, reports that the
class action over the remediation of Paradise Dam has been ramped
up after revelations farmers in the Bundaberg region could be
facing historically low water allocations before July.

An independent review into the root cause of Paradise Dam's
structural and stability issues in May last year found the dam's
primary spillway apron width to be 'completely inadequate'.

Local farmers have had averages of 85 per cent water allocations
from Paradise Dam, but growers are now fearing that could drop
significantly to 30 per cent.

It is feared Paradise Dam could be empty by the end of July 2021,
unless the catchment receives serious rainfall, sending shock waves
through the local farming community.

More than 60 local growers dependent on water from the Bundaberg
Irrigation Scheme raised more than $400,000 in an effort to fast
track the class action, which was first mooted last year.

Local law firm, Marland Law, has banded together with the affected
farmers to ensure a large class action can be brought against the
state government and Sunwater in the Queensland Supreme Court
within weeks.

Going ahead with Class Action
Marland Law's Tom Marland said farmers have been eager to see the
class action fast tracked since word of the dam's dire situation
became public.

"I can understand why the local farming community is so worried
about the potential of very low announced allocations in July this
year," Mr Marland said.

"Bundaberg is a very large horticultural crop growing area and the
problem is that if the price of water goes up, you've got an
increased squeeze on horticultural crops.

"That has huge repercussions across the entire area that not only
affects the farmers but the agronomists, fertilizer suppliers,
contract harvesters and local businesses.

"The government never really put their mind to all of these flow-on
effects before they did what they."

Bundaberg farmers have also engaged class action expert Douglas
Campbell QC along with barristers, Matthew Donovan and Justin
Byrne, to assist with the development of the case.

Mr Marland is confident that the class action will continue to gain
support from the surrounding community.

"We had a big meeting recently with 62 growers and we raised
$400,000 in an hour, to progress the class action, and that money
is going towards getting our experts' reports and getting our
material drafted and filed," he said.

"It's a different type of class action. It's not like the live
export class action, or the bushfire class action, which is an
after-the-event claim -- this is a before-the-event claim.

"What we are saying is, there's a breach and these will be the
losses going forward into the future.

"The calculation of the losses will take a lot of time, but we just
wanted to start the process as quickly as we can, because we want
to put pressure on the government to do the right thing and fix the
dam.

"It's not a $100 million class action, it's billions of dollars and
that's just production loss, you don't even start calculating
things like capital value or appreciation assets."

The class action has identified more than 650 directly affected
allocation holders in the Burnett system.

Mr Marland said they were aiming to have documents filed by the end
of May and will be seeking the first court hearings in June this
year.

"We haven't actually formally started signing up members to the
class action because there's actually a fairly in-depth process
with that but we'll start doing that over the next couple of
weeks," he said.

"We've got about 120 expressions of interest to join and that's
just people approaching us, effectively."

Forecasting ahead of time is challenging'
Sunwater has consistently maintained its decision in relation to
Paradise Dam has always been about protecting both lives and
livelihoods.

A Sunwater spokesperson said they communicate regularly with the
broader community to ensure they remain well informed about
available water supply.

"The decision to lower the dam wall has been made to improve the
safety of communities living downstream of the dam, while longer
term remediation of the dam is designed and implemented," the
spokesperson said.

The Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme is supplied by Paradise Dam, Fred
Haigh Dam, Ned Churchward Weir, Bucca Weir, Ben Anderson Barrage
and Kolan Barrage.

Sunwater said there was enough water in Paradise Dam and in the
Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme to meet allocations for the 2020-21
water year.

"Water allocations are set at the start of the water year and
cannot decrease as dam capacity levels reduce. Should inflows occur
however, allocations can increase -- to a maximum of 100 per cent,"
they said.

"Sunwater undertakes announced allocation forecasting one to two
months before the start of the next water year.

"Forecasting ahead of this times is challenging as it is subject to
many variables and unknowns such as inflows, weather conditions and
customer usage."

Labor remains focused on water security
A spokesperson for the Minister for Water Glenn Butcher said the
Palaszczuk government remained focused on providing water security
for the Bundaberg region to ensure the local economy can grow and
create jobs.

"In March 2020, Sunwater applied to the department to amend the
Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme operations manual to mitigate the
effects of the essential works to Paradise Dam on water entitlement
holders," the spokesperson said.

"The Queensland government approved Sunwater's application to amend
the water sharing rules from July 1, 2020.

"The amendment allowed Sunwater to make unsold water allocations
from the Burnett River sub-scheme available to existing users,
including local farmers and businesses.

Sunwater and the Minister would not comment on potential legal
proceedings.

Farmers deserve certainty
Opposition Water and the Construction of Dams spokeswoman Deb
Frecklington said farmers in the Wide Bay and Burnett region
deserve certainty on where future water for their job-creating
crops will come from.

"Labor's refusal to guarantee that the Bundaberg irrigation scheme
would be returned to its original capacity will gut $2.4 billion
and thousands of jobs out of the region's economy,"
Ms Frecklington said.

"It's time for the Annastacia Palaszczuk to end her silence on
Paradise Dam and do the right thing by the Wide Bay and Burnett
community." [GN]


REALPAGE UTILITY: Moore's Bid to Certify Question for Appeal OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a question to the Maryland Court of
Appeals in the lawsuit entitled PAUL MOORE, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE
UTILITY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-927-PWG (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Moore is a residential apartment tenant, who filed the
putative class action lawsuit against Defendant RealPage in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County in February 2020. Mr. Moore
alleges that RealPage, acting as a collection agency for
residential landlords in Maryland, improperly bills tenants like
him for utilities owed to their landlords.

The case was removed to the Court in April 2020 on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Moore seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief under Md. Cts. & Jud. Pro. Section 3-406; and asserts
violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code
Ann., Com. Law Sections 14-201, et seq.; violations of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 13-101 et
seq.; and common law claims: money had and received; negligence;
and unjust enrichment.

Pursuant to the Court's Letter Order Regarding the Filing of
Motions, RealPage stated its intention to file a motion to dismiss
the claims predicated on the allocation of energy charges, as well
as the negligence claim. In response to the allocation of energy
charges issue that was raised by RealPage, the Plaintiff requests
that a question be certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals
regarding the proper construction of the statute at issue.

RealPage bills for and collects utility charges for residential
landlords in Maryland, although the Plaintiff alleges that it does
not have a license to act as a collection agency. The Plaintiff
alleges that the bills sent by RealPage for "allocated water
service," "allocated sewer service," "gas hot water service," and
"Administrative Service Fee" involve consumer claims under Maryland
Collection Agency Licensing Act.

In addition to complaining about the inappropriate fees charged by
RealPage as part of its collection activities, the Plaintiff also
alleges that RealPage bills for "unlawful allocated energy
charges." RealPage allocates energy charges by using procedures and
equipment that measures and reads the total energy costs consumed
by a multiple residential unit building, measures the square
footage of each residential unit, and then assesses the charges
based upon the square footage of the residential unit. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Maryland Public Service Commission has
not approved RealPage's energy allocation procedures and
equipment.

The Plaintiff's purported Class and Subclass are defined as
follows, excluding employees, officers, or directors of RealPage or
its parent or subsidiary companies:

   * Class: All persons who paid an Administrative Service Fee
     assessed in a RealPage bill for a Maryland residence within
     three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

   * Subclass: All members of the Class who paid for energy
     charges allocated to them in a RealPage bill for an
     apartment house residence within three years prior to the
     filing of this Complaint.

The unlawful energy allocation claim underlies, at least in part,
all counts in the Complaint.

In response, RealPage asserts that all claims predicated on the
allocation of energy charges are without merit because the property
at issue, Seneca Bay Apartment Homes, was built in 1968, and the
utility allocation statute that the Plaintiff relies upon does not
apply to properties built before 1978. The Plaintiff disagrees with
RealPage's interpretation of the statute at issue and asserts that
no appellate decision has ever addressed the issue.

The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to certify the following question
of law to the Maryland Court of Appeals:

     Does Md. Code Ann., Public Util. (PU) Section 7-304 prohibit
     the use of energy allocation equipment and procedures, which
     have not been approved by the Public Service Commission, to
     bill energy charges to tenants of properties built prior to
     1978?

District Judge Paul W. Grimm states that he has deferred setting a
briefing schedule for RealPage's requested dismissal motion until
after ruling on the certification motion.

When deciding whether certification of a question of law is
appropriate, a federal court must undertake a two-part inquiry.
First, the court must consider whether the answer "'may be
determinative of an issue in pending litigation.'" Second, it must
"evaluate whether the question may be answered based on a
'controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or
statute of Maryland.'"

The parties agree that an answer to the proposed question is
determinative of multiple claims in the case. Therefore, the Court
will focus on part two of the inquiry. RealPage asserts that the
question has already been resolved by Maryland's Court of Special
Appeals' decision in Legg v. Castruccio, 642 A.2d 906 (Md. Ct.
Spec. App. 1994).

Although Legg did not address Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. Section
7-304 specifically, it addressed Section 7-301 (referencing its
predecessor, Article 78, Section 51(b)(1)), according to the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. RealPage argues that Section
7-301 includes a specific cross-reference to Section 7-304, making
them reciprocal provisions of the same statutory scheme.

RealPage quotes Section 7-301(c)(3), which provides that the
Commission may not authorize a gas company or electric company to
service an occupancy unit or shopping center unit subject to this
subsection unless the building or shopping center has individual
metered service or submetering as provided under Section 7-303 or
Section 7-304 of this subtitle for each individually leased or
owned occupancy unit or shopping center unit. The Plaintiff notes
that this cross-reference did not exist in Section 7-301's
predecessor statute that was discussed in Legg.

The Plaintiff points out that the Legg court does not discuss
Section 7-304's statutory predecessor, Art. 78 Section 54H, which
regulates energy allocation equipment and procedures, as opposed to
the requirement for individual meters or submeters in multiple
occupancy buildings. He also notes that Section 7-304 was
separately enacted in 1988, a decade after the statute addressed in
Legg.

Judge Grimm notes that there are no Maryland appellate court
decisions specifically referencing or interpreting this statute.
Legg's rationale for limiting Section 7-301's requirement to
post-1978 construction does not automatically apply to Section
7-304. Further, Judge Grimm says, Legg is not a Court of Appeals
decision, and its holding is unrelated to the statutory
interpretation at issue, which makes it even less persuasive. The
Plaintiff also notes that the legislative history of the statute
supports his interpretation rather than RealPage's interpretation.

Judge Grimm notes that he needs not travel down the path of
statutory interpretation. There is no clear guidance from state law
available to him to decide this determinative issue. Neither is
there any guidance from other courts in this Circuit on this state
law question.

Judge Grimm opines that while he may be capable of resolving the
question in the way he believes the state's highest court of
appeals would rule, a foreseeable outcome of that resolution is an
appeal resulting in the Fourth Circuit being asked to certify the
question or definitively rule on a matter of Maryland state law.
Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy and respect for
federalism, he finds that it is more appropriate for the Maryland
Court of Appeals to provide the final authority regarding the
proper application of Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. Section 7-304.

Accordingly, Judge Grimm will grant the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the question to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, it is ordered
that the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify is granted. The parties are
directed to confer and jointly provide within 14 days a proposed
certification order pursuant to the privilege made available by the
Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Md. Code
Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Sections 12-601 through 12-613, and
Maryland Rule 8-305.

Specifically, the certification order must state the question of
law submitted, the relevant facts from which the question arises,
and the party, who will be treated as the appellant in the
certification procedure. Maryland Rule 8-305; see also Md. Code
Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 12-606 (stating the required
contents of a certification order).

The counsel will confer and jointly inform the Court within 14 days
whether either or both parties wish to proceed with resolving the
licensing claims or if they prefer the case be stayed pending the
outcome of the certified question.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 11, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/1vz14dro from
Leagle.com.


RED PAYMENTS: Court Narrows Claims in Roller FCRA and EFTA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRIAN ROLLER AND KALOS STREET L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs v. RED PAYMENTS L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. CV 19-5285
(GRB) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs Roller and Kalos Street bring the putative class action
against Defendant Red Payments.  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory
relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and assert federal claims
pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and Electronic
Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), as well as state law claims for unjust
enrichment, conversion, and fraud.

The action concerns certain payment processing accounts that Red
Payments opened in the name of Kalos Street, which is wholly owned
by Roller. The Plaintiffs contracted with Red Payments in order to
obtain point-of-sale ("POS") equipment for processing credit or
debit card payments, as well as for payment processing and related
services connected to the use of this POS equipment. While Red
Payments enrolls businesses in these types of contracts, it merely
acts as an intermediary; the actual equipment and services are
provided by third parties (such as former defendant First Data
Global Leasing).

On August 22, 2016, Roller executed an "Application & Agreement" on
behalf of Kalos Street with Red Payments to lease a "USB Card
Swiper" and "Gateway Virtual Terminal" and obtain associated
payment processing services ("USB Swiper Agreement"). Pursuant to
this agreement, Roller opened an account at PNC Bank in his name to
facilitate autopayments for the services under the contract, which
the Plaintiffs had begun using by the end of August 2016. Within
one week, however, the Plaintiffs received an additional package
that contained multiple mobile card readers called "VX520s." The
Plaintiffs did not request this additional equipment, nor was it
mentioned in the USB Swiper Agreement. Nevertheless, Red Payments
enrolled the Plaintiffs in a separate lease account for this
equipment, which, like their first account, came with associated
rental fees.

The Red Payments sales representative, who arranged the USB Swiper
Agreement soon informed Roller that this practice--i.e., opening
new accounts (with associated payment obligations) on top of a
customer's existing account, without that customer's knowledge or
consent--was a scheme perpetrated by the Defendants known in the
industry as "slamming." Apparently, this particular market is
particularly complex, wherein any given payment processing
transaction may involve half a dozen intermediaries or more. As a
result, it is a relatively simple matter for Red Payments to "slam"
customers with additional, unauthorized accounts, which the unwary
clients end up paying the fees for simply out of ignorance of the
details of the payment processing system.

Suspicious of this unrequested equipment, the Plaintiffs reached
out to Red Payments and First Data to request the application and
related paperwork that should have accompanied the new account, to
no avail. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue with both
Red Payments and First Data, the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain
either a copy of a contract for the additional account, or a
cancelation or refund for the mobile card readers and related
payment processing charges.

The Defendants nevertheless continued to charge the Plaintiffs for
the account; the Plaintiffs refused to pay these charges and
ultimately closed their bank account at PNC Bank altogether in
February 2017. Sometime during this process, Red Payments assessed
a $499 cancelation fee on the Plaintiffs' accounts and ultimately
referred the uncollected charges to debt collectors. As a result,
the Plaintiffs have now received notices from collection agencies
seeking to collect these unpaid fees, and may have had their
respective credit scores harmed as a result of these collection
efforts.

On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs, filing as "Brian Roller,
d/b/a/Kalos Street L.L.C.," filed a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They
asserted substantially the same claims in the original complaint as
in the Amended Complaint ("FAC"). In July 2018, upon the order of
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Red Payments produced a copy of the contract establishing the VX520
mobile card reader account.

According to the Plaintiffs, however, this document was
inauthentic: they claim that the purported contract was both
"unsigned and unacknowledged" and "an obvious forgery." In
September 2018, First Data moved to transfer the case to the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), which motion was granted by
District Judge Goldberg on August 12, 2019. Subsequent to the
transfer, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC, asserting the same claims
but now including new allegations addressing the purportedly
fictitious VX520 Agreement.

On May 13, 2020, Red Payments filed the instant motion to dismiss
claims I through VI pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Roller seeks recovery under the FCRA (Count III) based
upon the Defendant presumedly obtaining a consumer credit report in
connection with the unauthorized VX520 account. In its motion to
dismiss, Red Payments argues that, because Roller did not
specifically allege that the Defendant obtained his personal credit
report, rather than Kalos Street's, his FCRA claim fails for
insufficiency.

District Judge Gary R. Brown notes that there is no dispute that
Plaintiff Roller failed to make such an allegation. Roller fails
even to allege that the Defendants specifically obtained a
"consumer report" in connection with either payment processing
account at issue here--let alone that the Defendants obtained his
credit report instead of Kalos Street's. Thus, this claim is
dismissed without prejudice to repleading.

Judge Brown also notes that it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs'
claim under the EFTA (Count IV) was filed beyond the applicable
one-year statute of limitations. The Judge holds that Plaintiff
Roller fails to show either that he has acted with reasonable
diligence or that there were any extraordinary circumstances that
prevented him from exercising his rights. Thus, this claim is
dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek declarations from the Court (1) that the VX520
Agreement is not a binding contract, (2) that the Plaintiffs and
the Class are, therefore, not bound by its terms, (3) that the
"Defendants' practice of opening unauthorized accounts is
unlawful," and (4) that the "Defendants are liable to the
Plaintiffs and the Class for damages caused by that practice"
("Requested Declarations (1)-(4)").

The Defendant raises three grounds for dismissal of the claim for
declaratory relief. First, in response to Requested Declarations
(1) and (2), the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed
to present any allegations indicating that the requested
declarations will be prospectively useful. Second, the Defendant
contends that the third Requested Declaration--i.e., that the
"practice of opening unauthorized accounts is unlawful"--is
tautological and serves no useful purpose.

Indeed, when considered in the context of the prior two Requested
Declarations, it is difficult to see how this further declaration
would provide significant further clarity in "settling the legal
relations in issue," Judge Brown finds. More significantly,
however, this proposed declaration is clearly inappropriate in
light of one of the prudential factors (beyond the two factors
listed above) to be considered in determining whether to consider a
declaratory judgment action, to wit, "whether there is a better or
more effective remedy" than declaratory relief.  Thus, the claim
for declaratory judgment (Count I) is dismissed with prejudice as
to the second two Requested Declarations.

The Defendant also challenges the remaining state law claims based
on standing, untimeliness under the statute of limitations, and
pleading defects as construed under Pennsylvania substantive law
and under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs affirmatively assert that they refused to pay any of
the invoices on the unauthorized account--which means they were
never deprived of a property interest in any of their funds, Judge
Brown notes. As with their unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiffs
attempt to salvage their conversion claim by pointing to
allegations in the Complaint that "Defendants interfered with
Plaintiffs' and Class members' possession of [their] money by
wrongfully taking money directly from their accounts." But once
more, without any specific factual content, these allegations only
amount to a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action," Judge Brown opines, citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009). Thus, the claim for conversion (Count V) is
dismissed without prejudice. The claim for unjust enrichment (Count
II) is also dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant "failed to disclose
material facts" (i.e., the fact that it intended to open additional
unauthorized accounts), rather than that it made affirmative
fraudulent statements. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is,
therefore, predicated in part on the Plaintiffs' purported failure
to plead that the Defendant had such an independent duty, Judge
Brown holds.

Judge Brown also opines, among other things, that the FAC does not
contain language that would spell out a fiduciary or confidential
relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, but instead
only describes a "typical transactional setting." The complaint
also fails to comply with the requisites of Rule 9(b): as the
Defendant observes, the Plaintiffs "fail to plead what specifically
the 'Defendants' said, who specifically said it, and where and when
the statements were made." The Plaintiffs' arguments to the
contrary (e.g., that the "speaker" of the misrepresentation was the
sales representative, who later informed the Plaintiffs of the
"slamming" scheme) require a level of inference that necessarily
fails to satisfy Rule 9(b). Therefore, the fraud claim (Count VI)
is dismissed without prejudice.

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum & Order, it is ordered
as follows:

   1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
      Complaint is denied with respect to the first two
      declarations sought under Count I for declaratory relief;
      and

   2. Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the remaining
      claims as follows:

      a. Plaintiffs' claims under the FCRA (Count III) and for
         unjust enrichment (Count II), conversion (Count V) and
         fraud (Count VI) are dismissed without prejudice; and

      b. Plaintiffs' claims under the EFTA (Count IV) and for the
         latter two declarations sought under Count I are
         dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment consistent
with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/8vqct3x4 from
Leagle.com.


REP PROCESSING: Robertson Seeks to Certify Class of Inspectors
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REP
PROCESSING, LLC d/b/a RIMROCK ENERGY PARTNERS, Case No.
1:19-cv-02910-PAB-NYW (D. Colo), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order granting conditional certification of, and authorize
notice be sent to:

   "all current and former inspectors, staffed through Kestrel
   Field Services, Inc. who working for or on behalf of REP
   Processing, LLC d/b/a Rimrock Energy Partners and who were
   paid according to its day rate pay plan in the past three
   years (the Day Rate Inspectors)".

According to the complaint, Robertson and the Day Rate Inspectors
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. In fact, Robertson and
the Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked 60-72 hours per week.
Despite Robertson and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly working
more than 40 hours per week, they received overtime compensation
for the hours worked over 12 in a day and only at an improperly
reduced rate of pay. Rimrock's uniform day rate policies -- that
deprived them of overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pKiHaR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class members,
are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riverside Natural
Foods Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Riverside Natural
Foods Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01496 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Riverside -- https://www.riversidenaturalfoods.com/ -- manufactures
natural and organic snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


SERCO INC: Glasscock Seeks Initial OK of $1.2MM Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GLASSCOCK,
individually, and as representative of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries on Behalf of the Serco Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan,
v. SERCO INC; Case No. 1:20-cv-00092-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;

   2. appointing Angeion Group, LLC as Settlement Administrator;

   3. approving the proposed Settlement Notices and authorizing
      distribution of the Notices;

   4. certifying the proposed Settlement Class of:

      "all persons who have been Participants, Beneficiaries and
      Alternate Payees of the Plan from January 1, 2014 through
      the date the Settlement Class is certified by the Court,
      except for past and present members of the Defendant's
      401(k) Committee;"

   5. appointing Jordan Lewis, P.A., Crueger Dickinson LLC,
      Whitfield Bryson LLP, Greg Coleman Law, Wexler Wallace
      LLP, and Wise Law Firm, PLC as counsel for the Settlement
      Class; and

   6. scheduling a final approval hearing.

      Terms of the proposed Settlement:

      -- Serco and/or its insurers will pay a gross settlement
         amount of $1.2 million into a common fund for the
         benefit of Settlement Class Members; and

      -- The Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
         merits preliminary approval so that the proposed
         Settlement Notices can be sent to the Settlement Class.

On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff Glasscock, a former employee of
Serco, Inc. and a former participant in its 401(k) Plan, filed a
Class Action Complaint against Serco, asserting that the Company
had breached fiduciary duties under The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the management of its employees'
401(k)Plan. In summary, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed
to select prudent investment options, failed to monitor the
investments in a prudent manner, and caused the Plan to pay
excessive amounts in investment management and administrative
fees.

Serco provides professional, technology, and management consulting
services for military and information technology industries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3aPAyJrat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          John J. Drudi, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Avenue, Ste 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
          E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                  jdrudi@wiselaw.pro

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          Ryan P. McMillan, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW, Esq.
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  ryan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Crueger, Esq.
          Benjamin Kaplan, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 North Oakland Avenue
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210-3868
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  bak@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616-8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          333 University Avenue, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222

               - and -

          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: Scott@whitfieldbryson.com
                  Pat@whitfieldbryson.com

SHIPPERS WAREHOUSE: Norwood BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASHLEY NORWOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHIPPERS WAREHOUSE OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Case No. 2021CH00207, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00917 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to properly
inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their biometrics were being
collected, stored, disseminated, and used; failing to publicly
provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying their biometrics; failing to obtain written
releases from them and their consent to disclose, re-disclose, or
otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information to a third party.

Shippers Warehouse of Illinois, Inc. is a warehousing company based
in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Charles E. Reis, IV, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: creis@littler.com

                - and –

         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: ohenry@littler.com

SHRI GANESH: Garcia Sues Over Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHRI GANESH SAI, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21NWCV00100 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Travelodge Inn &
Suites by Wyndham Bell Los Angeles Area on its reservation website
at
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/travelodge/bellcalifornia/travelodge-bell-los-angeles-area/overview
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The website
reservation system allegedly lacks sufficient information needed by
disabled travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel
room would work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to
engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any confidence
or knowledge about whether the room will actually work for him due
to his disability, the suit says.

Shri Ganesh Sai, LLC is an owner and operator of the Travelodge Inn
& Suites by Wyndham Bell Los Angeles Area located at 6600 Atlantic
Ave., Bell, California. [BN]

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

SIMMONS FIRST: Faces Lococo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LOCOCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00201-NAB (E.D. Mo., February 18, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and Missouri
common law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a universal banker until
in or around March 2020.

Simmons First National Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
         Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
         SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
         1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
         Telephone: (856) 685-7420
         Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
         E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                 mmiller@swartz-legal.com

SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIX CONTINENTS
HOTELS, INC. The case is styled as Tanya Harris, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC., Case No.
16-2021-CA-001043-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Feb. 19,
2021).

The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil."

Six Continents Hotels, Inc. operates hotels and motels. The Company
offers accommodation, spa, and catering services for weddings,
events, and corporate meetings, as well as provides leisure
activities such as skiing, tennis, fishing, cooking schools,
fitness facilities, dining, and water sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica Marie Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915


SMITH & WESSON: Must Face Class Action Over Firearm Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Cook, Esq., of Gardiner Roberts LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has
dismissed a motion by Smith & Wesson Corp to throw out a potential
class action for negligent manufacturing of the firearm used in a
mass shooting in Toronto: Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC
1114.

In July 2018, a loan gunman shot and killed two people on a busy
street in Toronto and injured several others in a notorious
incident known as the "Danforth Shooting." The firearm used in the
shooting was a Smith & Wesson handgun which had been reported
stolen in 2015 by a gun dealer in Saskatchewan.

The plaintiffs -- victims of the shooting and their family members
-- subsequently commenced an action against Smith & Wesson for
negligence relating to the design, manufacturing and/or
distribution of the firearm, as well as strict liability and public
nuisance. The action has not yet been certified as a class
proceeding.

In 2020, Justice Paul M. Perell heard a preliminary motion to
determine whether the proposed causes of action met the first stage
of the certification test under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
Concurrently, Smith & Wesson brought a motion to have the
plaintiffs' action dismissed on the basis that it failed to
disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant to Rule 21 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a proposed class proceeding, in determining whether the pleading
discloses a cause of action, no evidence is admissible, and the
material facts pleaded are accepted as true, unless patently
ridiculous or incapable of proof. The pleading is read generously,
and it will be unsatisfactory only if it is plain, obvious, and
beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff cannot succeed.

In the decision, released in February 2021, Justice Perell reviewed
the established law for product liability claims regarding goods
that are dangerous per se, which includes firearms. Justice Perell
noted that in the seminal negligence case of Donoghue v. Stevenson,
1932 CanLII 536 (FOREP), [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), which involved a
contaminated bottle of ginger beer, the Law Lords recognized an
established category for duty of care cases involving goods that
were dangerous in and of themselves (as opposed to a food product
such as ginger beer).

As the law of product liability negligence developed thereafter,
there was a recognized duty of care for products without regard to
whether the product was dangerous or non-dangerous, but the
dangerousness of the goods remained a factor in determining the
standard of care. A heightened standard of care is prescribed for
dangerous goods commensurate to the risks and threats therein.

A handgun is an article dangerous in itself, and manufacturers have
a duty to take care imposed on them when it is necessarily the case
that other parties will come within proximity of the handgun.

For the motion, Smith & Wesson argued that the plaintiffs' claim
must necessarily fail because the proximate cause of the injuries
to the Danforth Shooting victims was not due to its alleged
negligence but due to the criminal acts of the gunman.

The problem with Smith & Wesson's argument, however, was that there
was a modern safety precaution that could have been used in the
manufacturing of the firearm, and which the plaintiffs' pleading
alleged could have prevented the unauthorized use of the firearm in
the Danforth Shooting.

In particular, the plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson could have
implemented "smart gun" or "authorized user technology," which is
designed to prevent the criminal use of weapons by unauthorized
persons. Authorized user technology is based on personalized
user-based systems such as biometrics (fingerprints or palm-print
recognition), voice identification, or similar electronic
identification methods to prevent use of a firearm by an
unauthorized person. Justice Perell noted that such technology had
been in existence since the 1970s and by the 1990s many gun
manufacturers were using smart technology to promote safety and
prevent the weapon being fired by anyone other than the authorized
user.

Smith & Wesson acknowledged that its products were not equipped
with a device that fully blocks use by unauthorized users. The
decision also reported that Smith & Wesson handguns were the most
common make of stolen handgun in the United States. Unauthorized
use of firearms, the plaintiffs argued, was a reasonably
foreseeable consequence that should be prevented by the
manufacturer.

For the purposes of the preliminary motion to dismiss the action,
it is was therefore not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs'
negligence claim was doomed to fail based on the allegation of a
duty of care in relation to the manufacturing and distribution of a
product that was dangerous. The thrust of the cause of action,
rooted in Donoghue v. Stevenson, is that Smith & Wesson
manufactured a product that was dangerous per se and that it did
not take available precautions (i.e. it was careless), when it is
necessarily the case that innocent parties would come within
proximity of that dangerous product. While the claim may still
fail, it was not a certainty; there were issues to be tried, and
the putative class members should not be instantly denied a day in
court.

Justice Perell was clear that all that was presently being decided
was that there was an established duty of care relationship between
the plaintiffs and Smith & Wesson and it remained to be determined
whether or not there was culpable carelessness. Further, Smith &
Wesson was not being blamed for the shooting on the Danforth.
Rather, the alleged wrongful activity of Smith & Wesson was selling
a handgun that did not utilize smart gun or authorized user
technology that was available at the time the product was
manufactured.

The plaintiffs' other causes of action for strict liability and
public nuisance were dismissed as failing to disclose a reasonable
cause of action. In particular, the Court noted that the
manufacturing of weapons was a time-honoured business practice that
could not ground a claim in public nuisance:

Society from the days of the Neanderthals until today does not
regard fabricating weapons as a public nuisance although the misuse
of those weapons - by others - may be. A manufacturer of a product
cannot be made liable in nuisance for simply distributing its
product in its course of business because the product is then
misused by others causing harm to the plaintiffs.

In the result, the plaintiffs' claim will now proceed through the
remaining stages of the certification test for a class action
against Smith & Wesson based on the negligent design, manufacturing
and/or distribution of a product, namely the firearm used in the
Danforth Shooting.

Whether a firearm manufacturer will be held liable for failing to
include "smart gun" or "authorized user technology" to prevent the
unauthorized use of a gun remains to be seen. If such liability is
imposed on Smith & Wesson in the case at hand, there would likely
be significant consequences for other manufacturers of firearms
that could have contained technological safeguards preventing their
unauthorized use.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]


SONOMA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Sonoma Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNOA)
resulting from allegations that Sonoma may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Sonoma 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-1992.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 November 17, 2020, after market hours,
Sonoma filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission announcing that Sonoma's "unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial statements for the quarter ended
June 30, 2020 should no longer be relied upon." Sonoma continued
that the financial statements for this time period "contained
material errors" and that "the Company will need to restate them."
On this news, Sonoma's share price fell $1.10 per share, or 14%,
over the next few trading days to close at $6.63 per share on
November 20, 2020.

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.

To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1992.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

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]


SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Suit Over PS5 Controller Drift Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Duffy, writing for CNN Business, reports that Sony's
PlayStation 5 has been hugely popular -- and hard for consumers to
get their hands on -- since it was released last fall. But not
everyone who managed to snag one has been satisfied.

A class action lawsuit accuses Sony (SNE) of violating consumer
fraud statutes and breaching warranty agreements because of an
alleged defect with the PS5 DualSense wireless controllers,
according to a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York
on Feb. 12.

The filing comes soon after the law firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner
& Donaldson-Smith -- which is among the firms listed as working on
the suit -- set up a web page soliciting reports of issues with the
controllers. Gaming news site IGN first reported the firm's
investigation and the lawsuit.

The class action suit alleges that the DualSense controllers, which
were released in November along with the new PS5 console, suffer
from a defect known as "drift," wherein characters or other
elements on screen move without the user manipulating the
controller's joystick.

"This defect significantly interferes with gameplay and thus
compromises the DualSense Controller's core functionality," the
complaint says.

Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
lawsuit.

The complaint claims that the plaintiff, Lmarc Turner, experienced
a controller drift issue on the day he purchased a PS5 in early
February. Turner contacted customer service and followed their
troubleshooting instructions, to no avail, the complaint says.

"Given that his experience with contacting Sony the first time did
not satisfactorily address the drift issue," Turner opted to
purchase another DualSense controller for $69.99 a few days later,
the complaint says. "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."

The suit also alleges that Sony has been aware of the drift issue
because of "online consumer complaints, complaints made by
consumers directly to it, and through its own pre-release
testing."

There have been a number of reports on the issue in gaming blogs
and on social media. Drifting, also known as "stick drift," has
been an issue with previous gaming controllers from other
companies, too.

"One user reported the issue 10 days after receiving the PS5
console, stating that they tried every possible fix --
power-cycling the console, turning Bluetooth on and off, resetting
the controller, and charging it fully overnight -- to no avail,"
the complaint says. "Notwithstanding its knowledge of the Drift
Defect, Sony has failed to disclose this material information to
consumers."

The suit alleges that customers seeking help with their devices
have run into a backlog on Sony's dedicated portal for issues with
PS5 hardware, and face long wait times to speak with customer
service agents. It claims that when consumers return the
controllers for in-warranty repairs related to drift, they "have to
pay for shipping the controller to a Sony repair center . . . and
Sony does not reimburse customers for these shipping costs."

"Recent software and firmware updates did not ameliorate or address
the Drift Defect in any way," according to the complaint.

The lawsuit seeks to make Sony implement a recall or free
replacement program to address the issue for all class members, in
addition to other relief such as damage payments to compensate
consumers for out of pocket expenses to fix the alleged defect.
Sony said earlier this month that it sold 4.5 million units of PS5
hardware between its launch and December 31. [GN]


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead COVID Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emilie Ruscoe, writing for Law360, reports that Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP will represent a proposed class of investors in
Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. in a federal suit in San Diego alleging
that the company misled the public after its CEO characterized some
of its COVID-19 research as a "cure."

In a Feb. 12 order, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia
granted Robbins Geller client Andrew Zenoff's lead counsel bid and
at the same time consolidated two suits making similar allegations
against the biotech company.

With the lead counsel appointment, Zenoff and his legal team beat
out five other groups that had sought to lead the litigation. Three
of the movants decided not to oppose appointment of litigants with
a greater financial interest in the matter and Judge Battaglia
found that the two other would-be plaintiffs didn't meet federal
requirements for representing the proposed class.

In his order, the judge first shot down the lead plaintiff request
filed by Pomerantz LLP and the Schall Law Firm client Jing Li, who
claimed she lost $454,341 in connection with Sorrento's alleged
fraud. Judge Battaglia said it wasn't clear from Li's lead
plaintiff motion that she would be an adequate class
representative, citing in particular the fact that she is a
relative newcomer to investing, with only three years' experience.

Judge Battaglia also found that a group of four investors, dubbed
the SRNE investor group and represented by Kirby McInerney LLP,
wouldn't be a proper lead plaintiff group, noting "when unrelated
investors are cobbled together, the clear implication is that
counsel, rather than the parties, are steering the litigation."

The judge mentioned the SRNE investor group's joint declaration
that "there was no preexisting relationship between the group
members prior to communication with counsel." Together, the group
claimed it lost nearly $381,000 in connection with the alleged
fraud.

Finally, Judge Battaglia said Zenoff, who claims he lost $195,500
in connection with the allegations, seemed well-positioned to lead
the suit, citing the movant's 20 years of experience investing and
his work running three different companies.

"His experience in investing in securities, coupled with his
extensive background with leadership and management, makes him a
suitable candidate for lead plaintiff," the judge said.

The judge also noted three other investors, respectively
represented by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP and Bragar Eagel & Squire PC, had already thrown in the
towel when they realized their financial stake in the matter was
significantly lower than the other proposed plaintiffs'.

An additional movant who was represented by Levi & Korsinsky
claimed she lost $170,195.88, but withdrew her lead plaintiff bid.

Investors took Sorrento to court in May 2020 after the company put
out a press release claiming it had discovered an antibody that
"demonstrated 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection." On
the same day, the company's Chief Executive Henry Ji was quoted in
a media report characterizing that development as a "cure."

The investors claim as a result of the alleged misrepresentations,
trading prices for the company's shares were artificially inflated
until first a short-seller's report and then a quote from Ji
stating the new antibody "potentially is a cure" allegedly caused
the company's shares to trade at lower prices.

Ji and Mark R. Brunswick, the company's vice president of
regulatory affairs and quality, are named as defendants alongside
Sorrento.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Feb. 16.

Zenoff is represented by Danielle Myers and Michael Albert of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Counsel information for Sorrento, Ji and Brunswick was not
immediately available on Feb. 16.

The case is Wasa Medical Holdings v. Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. et
al., case number 3:20-cv-00966, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. [GN]


SPEEDWAY LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 3
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DaRosa v. Speedway LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10791 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard G.Stearns
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Motion to
compel on Feb. 12, 2021, as follows:

   1. If the parties cannot reach a compromise, they are
      directed to submit a joint statement no later than March
      1, 2021 stating their respective positions.

   2. The court finally allows Speedway's request for some
      additional time to complete the discovery process.

   3. The scheduling order is extended by one month as follows:

      -- Class and merits discovery to be completed by 4/1/2021;

      -- The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) to be served 4/1/2021;

      -- The defendant's expert report by 5/3/2021;

      -- Supplementation (if any) by 5/17/2021; and

      -- Expert discovery closes 5/17/2021;

   4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 class certification and
      the Defendant's Motion for De-Certification of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective shall be due by May
      3, 2021, opposition due June 1, 2021, and reply due June
      15, 2021; and

   5. Dispositive motions to be filed 30 days after the court's
      disposition of the certification/decertification
      motion(s).

The Plaintiffs by way of their motion to compel seek the production
or supplementation of several categories of information and
documents. In its opposition and as summarized below, Speedway does
not object to the majority of these categories, and represents that
it either has or is in the process of producing responsive
information/documents. Payroll data for the opt-in plaintiffs
Speedway asserts that this has been delayed due to its payroll
system changeover, and expects to substantially complete production
by February 19, 2021.

Exempt classification decision documents Speedway avers that it has
already supplemented its production and that the relevant
depositions have been scheduled. Willfulness/good faith defense
documents Speedway avers it has already supplemented its production
in this respect. Miscellaneous documents, including to cover
statutory period of amended claims.

Speedway avers that it has supplemented its production and is in
the process of working with counsel to remedy identified
deficiencies. Representative opt-in information including
supervising DMs Speedway asserts that this has been delayed because
of the manual search required to collect the relevant data, and
that it expects to substantially complete the production by
February 17, 2021.

The parties part ways, however, on the following two issues. To the
extent that plaintiffs seek versions of task descriptions, Speedway
Standards, and like job-related documents dating back 6 years prior
to the suit, the court agrees these are relevant and discoverable.
In addition to the FLSA count with a three-year statute of
limitation, the Amended Complaint asserts claims under New York and
New Jersey wage laws, which have a six-year limitations period.

Thes Plaintiffs also seek individual wage and hours information for
non-exempt employees who worked at the plaintiffs' stores on the
ground that one factor in the analysis of an employee's primary
duty is the "the relationship between the employee's salary and the
wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work
performed by the employee."

Further, the plaintiffs assert that non-exempt employees' work
hours is relevant to the analysis of whether each store manager
"customarily and regularly direct[ed] the work of two or more other
employees." Speedway objects to the production of this information
as overbroad, unduly invasive of these non-party individuals
privacy, and unduly burdensome. Speedway suggests that the relevant
information may be obtained by stipulation, affidavit, or overviews
of Speedway's wage practice. The court agrees that Speedway's
suggestion is reasonable and directs the parties to engage in
further good faith discussions concerning a mutually acceptable
format.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]


STEVEN DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dume Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MARANYELIS DUME, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVEN DELI & GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A STEVEN
DELI GROCERY CORP.); and JOSE CORNIEL (AKA YOVANNY), Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01332 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Dume was employed by the Defendants as cashier.

Steven Deli & Grocery Corp. owns and operates a deli/grocery
located at Bronx, New York under the name "Steven Deli Grocery
Corp." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERGOOP LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Supergoop, LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Supergoop, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00919 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

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

Supergoop! -- https://supergoop.com/ -- is a prestige skincare
brand 100% dedicated to suncare, making it easy to incorporate UV
protection into the daily routine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSUNION LLC: Organizations Submits Amicus Briefs to SCOTUS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Doyle, Esq., and Montserrat Miller, Esq., of Arnall Golden
Gregory LLP, are pleased to provide you with the Compliance News
Flash, which includes current news briefs relevant to background
screening, immigration and data privacy, for the benefit and
interest of our clients as well as employers and consumer reporting
agencies generally.

Several organizations, including the Professional Background
Screening Association and Consumer Data Industry Association
submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in the TransUnion
v. Ramirez case. The case is significant to the background
screening industry because it could curtail the ability of
plaintiffs to bring Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action
lawsuits. The Supreme Court will consider the question of whether
Article III of the Constitution or the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permit a "damages class action where the vast majority of
the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything
like what the class representative suffered." The case arises from
a class action brought against TransUnion in the Ninth Circuit
involving its reporting of Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)
information. In the case, the class representative was found to
have suffered actual injuries due to the reporting of inaccurate
OFAC information, while many other members of the class arguably
suffered no injury because TransUnion never issued a consumer
report about them. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral
arguments in the case on
March 30, 2021.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and European Data
Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a joint opinion making
recommendations for revisions to the draft Standard Contractual
Clauses (SCCs) issued by the European Commission (EC). As a
reminder, the draft SCCs were issued in November 2020 by the EC in
an attempt to rectify some of the shortcomings identified in the
CJEU's Schrems II decision from July 2020. Originally the SCCs were
expected to be finalized in Q1 of 2021, but with this joint opinion
suggesting significant revisions, it looks like it might be a bit
longer before we see a final version. Once they are adopted,
businesses will have 1 year to implement the new SCCs. Click here
to read more. As a note, the "new" SCCs are intended to eventually
replace the SCCs currently found on the EC's website (click here).
SCCs are used for data transfers between the European Union (EU)
and non-EU countries.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it will delay
the effective date of its new H-1B Selection final rule, which
changes the process by which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) prioritizes selection of H-1B cap-subject
petitions by replacing the current random lottery with prioritizing
selection of H-1B cap-subject petitions based on the highest
Occupational Employment Statistics prevailing wage level. DHS is
delaying the effective date of this final rule from March 9, 2021,
to December 31, 2021. Thus, for the upcoming H-1B cap season, USCIS
will apply the current lottery system to any registration period
that takes place before Dec. 31, 2021. USCIS states that the delay
will give USCIS more time to develop, test, and implement the
modifications to the H-1B registration system and selection
process.

Virginia looks like it will be the second state, behind California,
to pass comprehensive data privacy legislation. The Virginia House
passed HB 2307 and the Virginia Senate passed an identical
companion bill, SB 1392. Similar to California's CCPA and CPRA,
Virginia's legislation would give consumers the right to access,
correct, and delete the data that businesses collect about them, as
well as the ability to opt out of data collection. The bill does
not give consumers the ability to sue companies for violations,
known as a private right of action. Instead, the bill will be
enforced exclusively by Virginia's Attorney General. Whether to
include a private right of action has been a sticking point for a
number of similar privacy bills. If enacted, the legislation would
take effect January 1, 2023. Click here to read the Virginia bill.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalized its settlement
with Zoom Video Communications, Inc., ("Zoom") over allegations it
misled consumers about the level of security it provided for its
Zoom meetings. The final order requires Zoom to implement a
comprehensive security program, review any software updates for
security flaws prior to release, and ensure the updates will not
hamper third-party security features. The company must also obtain
biennial assessments of its security program by an independent
third party, which the FTC has authority to approve, and notify the
FTC if it experiences a data breach. [GN]


TWIN CITY FIRE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Pure Fitness Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PURE FITNESS LLC, Plaintiff v. TWIN CITY FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-775-RDP (N.D. Ala.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama grants
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Plaintiff Pure Fitness operates a gym in Alabama. Defendant Twin
City issued a business insurance policy to the Plaintiff covering
the period October 11, 2019, to October 11, 2020. In its First
Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that it
suffered significant financial losses because it was "forced to
suspend business operations due to risks presented by the
infectious disease 'COVID-19' and/or actions of civil authorities
prohibiting public access to and occupancy of the business premises
and rendering occupancy of the premises by customers unlawful and
untenantable." It seeks to have Twin City cover its COVID-19
related losses under its business insurance policy.

In the property insurance section of the Plaintiff's "all-risk"
business insurance policy with the Defendant, the Defendant agreed
to pay the Plaintiff "for direct physical loss of or physical
damage to Covered Property caused by or resulting from a Covered
Cause of Loss." The Policy also protects the Plaintiff against a
loss of business income due to a suspension of its operations due
to "direct physical loss or physical damage to the Covered Property
at the scheduled premises caused by or resulting from a 'Covered
Cause of Loss'" The Policy defines "Covered Causes of Loss" as
"risks of direct physical loss," unless the loss is excluded or
limited in other Policy provisions.

The Policy also contains a three-page endorsement entitled "Limited
Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage," and that endorsement contains a
virus exclusion. The virus exclusion provides: Twin City will not
pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the
following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other
cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to
the loss: (1) Presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any
activity of fungi, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.

The Plaintiff alleges that in March 2020, it was forced to suspend
its business operations due to the risks of direct physical loss
presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and/or the actions of civil
authorities prohibiting access to and the occupancy of the business
premises to prevent the spread of the pandemic. It was forced to
suspend its business operations and close its doors to customers
for a period of at least 56 days as a result of various Civil
Authority Actions. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the
Defendant its business-income losses and extra expense that it
incurred because of the suspension of its business operations,
which the Defendant has refused to pay.

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss focuses on the Limited Fungi,
Bacteria or Virus Coverage and the virus exclusion. The virus
exclusion has two exceptions (1) when the virus results from fire
or lightning or (2) when the limited additional coverage applies.
The limited additional coverage "only applies" if, among other
conditions, the virus results from certain "specified causes of
loss" not at issue (e.g., windstorm, hail, volcanic action) or from
an equipment breakdown. The Plaintiff does not allege that either
of these exceptions applies.

In response to the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff first argues
that it is not appropriates to consider the virus exclusion at this
stage of the litigation. The Court disagrees. Courts routinely
grant motions to dismiss when an exclusion provision in an
insurance policy applies to an action.  The Court may answer that
question and apply an unambiguous exclusion without discovery or
factual development, District Judge R. David Proctor writes, citing
Part Two LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., 2021 WL 135319, at *4 (N.D. Ala.
Jan. 14, 2021).

The Plaintiff next argues that the virus exclusion is ambiguous and
that it does not apply. However, Judge Proctor notes, a number of
courts around the country, including one within this Circuit, have
examined the precise virus exclusion at issue here and have
determined that (1) the exclusion is unambiguous, and (2) it
precludes coverage for COVID-19 related losses, citing Digital Age
Marketing Group, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 WL 80535
(S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021), among other cases.

The Court agrees with these decisions. COVID-19, which was the root
cause of the Plaintiff's losses, is a virus. The Policy at issue in
thw case excludes coverage for losses caused, even in part, by a
virus. There are certain exceptions to this rule, but they do not
apply here, Judge Proctor holds. Therefore, the Court similarly
concludes here that the virus exclusion at issue is unambiguous and
precludes coverage for the Plaintiff's claimed losses in this
case.

Finally, the Plaintiff argues that it should be allowed the
opportunity to amend its complaint if the Court finds that the
virus exclusion applies. However, any such amendment would be
futile, Judge Proctor holds. For the Plaintiff to prevail, the
Court would have to blind itself to the virus exclusion and
judicially rewrite the Plaintiff's insurance policy--something the
Court cannot do, Judge Proctor points out, citing Part Two, 2021 WL
135319, at *4.

For all of these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
First Amended Class Action Complaint is due to be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bpgldaij from
Leagle.com.


US BANK NA: IFCA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. KEN ELDER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK N.A.,
Case No. 2019L013262, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00926 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois False Claims Act through its escheatment of unclaimed
property to one state instead of another.

U.S. Bank N.A. is a financial services company based in Cincinnati,
Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Scott T. Sakiyama, Esq.
         BUCKLEY LLP
         353 N Clark Street, Suite 3600
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 924-9800
         Facsimile: (312) 924-9899
         E-mail: ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com

               - and –

         James R. McGuire, Esq.
         Sarah N. Davis, Esq.
         BUCKLEY LLP
         201 Mission Street, 12th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 619-3500
         Facsimile: (415) 619-3505
         E-mail: jmcguire@buckleyfirm.com
                 sdavis@buckleyfirm.com

               - and –

         Andrew W. Schilling, Esq.
         BUCKLEY LLP
         1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3100
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 600-2400
         Facsimile: (212) 600-2405
         E-mail: aschilling@buckleyfirm.com

               - and –

         Jackson Hagen, Esq.
         BUCKLEY LLP
         2001 M Street NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 349-8000
         Facsimile: (202) 349-8080

US MORTGAGE: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Thane Charman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00302-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 19,
2021).

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

US Mortgage Corporation's -- https://usmtg.com/ -- line of business
includes originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage loans to
permanent investors, and servicing loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com


WISE PLASTICS: Faces Sanchez Suit in Illinois Over BIPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTEFANIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WISE PLASTICS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2021L000195 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 16,
2021) alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff scanned her
fingerprint in the Defendant's biometric time clock, the Defendant
disclosed her fingerprint - or personal identifying information
derived from her fingerprint - to the Defendant's timekeeping
vendor. Before requiring the Plaintiff to use a biometric time
clock, the Defendant never provided Plaintiff any written materials
stating that it was collecting, retaining, or disclosing her
fingerprint or personal identifying information derived from her
fingerprint. The Defendant also never obtained the Plaintiff's
written consent, or release as a condition of employment,
authorizing the collection, storage, dissemination, or use of her
fingerprint or personal identifying information derived from the
Plaintiff's fingerprint, the suit says.

Allegedly, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's privacy by
capturing or collecting her unique biometric identifiers and
information and sharing those identifiers and information with its
time-keeping vendor, without her consent.

Wise Plastics Technologies, Inc. manufactures plastic injection
molding products. The Company offers decoupled molding, process
monitoring and development, and other value added services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com
                  mtresnowski@flsalaw.com


[*] Class Action Settlements Launches Website for Business Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Settlements, a company that helps businesses search,
claim and receive money from class action settlements, on Feb. 16
announced the launch of its new website,
ClassAction-Settlements.com. Designed to simplify a previously
arduous process, ClassAction-Settlements.com helps business owners
receive payment from class action settlements through a single,
centralized website with no upfront costs.

Stats have shown that the current class action claims filing rate
is roughly 10-30%, a range that Class Action Settlements is
dedicated to help increase to 80% or higher. To date, the
professionals at Class Action Settlements have worked with over
100,000 small- to medium-sized businesses, helping them receive
money they are due from class action settlements. The team
understands that the traditional process can be time-consuming and
cumbersome for business owners, resulting in large sums of money
going unclaimed each year.

As many businesses struggle to cope with the financial impact of
the COVID-19 restrictions and shutdowns, they are looking for
hidden assets. By submitting a claim for a class action settlement,
business owners can receive additional money that is due to them.
Recognizing that many business owners are not aware of current
settlements, and in many cases do not have the time or wherewithal
to submit a claim, ClassAction-Settlements.com assists with the
entire process from start to finish.

"At Class Action Settlements, we recognize that small businesses
are the backbone of the United States. Our new website will provide
our valued clients with the most transparent and simplified claims
process available," said Neil Montesano, chief operating officer
for Class Action Settlements. "Not only does the website empower
business owners to receive money due to them, but it also
streamlines the entire claims process. Launching
ClassAction-Settlements.com will provide our clients with the best
platform in the industry and encourage business owners to submit
claims."

Class Action Settlements strives to help ease the cash flow
challenges faced by business owners today, particularly amidst the
pandemic. Recognizing that business owners often wait months or
even years to receive their share of funds from a class action
claim, Class Action Settlements also offers to buy clients' claims
at an agreed upon, negotiated price – which will result in an
immediate payment to the client.

To check if you're eligible for a settlement, please visit
https://classaction-settlements.com/.

                 About Class Action Settlements

Class Action Settlements -- https://classaction-settlements.com/ --
is comprised of a group of professionals who are dedicated to
helping business owners search, claim and receive money back from
class action settlements. Our team members have helped more than
100,000 small- to medium-sized businesses receive money from
antitrust class action settlements. Through our centralized
website, we help business owners identify settlements and submit
claims. Our mission is to increase the class action claims rate
from its current position at less than 30% to 80% or higher.  [GN]


[*] Frydenberg Moves to "Discourage Opportunistic Class Actions"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Josh Frydenberg's decision to cement last year's temporary
changes to Australia's continuous disclosure laws is the right one
for corporate Australia but is attracting the usual opponents.

They include class action lawyers, the litigation funding industry
and federal Labor. The more awkward political hurdle is the
antagonistic view previously expressed by the corporate regulator.

That makes it harder to dismiss critics as predictable complaints
from vested interests and will play into the accusation the
government is favouring business interests over those of ordinary
"mum and dad investors". Prepare for yet another battle for the
hearts and minds of the Senate crossbench.

This has not deterred Frydenberg from what he still believes is
necessary reform to "discourage opportunistic class actions" due to
the open-ended nature of Australia's existing continuous disclosure
rules.

The proposed amendment to the Corporations Act means company
directors and officers will only be vulnerable to civil lawsuits
based on breaches of continuous disclosure "where they have acted
with knowledge, recklessness or negligence".

That's instead of litigants merely having to demonstrate that
companies failed to immediately disclose market-sensitive
information.

"Funny how the pandemic crisis has apparently abated enough to stop
JobKeeper, but is still serious enough to warrant permanently
watering down corporate responsibility," Class Actions Australia
spokesman Ben Hardwick says.

"The ASX is about to hit an all-time high, and the Treasurer thinks
it's important to offer extra shields to company directors to avoid
accountability."

This conveniently ignores the fact that it's mum and dad investors
among the ranks of shareholders who end up bearing the cost of
shareholder class actions - particularly the sizeable cut for
litigation funders and lawyers.

That includes limiting the financial appeal and relative ease of
taking shareholder class actions which have effectively made
Australia a honeypot for litigation funders.

Introducing "the fault element" on continuous disclosure also just
aligns Australia's regime more closely with that of the United
States and the United Kingdom. It doesn't alter ASIC's ability to
pursue criminal action or issue infringement notices and
administrative penalties without proving fault. Nor does it excuse
the more egregious examples of businesses behaving badly, including
deliberately, negligently or recklessly misleading investors.

But it would relieve companies of some of the legal risks in
attempting to provide guidance that can be used against them later,
no matter their intentions or expectations at the time.

That includes limiting the financial appeal and relative ease of
taking shareholder class actions which have effectively made
Australia a honeypot for litigation funders.

More than 120 such class actions have been filed against listed
companies, according to Mallesons, with that number accelerating in
recent years. The risks and long-term distraction of going to court
have also encouraged insurers to settle, making speculative cases
even more financially attractive.

This is also a big factor behind the dramatic increase in insurance
premiums for all directors with lobby groups such as the Australian
Institute of Company Directors strongly pushing the need for
changes.

CEO Angus Armour says the amendments do not 'water down' disclosure
requirements.

Gabriel Radzyminski of Sandon Capital opposes the disclosure
changes
.
Investors lash disclosure softening
"The reckless or negligent director, and the individual who knew
that disclosing information would affect the share price and said
nothing, is still on the hook, as they should be," he argues.

None of this undermines the rationale for class actions in
providing individuals with strength in numbers to pursue access to
justice. But the notion of justice is clearly distorted by
financial rewards on offer in the class action industry -- with
corporate Australia offering a tempting target.

Companies sometimes face multiple actions for the same claims.
Different lawyers and litigation funders - now numbering 33 mostly
international groups - fight for the lucrative right to represent a
group of plaintiffs.

The government is already determined to ensure more money flows to
the members of a class action rather than disproportionately to the
law firms and litigation funders backing the case.

In December, a government-dominated parliamentary committee
recommended a cap on fees and a minimum return of 70 per cent to
class members. The committee -- with a dissenting report from Labor
-- also recommended making permanent the changes to continuous
disclosure laws that were introduced last May to help companies
deal with the uncertainties of COVID-19. These changes were due to
expire next month.

The ASX told the committee it does not consider making them
permanent as "inconsistent with strong and effective continuous
disclosure or the continued integrity of our market".

In contrast, The Australian Financial Review's John Kehoe revealed
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission privately
warned the government last March against making even a temporary
new standard for disclosure during 2020.

Lobbying campaign
The ASIC push-back was led by the now-departed ASIC deputy chairman
Daniel Crennan, who warned of the impact of capital investment from
offshore drying up. It seems most unlikely a much-chastened
corporate regulator would now repeat any such warnings about what
is now firm government policy. But more importantly, the experience
of the past year has not demonstrated the validity of ASIC's
original concerns.

In a note to Treasury last March, for example, ASIC said continuous
disclosure was a "fundamental tenet of our markets and is
particularly important during times of market uncertainty and
volatility".

It argued that the economic significance of fair and efficient
capital markets dwarfed the median settlement of $36 million for
class actions. Yet there's no evidence that adding the requirement
to prove fault has deterred or harmed investors in the Australian
market.

"These changes strike the right balance between ensuring
shareholders and the market are appropriately informed while also
allowing companies to more confidently make forecasts of future
earnings or provide guidance updates without facing the undue risk
of class actions," Frydenberg says.

That won't deter the coming political lobbying campaign to stop the
changes becoming law. Follow the money. [GN]


[*] UK Legal System Lacks Generic Class Action Framework
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen O'Dowd, Senior Director of Litigation Funding at Harbour,
disclosed that the UK has a first-class legal system. Its quality
was recently on display in the landmark test case brought by the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in June 2020. The FCA sought
clarity as to whether a variety of insurance policies, purchased by
UK businesses, provided cover for COVID-19 related losses. By
January 2021, the case had been fully and finally resolved by a
decision of the Supreme Court.

Securing a judgment from the UK's highest court only seven months
after commencement of proceedings is impressive. Doing so at the
height of a global pandemic, in a case of such complexity, is
extraordinary.

The Supreme Court's ruling means tens of thousands of policyholders
will now have their claims for COVID-19 losses paid by insurers.
One of the insurers in question is Hiscox, whose blanket coverage
denial was challenged, most notably, by a collective of
policyholders known as the Hiscox Action Group. The Group,
comprising more than 350 businesses advised by Mishcon de Reya and
backed by Harbour's funding, played an important role in the
outcome of the FCA's test case.

The Hiscox Action Group's ability to aggregate and pursue hundreds
of similar claims seems like another positive advertisement for the
UK legal system. On closer examination, however, the Group's case
highlights a defect in the system, namely the lack of a generic
class action framework to support it.

The distinction between opt-out and opt-in is key in the context of
an effective class action.

Class Actions: Opting in or out?

A class action enables claims with common issues to be resolved in
a single case. Proceedings can be brought by one claimant on its
own behalf and as a representative of others. The representative's
proceeding defines the group or 'class', and automatically includes
all claims within that class unless a class member expressly opts
out.

The distinction between opt-out and opt-in is key in the context of
an effective class action. The Hiscox Action Group's case is
structured like a class action, and enjoys certain efficiencies
associated with the same, but it is not actually a class action. It
is not supported by a class action framework, and it is opt-in
only.

This means that every individual member of the Hiscox Action Group
has signed up to a retainer with Mishcon de Reya, a funding
agreement with Harbour, and Terms of Reference governing the
operation of a Steering Committee that is responsible for the
day-to-day running of the case. This structure, although sound,
requires considerable time, effort and cost to put in place. It is,
on the whole, a workable solution for a group comprising several
hundred members. However, the larger the class size, the more a
structure of this nature will feel the strain.

A similar structure appears to have been used by victims of a
cyber-attack at British Airways in 2018. Over 400,000 passengers
had their personal and financial details stolen, and it is reported
that a group of more than 16,000 passengers has been formed, on an
opt-in basis, in order to bring proceedings against British
Airways. On the one hand, the effort required to form a group of
this size should be applauded. And yet, on the other hand, there
are approximately 384,000 victims whose claims will not be
determined by this opt-in action.

The UK has a relatively new class action regime that is restricted
to competition claims only.

The current status of UK class actions

Legal systems such as those in the US, Canada and Australia have
well-established class action regimes. These regimes are generic,
meaning that all types of group litigation are supported by a clear
statutory framework.

By contrast, the UK has a relatively new class action regime that
is restricted to competition claims only. The regime, which is
presided over by the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), is in
effect a pilot scheme whose success, or otherwise, will likely
inform the UK government as to the implementation of a more generic
regime for other types of claim.

This wait-and-see approach is in danger of damaging the leading
status of the UK legal system. Take, for example, the case of Lloyd
v Google. The case concerns allegations that Google, using the
'Safari Workaround', exploited private information about the
internet usage of around four million UK Apple iPhone owners. It
would be practically impossible to form an opt-in group of anything
like four million claimants, so in the absence of a generic class
action regime to support his claim, Mr Lloyd is attempting to rely
on an existing mechanism in the UK legal system. That is, the use
of Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 19.6 to enable him to act as
representative for the entire class on an opt-out basis.

This wait-and-see approach is in danger of damaging the leading
status of the UK legal system.

Mr Lloyd needed the court's permission to serve his claim on Google
in the US, and to get his proceedings underway. Permission was
refused at first instance, with the High Court ruling that Mr
Lloyd's claim had no real prospect of success and was not suitable
to be run as a representative action. But on appeal, the Court of
Appeal overturned this ruling, stating that "this representative
action is in practice the only way in which these claims can be
pursued. It is not disproportionate to pursue such litigation in
circumstances where, as was common ground, there will…be no other
remedy".

The Court of Appeal's focus on remedy is important. A sophisticated
legal system must provide all victims, including the victims of
mass harm, with a means of redress. The Court of Appeal's ruling
will soon be scrutinised by the Supreme Court, and it remains to be
seen whether or not Mr Lloyd's claim will establish a new
procedural framework, under CPR 19.6, for the conduct of mass data
breach claims on an opt-out basis.

Which way the Supreme Court will decide is currently unknown. The
Court's recent ruling in the case of Merricks v MasterCard could be
an indication of its mindset, although a key difference between
Lloyd and Merricks is that Merricks is a competition case being run
pursuant to the CAT's class-action regime, whereas Lloyd is not.
There is, however, a common theme present in both decisions, and
that is the sentiment that the UK legal system should enable
victims of mass harm to seek redress.

Again, we see the UK's most senior judges emphasising the right of
all victims of wrongdoing, including victims of mass harm, to be
compensated.

Mr Merricks has applied for his case to be certified as a class
action, whereby he will act as representative for some 46 million
people with estimated aggregate damages of around £14 billion. Mr
Merricks' application was initially refused by the CAT, but on
final appeal the Supreme Court ruled that the CAT had erred in its
approach, having set the bar for certification too high.

Two statements of the Supreme Court are of note. First,
"anti-competitive conduct may never be effectively restrained in
the future if wrongdoers cannot be brought to book by the masses of
individual consumers who may bear the ultimate loss from misconduct
which has already occurred". And second, " . . . as the Court of
Appeal observed . . . a refusal of certification of a case like the
present is likely to make it certain that the rights of consumers
arising out of a proven infringement will never be vindicated,
because individual claims are likely to be a practical
impossibility. The evident purpose of the statutory scheme was to
facilitate rather than to impede the vindication of those rights".

Again, we see the UK's most senior judges emphasising the right of
all victims of wrongdoing, including victims of mass harm, to be
compensated.

The value of class actions

The term 'class action' can provoke an emotive reaction in some
quarters. The most vehement opponents of class actions conjure up
dramatic images of floodgates being smashed open, and a legal
system overwhelmed by a tsunami of meritless litigation backed by
entrepreneurial funders.

In order for the UK legal system to maintain its first-class
status, it requires a generic class action regime.

The truth is much more benign. Litigation funders take great care
to back only the strongest class actions precisely because their
commission is dependent on the action succeeding and damages being
recovered from the opponent. Also, there are numerous safeguards
present in the UK legal system to ensure the floodgates remain
firmly intact. Most notably, UK litigation is subject to the loser
pays principle, which acts as a strong deterrent against meritless
claims because the loser, or his/her funder, must pay a large
portion of the opponent's legal costs. In the context of class
actions, those costs are often significant.

Emotive arguments surrounding class actions are an unhelpful
distraction. In order for the UK legal system to maintain its
first-class status, it requires a generic class action regime. At a
time when class actions are gaining momentum around the world, and
victims of mass harm have access to litigation funding and the
ability to forum-shop, the UK must offer them an effective means of
redress. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***