/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210226.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 36

                            Headlines

ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Junk Consolidated New York Suit Still Pending
ALTERYX INC: Three Putative Class Suits in California Consolidated
AMAZON.COM INC: Bonilla Sues Over Supracompetitive E-Book Prices
AMERICAN HONDA: Mastrangelo Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries

ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Kaegi Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.
ASSET RECOVERY: Landowski Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
ATLANTIC INNOVATIONS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUTO OWNERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Family Tacos Class Suit
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Boyd Files Suit in N.D. New York

CALKO TRANSPORT: Orozco Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Truck Drivers
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Class Settlement in Kater Suit Wins Final Approval
COGNIZANT TECH: Appeals Denial of Case Dismissal in Third Circuit
CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Underway
CONVERSION INTERACTIVE: Barkan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages

CURALEAF INC: Ardito Files Suit in E.D. New York
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Boskie Fraud Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
E&S COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Browder Suit Claims
ECOARK HOLDINGS: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Abrahms Class Suit
EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio

EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFOA-Related Class Suit in NY
EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Suit Over Hotel Taxes Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Silis Suit Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Ze'ev Suit Pending

EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Leave to Appeal Case Dismissal Pending
GERBER LIFE: Prewitt's Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
GIGCAPITAL3 INC: Ryan Challenges Proposed Merger With Lightning
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Stewart Says
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baumgarten Files Suit in E.D. New York

HUUUGE INC: Class Settlement in Wilson Suit Wins Final Approval
I.C. SYSTEM: Hale Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
JBS CARRIERS: Class Settlement in Skau Suit Wins Final Approval
JECHI INC: Cal. App. Partly Flips Order Dismissing Mercado Suit
JOHN VARVATOS: Court Awards $854K in Attorneys' Fees in Knox Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baby Powder Causes Ovarian Cancer, McCarty Says
MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Faces Myers Suit Over Reduction of Royalties
MDL 2936: Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
MILEA TRUCK: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
NESTLE USA: Coffee Creamer Has Artificial Flavor, Suriano Claims

NEW YORK: Doe Suit Over Mandatory School Immunization Dismissed
NEW YORK: Maoli Files Real Property Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
NICHOLS GARDEN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORDSTROM INC: Leone Suit Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
NUVE MIGUEL: Faces Santos Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Stock Clerks

ORGAIN LLC: Zahora Sues Over Nutritional Shake's Artificial Flavor
ORLANDO FAMILY: Perez Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PLANET HOME: Faces Solis $1 MM Suit in Connecticut Federal Court
PLANT GROWERS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLAYTIKA LTD: Class Settlement in Wilson Suit Wins Final Approval

PORSCHE CARS: Minassian Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Brake System
RAR OF OTTAWA: Szarka Seeks Managers & Asst. Managers' Unpaid OT
RCI LLC: Loses Partial Bid to Dismiss Williams-Young's Class Suit
RESTORE WEST: Summers Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ST. ELIZABETH COMMUNITY: Tereba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

WALGREENS BOOTS: Gray Suit Moved From New York to N.D. Illinois
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss MIKMAR Class Suit
WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PA: Drew's Bid for Class Certification Denied
WINNETT PERICO: Bid for Default Judgment in Smith v. Brewer Denied
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Resolves Objections to R&R in Schrader Suit


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has 1,200 PI Claims as of Feb. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp Sued For Alleged Personal Injury Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $93MM Liabilities at Dec. 31


                            *********

ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and
is based in New York, New York said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that limited
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit filed against
Faneuil, Inc. by Donna Marshall.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ.

Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.

In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. Faneuil demurred to the
PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court.

The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery.

A court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for the
first half of 2021.

Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend
this case vigorously.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.

ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Junk Consolidated New York Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit remains pending before the
U.S. Eastern District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:19-cv-00624, respectively.

In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer of the
Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and consideration
of that submission.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.

In August 2019, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter (in
respect of a requested motion to dismiss filing) with the EDNY
District Court and plaintiff filed a response. On November 27,
2019, the defendants served the plaintiff with a motion to dismiss,
and on December 27, 2019, the plaintiff served the defendants with
its opposition to such motion.

On January 17, 2020, the defendants filed the fully-briefed motion,
including a reply to the plaintiff's opposition, with the EDNY
District Court.

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

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

ALTERYX INC: Three Putative Class Suits in California Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative securities class action suit
entitled, In re Alteryx, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:20-cv-01540 (C.D. Cal).

Three putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers in U.S.
federal court relating to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) Smith v.
Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01540 (CD Cal.), filed on August
19, 2020; (2) Chau v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01886 (CD
Cal.), filed on September 30, 2020; and (3) Lalgudi v. Alteryx,
Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01910 (CD Cal.), filed on October 2, 2020.

On November 13, 2020, lead plaintiffs were appointed, or the Lead
Plaintiffs, and the three cases were consolidated into one action,
In re Alteryx, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01540
(C.D. Cal).

On January 28, 2021, a first amended complaint was filed asserting
claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities between February 13,
2020 and August 7, 2020. Lead Plaintiffs allege that such persons
and entities were harmed as a result of certain alleged false or
misleading statements, or omissions, made by us and certain of our
executive officers.

Alteryx said, "These proceedings remain in the early stages. We
intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Because of the
early stages of these matters, we are unable to estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from
these matters."

Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. Alteryx, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

AMAZON.COM INC: Bonilla Sues Over Supracompetitive E-Book Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIACRISTINA BONILLA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01130
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021) alleges that Amazon and the "Big Five"
publishers - Hachette Book Group; Simon & Schuster, Inc. and Simon
& Schuster Digital Sales, Inc.; HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C.;
Penguin Random House LLC; and Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC,
agreed to price restraints that cause Plaintiff and Class members
to pay supracompetitive prices for eBooks purchased from the "Big
Five" through a retail platform other than Amazon.com.

The Plaintiff and Class members purchased one or more eBooks
directly from the "Big Five" through a retail platform other than
Amazon's.

The "Big Five" produce "trade books," which include "general
interest fiction and non-fiction books," as opposed to
"‘non-trade' books such as academic textbooks, reference
materials, and other texts." The "Big Five" make up 80% of domestic
trade book sales.

The Plaintiff and Class members are consumers who frequently shop
for electronic books ("eBooks") published by the "Big Five" through
online retailers such as Amazon, Kobo, Apple Books, and Barnes &
Noble. The "Big Five" sell their books through these platforms
under an "agency model" in which every sales transaction occurs
directly between the publisher and retail consumer while the online
platform serves as the publisher's sales agent taking a commission
on each book sold.

Since 2011, the United States and European antitrust authorities
have continuously investigated eBook prices. The European
Commission ("EU Commission") first investigated potential collusion
between the "Big Five" and Apple in 2011. Additionally, the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") along with the Attorneys General from
at least 33 states filed a civil action against Apple and the "Big
Five" in 2012. The EU Commission as well as the U.S. District Court
presiding over the DOJ and AG's lawsuit determined that the "Big
Five" had colluded with Apple to raise retail eBook prices. The
agreement between the parties was to shift from a wholesale model
(where the eBook retailer sets retail prices) to an agency model
(where the publisher sets retail prices and the eBook retailer acts
merely as its agent).

As a result, the "Big Five's" eBook prices decreased dramatically
from 2013-2014 while the decrees were in effect. In 2015, prices
rose after the "Big Five" renegotiated their agency agreements with
Amazon and the "Big Five" have since continued to maintain
supracompetitive prices, the Plaintiff contends.

Mariacristina Bonilla is a resident of Norwalk, Connecticut. Ms.
Bonilla purchased numerous books published by the HarperCollins,
Penguin, and Macmillan from Barnes & Noble during the proposed
class period.

Defendant Amazon operates the world's largest online retail
platform. Online sales by Amazon account for nearly half of all
retail e-commerce in the United States and in particular it has
accounted for 76% of all digital book sales in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil L. Glazer, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: nglazer@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com
                  zdean@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Morgan Hunt, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                  morganhunt@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

Defendant Amazon.Com, Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan Bradley Pitt, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP (DC)
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: jpitt@wc.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Mastrangelo Sues Over Defective Vehicle Batteries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORGE MASTRANGELO AND MONIQUE VASQUEZ, individually CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR, CO., INC., a corporation; and HONDA MOTOR
CO., Ltd, a business entity, Case No. 2:21-cv-01150 (C.D. Calif.,
Feb. 8, 2021) is a consumer class action lawsuit on behalf of all
current and former owners and lessees of the following Honda
vehicles: 2017-2019 Honda Accords and 2017-2019 CR-Vs ("Class
Vehicles"), alleging that the Defendants manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing to
purchasers and lessees that the Class Vehicles were sold with
defective batteries that are too small and suffer from parasitic
draw, which cause the batteries to fail prematurely, marooning
consumers with a disabled vehicle ("Battery Defect").

According to the complaint, the Defect inevitably manifests, but
does so unpredictably, which poses considerable safety risks for
drivers and their passengers who may be left stranded with an
inoperable vehicle. Additionally, drivers are faced with
unanticipated expenses such as premature battery replacement,
diagnosis, emergency roadside service, and mobile battery packs.

Allegedly, Honda has been aware of the Battery Defect since at
least February 2017 when it sent a notice to its service managers
and advisers that it would like to collect batteries from 2016-2017
Honda Accords where the customer complained of a "no-start
condition." In 2018 and 2019, with the problem persisting, Honda
announced a battery collection program requesting batteries, this
time, from the 2018-2019 Accords, as well as 2017-2018 CR-Vs and
2016-2018 Pilot Touring/Elites.

Despite knowing about the Defect, Honda has not successfully fixed
it nor disclosed the existence of the Defect to consumers. Honda
likewise has failed to live up to its warranty obligations, the
suit contends.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American
subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          William A. Baird, Esq.
          BAIRD LAW FIRM, APC
          2625 Townsgate Road, Suite: 330
          Westlake Village, Ca. 91361
          Telephone: (805)-267-1209
          E-mail: tbaird@bairdlawfirm.org

ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Kaegi Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF WANDA KAEGI and
VICTOR KAEGI, and ESTATE OF STEPHEN BLAINE and SHARON FARRELL v.
ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION CENTER I; ANDOVER SUBACUTE
REHABILITATION CENTER II; ALTITUDE HEALTH SERVICES INC.; ALTITUTDE
INVESTMENTS, LTD; ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE; CHAIM "MUTTY" SCHEINBAUM;
LOUIS SCHWARTZ; HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10;
and ABC AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. SSX-L-176-20 (Filed May
19, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey in and for the County of Sussex to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 8, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02120-KM-JBC to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' allegations arise exclusively from the outbreak of
the COVID-19 virus in the winter/spring of 2020 and the Defendants'
alleged negligence in the manner in which they allocated and
implemented countermeasures in responding to the global COVID-19
pandemic and rendering treatment to the Plaintiffs' decedents while
they were residing at Defendants' facilities. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendants breached their duty" "to
prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus" in negligently executing
"proper protocols and procedures" "for the prevention of the spread
of the Covid-19 virus" and negligently allocating and misusing
"personal protective equipment" and other equipment at the
facilities.

Andover Subacute is a skilled nursing facility.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Malinda A. Miller, Esq.
          S. Christopher Marino, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Blvd., 8th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 577-6260
          Facsimile: (973) 577-6261

ASSET RECOVERY: Landowski Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Krzysztof Landowski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-00988 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC --
https://assetrecoverysolutions.com/ -- operates as an asset
recovery management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ATLANTIC INNOVATIONS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Innovations
LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Atlantic Innovations
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01585 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

Atlantic Innovations, LLC -- https://www.atlanticinnovations.com/
-- is located in Amherst, New Hampshire and is part of the
Advertising & Marketing Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTO OWNERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Family Tacos Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAMILY TACOS, LLC, Plaintiff v. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE
CO., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-CV-01922 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J. Philip
Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, hotels, restaurants, and other
hospitality businesses have been particularly hard hit.  Between
State and local public health directives and consumer reluctance to
travel and to dine out, especially in colder weather, many
businesses in the hospitality industry have closed.  Tragically,
too many of these closures will be permanent.  Those that have not
closed have sustained deep and painful losses.  Various
governmental relief efforts have attempted to direct aid to those
in the hospitality business, among others.  The lawsuit presents
another means by which some have, understandably, sought a
financial lifeline to weather the difficulties and uncertainties in
which the hospitality industry finds itself through no fault of its
own or any particular actor in it.

Plaintiff Family Tacos operates two restaurants in Portage County,
Ohio.  When it sustained losses due to the pandemic, the Plaintiff
filed claims for lost business income under its insurance policy
with Defendant Auto Owners.  It seeks a declaratory judgment on its
own and on behalf of a putative class of other hospitality
businesses that the Defendant has coverage obligations under its
policies due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or strike the class
action allegations.  It makes three main arguments for dismissal.
First, the Defendant maintains the Plaintiff is not entitled to
coverage because it has not suffered a Covered Cause of Loss under
the policy, which requires direct physical loss or damage.  Second,
the Plaintiff's claimed losses also did not trigger Civil Authority
Coverage because there was no damage to property other than its own
and because access to the covered premises was not completely
prohibited as a result of damage to another property.  Third, that
even if the Plaintiff's losses were covered under the policy, the
exclusions bar recovery.

The Plaintiff counters that the policy language is "classically
ambiguous" and asks the Court to consider circumstances such as
"the parties' relationship, the Policy's purpose, the pandemic's
novelty, the experts' testimony, and the insureds' expectation."
Among other phrases, the Plaintiff claims that "direct physical
loss of or damage to property" is an ambiguous term.  It argues
that "physical loss" encompasses loss of use and does not require a
material or physical alteration to the property and that the civil
shutdown orders barred them from conducting normal business
operations at its properties.  Finally, the Plaintiff argues it is
unclear whether the virus exclusion bars its claims because the
alleged damage was caused by a pandemic.

Judge Calabrese explains that the case turns on the meaning of the
language "physical loss of or damage to" property in the insurance
policies Defendant wrote and issued.  This is so because the
Defendant agreed to pay for direct physical loss of or damage to
property.

Specifically, the insurance policy at issue provide: "We will pay
for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the
premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from
any Covered Cause of Loss."

Although the policy requires physical loss of or damage to property
to trigger Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage and Civil
Authority Coverage, it does not define physical loss of or damage
to property.  When interpreting this contractual language, the
Court applies the substantive law of Ohio, which the parties agree
governs the insurance policy at issue.

After repeated and careful study of these background interpretive
principles and the policy at issue, Judge Calabrese determines that
the policy is not ambiguous.  The phrase "physical loss of or
damage to" property consists of common words that must "be given
their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results, or unless
some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall
contents of the instruments."

Taking these words together according to their ordinary meanings,
"physical loss of" property means material, perceptible destruction
or deprivation of possession.  "Physical damage to" property means
material, perceptible harm.  In other words, the phrase intends a
tangible loss of or harm to the insured property, in whole or in
part.  As the trigger for coverage, this policy language excludes
financial or monetary losses resulting from the novel coronavirus,
SARS-CoV-2, which occasioned this dispute for the simple reason
that the virus did not work any perceptible harm to the properties
at issue, even if (construing the allegations in the Plaintiff's
favor) the virus may be found on surfaces there.

Judge Calabrese concludes that the policy at issue does not, as a
matter of law, provide coverage for losses sustained due to
Covid-19.  The Defendant has carried its burden of showing that the
losses the Plaintiff alleges fall squarely within the policy
language of the virus exclusion.  In the Judge's view, the language
of the exclusion is plain and unambiguous and covers the losses the
Plaintiff alleges.

In this ruling, the Judge does not intend in any way to dismiss or
minimize the pain or difficulties those in the hospitality business
have endured since the outbreak of the pandemic.  But the question
before the Court is a narrow one, limited to interpretation of
language in the Plaintiff's insurance policy.  For all the
foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim on which the Court may grant
relief.  As part of its motion to dismiss, the Defendant moved to
strike the class allegations, which is now moot.  As a result, the
Judge denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the class
allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1ucwfxlk from Leagle.com.


BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Boyd Files Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Company. The case is styled as Lee Boyd, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00200-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is
a baby food company that is owned by the Swiss branded
consumer-goods firm Hero Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry J. Kirwan, Jr., Esq.
          KIRWAN LAW FIRM, PC
          AXA Tower I, 15th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Phone: (315) 452-2443
          Fax: (315) 671-1550
          Email: tkirwan@kirwanlawpc.com


CALKO TRANSPORT: Orozco Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES OROZCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CALKO TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC. A California Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 21STCV04962 (Calif.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2021) is an action brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the similarly aggrieved employees
seeking relief against the Defendant for violation of the
California Private Attorneys' General Act, Labor Code.

The case arises out from the Defendant's (1) failure to pay all
wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a
result of Defendant's policy of improperly paying its non-exempt
hourly employees; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure
to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide 22 accurate wage
statements; and (5) failure to pay wages upon ending employment of
terminated or resigned employees. The Plaintiff further seeks
equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and relief
under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. for
unfair business practices.

The aggrieved employees consists of all non-exempt employees
employed by or formerly employed by the Defendant within the State
of California who are California Citizens at the time of the filing
of this complaint. The term "Liability Period" or "Time Period" is
defined as one year prior to the filing of the Plaintiff's
administrative complaint with the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) through the present.

The Plaintiff filed his administrative complaint with the LWDA on
December 3, 2020. The Liability Period is from December 3, 2019 to
the Present.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the the Defendant and entitled to
compensation for all hours worked, minimum and overtime
compensation, meal and rest premiums, and penalties from the
Defendant. He was employed by the Defendant from August 14, 2015
through December 6, 2019 in a non-exempt hourly position as a truck
driver. Each of the aggrieved employees members are identifiable,
current and/or formerly similarly situated persons who were
employed in non-exempt hourly positions in California for the
Defendant during the Liability Period.

Calko Transport was founded in 1983. The company's line of business
includes providing local trucking with storage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jake D. Finkel, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          Sheryl L. Marx, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL
          3470 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 787-7411
          Facsimile: (323) 916-0521
          E-mail: jake@lawfinkel.com
                  alex@lawfinkel.com
                  sheryl@lawfinkel.com

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Class Settlement in Kater Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
grants final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuits
captioned CHERYL KATER and SUZIE KELLY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHURCHILL DOWNS
INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation, and BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a
Washington corporation, Defendants; and MANASA THIMMEGOWDA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation;
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Nevada corporation; ARISTOCRAT
LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; and CHURCHILL DOWNS
INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation, Defendants, Case Nos.
15-cv-00612-RSL, 19-cv-00199-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on February 11, 2021, at
which the Court heard argument from counsel and allowed others to
appear to voice their support for, or objection to, the Settlement.


Based on all these materials and the statements at the Final
Approval Hearing, the Court confirms its certification for
settlement purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons in
the United States who played Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots
or Epic Diamond Slots on or before Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement."

The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action (including all
individual claims and class claims) is dismissed with prejudice on
the merits, without costs or attorneys' fees to any Party except as
provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final
Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards.

Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards, the Court awards $38,750,000 in attorney's fees and
$1,590,690 in costs and expenses to the Class Counsel. It further
awards 10,000 each to Cheryl Kater and Manasa Thimmegowda for their
services as Class Representatives and awards $50,000 to Suzie Kelly
for her services as a Class Representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycea8eks from Leagle.com.


COGNIZANT TECH: Appeals Denial of Case Dismissal in Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the company's motion to certify the June 7, 2020 order denying
case dismissal for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), is pending.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.

These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on
April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased the company's common stock during the period between
February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and
certain of its current and former officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false
or misleading statements related to potential violations of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the company's business,
prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of the company's
internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure
controls and procedures.

The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order which
granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all
claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in
part.

On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the
August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an
order granting the company's motion, and staying the action pending
the outcome of the company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit.


On October 29, 2018, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the company's
petition without prejudice.

In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the
lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended
complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 10, 2019. On June 7, 2020, the District Court issued an
order denying the company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On July 10, 2020, the company filed its answer to the
second amended complaint.

On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion on
consent for leave to intervene and to stay all discovery through
the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in United States v.
Gordon J. Coburn and Steven Schwartz, Crim. No. 19-120 (KM), except
for documents produced by the company to the DOJ in connection with
those criminal proceedings.

On July 24, 2020, the District Court granted the DOJ's motion; and
on that same day, the company filed a motion in the District Court
to certify the June 7, 2020 order for immediate appeal to the Third
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), which motion is now fully
briefed.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.

CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in
"Casey-Fitzwater" consolidated class action suit is set to take
place in the first quarter of 2021.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal
Company, CONSOL of Kentucky Inc., CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC
and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The
Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020.

Trial is currently scheduled to take place in the first quarter of
2021.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

CONVERSION INTERACTIVE: Barkan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA M. BARKAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERSION INTERACTIVE AGENCY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00262-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., February 16,
2021) brings this complaint as a class action complaint against the
Defendant seeking redress for its alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant began sending unsolicited
text messages to his cellular telephone number (909) XXX-0798 on
March 20, 2020 in an attempt to advertise employment opportunity
for hazmat truck drivers on behalf of HUB Group, Inc.
Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's multiple requests to the Defendant
to stop sending text messages because he was not interested in the
advertised job opportunity, the Defendant continued to text the
Plaintiff without his consent, the Plaintiff adds.

The Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct has severely impacted the
Plaintiff's daily life and general well-being causing him actual
harm, such as invasion of privacy, nuisance, intrusion upon
seclusion.

Conversion Interactive Agency is a recruitment advertising agency:
strategy, web/mobile development, social media, media
planning/buying, PPC, SEO/SEM. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL
          Tel: (331) 307-7646
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlawgroup.com


CURALEAF INC: Ardito Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curaleaf, Inc. The
case is styled as Jennifer Ryan Ardito, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Curaleaf, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00958 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

Curaleaf -- https://curaleaf.com/ -- is a medical and wellness
cannabis operator in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Boskie Fraud Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drexel University.
The case is captioned as John Edward Boskie, Jr., v. DREXEL
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00592-CMR (E.D. Pa., Feb. 8, 2021).

The case arises from fraud-related issues and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe.

Drexel University is a private research university with its main
campus in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Gorski, Esq.
          GORSKI LAW, PLLC
          1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 330-2100
          E-mail: greg@greggorskilaw.com

E&S COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Browder Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BROWDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E&S COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, SAMANTHA R. QUIMBY, an individual, and ELLIJAH
D. SCHAEFFER, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
9:21-cv-80337-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 2018 until
April 2019 as a non-exempt Waste Disposal Driver to perform cell
tower installation, repairs, modernization and updates for the
Defendants' customers throughout Florida and surrounding states.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working over 40 hours
in a workweek, the Defendant failed to properly compensate him and
other similarly situated cell tower laborers at least one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants knowingly, willfully,
or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay overtime compensation correctly with
respect to their cell tower laborers. Moreover, the Defendant
willfully failed to provide a complete and accurate accounting of
all overtime wages, the suit says.

On behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly situated cell
tower laborers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary and appropriate.

E&S Communications, LLC provides wireless telecommunications,
specializing in the cellular communications industry. The
Individual Defendants are responsible for the supervision of the
E&S' cell tower laborers and for their compensation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com


ECOARK HOLDINGS: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Abrahms Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecoark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that Simon Abrahms filed
a notice of dismissal without prejudice of the class action lawsuit
which he filed in the United States District Court of the District
of Nevada.

On January 15, 2021, Simon Abrahms filed a notice of dismissal
without prejudice of the class action lawsuit which was filed in
the United States District Court of the District of Nevada on
November 9, 2020 against the Company and members of its Board of
Directors.

This lawsuit is discussed in more detail in the Company's revised
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed on December 11,
2020.

The Company's stockholders ratified the corporate action giving
rise to this litigation at a special meeting that was held on
December 29, 2020.

As a result, the Company expects that its sole remaining liability
is to reimburse the plaintiff for his reasonable attorneys' fees.

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Ecoark Holdings, Inc., is an innovative
AgTech company that is focused on modernizing the post-harvest
fresh food supply chain for a wide range of organizations including
growers, distributors and retailers.  Ecoark Holdings is the parent
company of Ecoark, Inc., and Magnolia Solar Inc.


EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  the
company continues to defend against a nationwide class action suit
in Ohio related to Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) water contamination.

The company (EID) is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by
the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a
putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who
has detectable levels of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
in their blood serum, and an action by the City of Dayton claiming
losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of
PFAS in water supplies.

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

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFOA-Related Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit related to
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOA") in New York around the
Hoosick Falls Area.

The company (EID) is a defendant in about 50 lawsuits, including a
putative class action, brought by persons who live in and around
Hoosick Falls, New York.

These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring and property
damage based on alleged Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from
manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in
Hoosick Falls and allege that EID and 3M supplied some of the
materials used at these facilities.

EID is also one of more than ten defendants in a lawsuit brought by
the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) contamination of the town's
well water.

Additionally, EID, along with 3M, Chemours and Dyneon, have been
named defendants in complaints filed by eight water districts in
Nassau County, New York alleging that the drinking water they
provide to customers is contaminated with PFAS and seeking
reimbursement for clean-up costs.

The water district complaints also include allegations of
fraudulent transfer.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.

EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend several suits including class action
suit related to perfluorinated chemicals and compounds (PFC).

Prior to the separation of Chemours, the company (EID) introduced
GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) at the Fayetteville Works facility in
Bladen County, North Carolina. The facility is now owned and
operated by Chemours, which continues to manufacture and use GenX.

On December 31, 2020, several actions are pending in federal court
against Chemours and the company (EID) relating to perfluorinated
chemicals and compounds (PFC) discharges from the Fayetteville
Works facility. One of these is a consolidated putative class
action that asserts claims for medical monitoring and property
damage on behalf of putative classes of property owners and
residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape
Fear River.

Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North
Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive
damages as well as injunctive relief. In another action over
approximately 100 property owners near the Fayetteville Works
facility filed a complaint against Chemours and EID in May 2020.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for their
claims of private nuisance, trespass, and negligence allegedly
caused by release of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.

EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Suit Over Hotel Taxes Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs appeal the
Fifth Circuit's decision affirming the grant of reimbursement
costs, is pending.

In May 2006, the City of San Antonio filed a putative statewide
class action in federal court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Orbitz,
alleging that the defendants failed to pay hotel accommodations
taxes as required by municipal ordinance.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant online travel
companies to the Fifth Circuit, the district court entered final
judgment in favor of the defendant online travel companies in March
2018 and in June 2019 awarded the defendants approximately $2.25
million in reimbursable costs.

Plaintiffs appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's cost award. In September 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition
for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court with
respect to the cost award, which the Court granted.

Plaintiffs' appeal remains pending.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Silis Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in "Silis Putative Class Action" suit in Tel Aviv,
Israel against Hotels.com., is pending.

In or around September 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel against Hotels.com.


The plaintiff generally alleges that Hotels.com violated Israeli
consumer protection laws in various ways by failing to calculate
and display VAT charges in pricing displays shown to Israeli
consumers.

The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which
Hotels.com has opposed.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.



EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Ze'ev Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification filed in "Ze'ev" putative class action suit in the
District Court in Lod, Israel, is pending.

In or around January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Lod, Israel against a number of
online travel companies including Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com.

The plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants violated
Israeli consumer laws by limiting hotel price competition.

The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which
defendants have opposed.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.



EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Leave to Appeal Case Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs motion for
leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the the New York
Supreme Court - Appellate Division, affirming the dismissal, is
pending.

In October 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of online
travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Orbitz, which was subsequently dismissed and refiled in state
court.

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain
local governments in New York. The trial court certified the case
as a class action but the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
reversed that order. Additional county/city plaintiffs subsequently
joined the case as intervenor plaintiffs.

In December 2016, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment with respect to Nassau County's claims on the grounds that
the enabling statute for plaintiff's tax ordinance did not impose a
tax on defendants' fees.

In March 2017, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment against the additional intervenor plaintiffs. Nassau
County and the intervenor-plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal
of their claims and that appeal remains pending.

On December 23, 2020, the New York Supreme Court - Appellate
Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims.

On January 26, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
to the New York Court of Appeals, which the defendants will oppose.
The motion remains pending.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


GERBER LIFE: Prewitt's Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEULAH PREWITT, Plaintiff v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-CV-27-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), Judge
Robert E. Wier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, Southern Division, London, dismissed, in full, the
Amended Complaint, with prejudice.

The Court weighs alleged violations of a Kentucky insurance statute
and fraud with respect to children's whole life insurance policies.
Plaintiff Prewitt purchased, through the years, three children's
whole life insurance policies from Defendant Gerber Life.

In 1967, Gerber Products Co., a company not party to the suit,
began selling life insurance products under the name Gerber Life
Insurance Co.  In September 2018, Gerber Products' parent company
sold Gerber Life to Western & Southern Financial Group, also not
party to the suit.  Gerber Products licenses its trademark to
Gerber Life.

Gerber Life sells a variety of financial products.  One such
product is the Gerber Life Grow-Up Plan, which the company markets
as an opportunity for adults of young children to provide a "head
start" to their financial well-being with policies that grow cash
value over time.  As the Amended Complaint describes, the policy is
"not a savings plan; it is actually a life insurance policy."

Sometime before Feb. 2007, Prewitt saw advertising for a Gerber
Life product.  In February 2007, she applied for whole life
insurance for one of her grandchildren.  She bought additional
policies for her other grandchildren in 2013 and 2016.  Each policy
was a Grow-Up Plan offering.  Prewitt points to three
advertisements, all dated in 2019, that she claims are "like" the
advertisements that induced her to purchase the particular Gerber
Life products.  She also generally references Facebook messages and
mailings from Gerber, which contributed in some way to her
decisions.

Prewitt filed suit against Gerber Life in Laurel County Circuit
Court on Jan. 6, 2020.  Gerber Life removed the complaint on Feb.
3, 2020.  She filed an Amended Complaint on March 11, 2020.  Her
Amended Complaint alleges, for herself and the putative class, two
claims: a statutory claim under KRS 446.070 for violation of
Kentucky's unfair or deceptive insurance practices statutes and a
common law claim for fraud in the inducement. Id. She centers these
claims on advertisements for two Gerber Life Insurance products:
the "Gerber Life Grow-Up Plan" and the "Gerber Life College Plan."

Gerber Life moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  It argues three preliminary matters
that attempt to narrow the field: 1) many of Prewitt's claims are
barred by the requisite statute of limitations, 2) Prewitt does not
have standing to challenge or make a claim regarding the College
Plan, and 3) Prewitt's statutory claim fails for lack of a
recognized private right of action.

Judge Wier, noting that the pleading at issue is Prewitt's second
go at a complaint, stakes out some core observations about the
record and the chronology.  First, he assesses the precise language
presented.  The post-purchase e-mail ads Prewitt tenders
unequivocally and repeatedly describe the product advertised as
"whole life insurance," which includes as a feature that it "builds
cash value."  The ads use the metaphor "nest egg" and tout other
components of the policy--the unvarying premium, the permanency of
coverage, and an automatic doubling of coverage when the child
reaches maturity.  The Facebook and mailing content alleges similar
statements, regarding the cash value feature. The latter two media
are so non-specific and general, as to circumstances, timing, and
content, that they make a full analysis nearly impossible.

Second, the Plaintiff, the case pursuer, asks the Court to navigate
a challenging chronology.  Prewitt made purchases in 2007, 2013,
and 2016.  She provides nary a date relating to the Gerber
advertisements and any purchasing decision.  Thus, the Plaintiff
forwards 2019 ad content as exemplifying ("like") what she saw
pre-purchase.  As vague as that idea is, Prewitt purchased not once
but thrice.  She bought and held policy 1; she then, years later,
bought and held policy 2, then, more years hence, bought policy 3.

Is she claiming that one ad cluster from prior to 2007 led to all
three decisions to buy?  Is she claiming that she saw and relied on
homogeneous ads sprinkled over the full period?  The Amended
Complaint does not reveal, with any precision, what ad at what
point prompted what policy choice. Further, Prewitt had policy 1
before buying 2 and held 1 and 2 before buying 3.  The Judge, nay
logic, cannot ignore Prewitt's fund of information, evident over
time, in judging the Amended Complaint.

Turning to the motion to dismiss, to determine whether any claims
are time barred, Judge Wier first asks when the claims accrued.
Per KRS 413.130, a fraud claim does not accrue "until the discovery
of the fraud or mistake."  He looks to the Amended Complaint to
resolve the dispute.  Prewitt purchased the first policy in March
2007, "bought a second policy in September 2013," and "in December
2016, she bought a third policy."  The statute of repose would
clearly apply to all actions taken by Gerber before Jan. 6, 2009.
For the remaining claims, Prewitt does not allege precisely when
she received the policies.

Because the Amended Complaint alleges no facts that would place her
claims outside the statute of limitations and because none of the
documents definitively resolves when Prewitt received the policies,
ruling on the statute of limitations is premature in the 12(b)(6)
context, the Judge holds.  The policy 1 claim stands barred.  The
same fate is likely as to policy 2.  The claims on the third policy
are timely.  Because of the procedural posture, the Judge does not
dismiss the full Amended Complaint (insofar as it addresses policy
2 and/or 3) on the basis of limitations.

Gerber Life argues that Prewitt does not have standing to pursue
any claims against it founded on the Gerber Life College Plan.  To
satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the
Constitution, the Plaintiffs must meet three requirements.  First,
they must demonstrate that they have suffered "an 'injury in fact'
that is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent."
Second, the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the Defendant.  Finally, the Plaintiffs must show that it
is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will
be redressed by a favorable decision.

The Judge opines that Prewitt's claims targeting the Gerber Life
College Plan do not survive the Rule 12 hurdle because she makes no
allegation that she even purchased, let alone suffered a harm based
upon, that product.  In her haste to plate a class entree sampling
both plans, Prewitt has only alleged one flavor of actual injury.
Nor is the conduct alleged the same. The plans are different, as is
the cited marketing pertaining to the plans.  The Plaintiff is a
stranger to the College Plan; she relied on no advertising, made no
decision to subscribe, and has utterly no harm from any alleged
relevant action by Gerber Life.  She has no more basis to make the
claim than a random person on the street.  Although the Amended
Complaint suggests a personal stake, the Judge holds that its
factual allegations fail to state a claim under the College Plan.
He agrees with Gerber Life and thus dismisses that part of the
Amended Complaint.

Finally, the Defendant denies the existence of a private right of
action under Kentucky's KRS 446.070 rubric. DE 27 at 20-22.  The
Judge agrees with Prewitt: Per the cases, KRS 446.070 provides a
private remedy for a violation of KRS 304.12-010 and KRS
304.12-020. Gerber Life demurs by criticizing the cases, but on the
matter of Kentucky law, validated by the Sixth Circuit, the Court
will toe the established line.  With these preliminary matters
resolved, the Judge turns to both Amended Complaint claims and
examines the advertisements related to the Gerber Life Grow-Up
Plan.

The parties disagree about the standards to be applied to Claim 1.
The Defendant argues that it should be evaluated part and parcel
with Claim 2 and is simply a statutory claim for fraud.  Prewitt
argues that the claim is a "species of negligence" and should not
be held to the same exacting standards, specifically the
particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).

The Judge opines he need not resolve this pleading standard feud
because even under a more relaxed standard, the Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly allege an "untrue, deceptive, or misleading"
statement or other matter violative of the Kentucky insurance
statutes.  The content Prewitt describes as transgressing the
Insurance Code simply is not a policy benefit misrepresentation,
unfair misnomer, or representation that, fairly read, is untrue,
deceptive, or misleading.  In this context, he finds that Prewitt's
Amended Complaint has failed to adequately plead a statutory
violation.  Accordingly, he dismisses Claim 1 of the Amended
Complaint.

As to Claim 2, the record shows no misstatements or
misrepresentations of fact by Gerber Life.  The advertisements
repeatedly call the product whole life insurance.  The ads
accurately claim a cash value benefit that grows over time.
Nothing in the ads promises anything at all concerning the scope,
growth range, or course of the "nest egg," other than, accurately,
accrual over time.  This is not a company promising dividends when
it knew it could not pay or a company promising to list a stock
when it knew it would not do so.  Gerber Life stuck to sales talk,
told it like it really was, and engaged in no fraud.  This sinks
Claim 2.

Prewitt further claims that she has adequately alleged that the
Defendant committed fraud by omission in her Amended Complaint.
The Judge rejects Prewitt's attempt to amend the complaint and
inject new allegations with a response brief.  Even if he were to
weigh Prewitt's fraud by omission argument at the 12(b)(6) stage,
the pleading would yet fail.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint never sources a duty on Gerber Life to disclose to
possible customers alternative options for their use of their
money.  It would be rare to require a market participant to make a
sales pitch for its competitors.  The Judge rejects the Plaintiff's
attempt, via injection of a late amendment, to salt the bland
complaint after it has already reached the table.

In conclusion, Judge Wier concludes that Prewitt's Amended
Complaint does not pass the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.  Accordingly,
he granted the motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the Amended
Complaint in full with prejudice.  He will issue a separate
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w1mitja8 from Leagle.com.


GIGCAPITAL3 INC: Ryan Challenges Proposed Merger With Lightning
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RYAN v. GIGCAPITAL3, INC., AVI KATZ, RALUCA DINU, NEIL MIOTTO,
JOHN MIKULSKY, ANDREA BETTI-BERUTTO, and PETER WANG, Case No.
5:21-cv-00969 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 8, 2021) is class action suit
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against the Defendants for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which GigCapital3 will combine
with privately-held Lightning Systems, Inc., through GigCapital3's
subsidiary Project Power Merger Sub, Inc.

On December 10, 2020, GigCapital3 issued a press release announcing
that GigCapital3 and Lightning had entered into a Business
Combination Agreement dated December 10, 2020. Under the terms of
the Business Combination Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and
into Lightning, with Lightning continuing as a wholly owned
subsidiary of GigCapital3 (the "Business Combination"). Upon
closing of the Business Combination, Lightning stockholders will
receive 53,922,000 shares of GigCapital3 common stock, with the
right to receive up to an additional 16,463,096 shares of
GigCapital3 common stock if certain share price thresholds are
achieved within five years of closing of the Business Combination.

In connection with the Proposed Transaction and concurrently with
the execution of the Business Combination Agreement, GigCapital3
entered into a subscription agreement for a private investment in
public equity ("PIPE") transaction with BP Technology Ventures,
Inc. The PIPE Investor has agreed to purchase an aggregate of
2,500,000 shares of GigCapital3 common stock for $10.00 per share
in a private placement for an aggregate purchase price of
$25,000,000.

Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, the combined company
will have an implied pro forma equity value of approximately $823
million at closing. It is anticipated that upon completion of the
Proposed Transaction: GigCapital3's existing public stockholders,
excluding the PIPE Investor, will retain an ownership interest of
approximately 24.3% in the combined company.

On December 31, 2020, GigCapital3 filed a Registration Statement on
Form S-4 (as amended on February 4, 2021, the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that GigCapital3 stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits material information, which
renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. The
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Registration Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that unless remedied, GigCapital3's public
stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Registration
Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured.

The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of
GigCapital3.

Defendant GigCapital3 is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 1731 Embarcadero Road, Suite 200, Palo
Alto, California 94303. The Company is a special purpose
acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
stock exchange, acquisition, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses. GigCapital3's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"GIK." The Individual Defendants are Directors of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Stewart Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE STEWART, ELIZABETH AGRAMONTE and SUMMER APICELLA, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00678 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2021) is a
class action suit against Hain for deceptive business practices,
including misrepresentations and omissions, regarding the presence
of dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals and other contaminants
contained within its Earth's Best Organic baby foods that
Plaintiffs purchased.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the
proposed Class including (i) requiring full disclosure of all such
substances and ingredients in the Defendant's marketing,
advertising, and labeling; (ii) requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and (iii)
restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class.

According to the complaint, parents and other caregivers, including
the Plaintiffs, reasonably believe that the baby food they purchase
for their babies will be healthy, nutritious, and non-toxic, and
that is what Hain wanted them to think. Alarmingly, parents and
Plaintiffs were wrong. A recent report by the U.S. House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Reform (“House Subcommittee”)
reveals that certain brands of commercial baby food -- including
Defendant Hain's Earth's Best Organic baby food (Tainted Baby
Foods) -- are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of
toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.
Exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and
endangers neurological development and long-term brain function,
among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems,
the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, and violations
of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized in
equity or by law.

The Plaintiffs had purchased Tainted Baby Foods that were
manufactured and produced by Defendant Hain that have been found to
contain dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including Earth's
Best Organic Sweet Potato Cinnamon Flax & Oat Baby Meal.

The Defendant packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates,
manufactures, distributes, and sells its Tainted Baby Foods
throughout the United States, including New York and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 899-1765
          Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
          E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com

               - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com
                  eService@4-Justice.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
                  eService@4-Justice.com

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baumgarten Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Leiba Baumgarten, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00944 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. -- http://www.hain.com/-- is an
American food company whose main focus is foods and personal care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


HUUUGE INC: Class Settlement in Wilson Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
grants final approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit
titled SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-5276-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on February 11, 2021, at
which the Court heard argument from counsel and allowed others to
appear to voice their support for, or objection to, the Settlement.
Based on all these materials and the statements at the Final
Approval Hearing, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment.

The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the
following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:

     Washington residents (as reasonably determined by IP address
     information or other information furnished by Platform
     Providers) who played [Huuuge Casino, Billionaire Casino,
     Stars Slots, and any other game listed on Exhibit G of the
     Agreement] on or before preliminary approval of the
     settlement.

The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action (including all
individual claims and class claims) is dismissed with prejudice on
the merits, without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as
provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final
Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards.

Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards, the Court awards $1,625,000 million in attorneys' fees and
$27,487.04 in costs and expenses to the Class Counsel.  It also
awards $10,000 to Sean Wilson for his services as a Class
Representative and awards $1,000 to Heidi Hammer for her services
as the Class Representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rd8nzy8l from Leagle.com.


I.C. SYSTEM: Hale Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Tresi Hale, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00373-G (N.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is an Accounts Receivable
Management provider and one of the largest collection companies in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


JBS CARRIERS: Class Settlement in Skau Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit titled KURT SKAU, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JBS
CARRIERS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-CV-00681-RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

The litigation involves the Defendant's alleged wage and hour
violations.

The Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
and Release, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the
settlement and release of claims against Defendant.

Having reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement and all the
filings, records, and other submissions, as well as having held a
Final Fairness Hearing on February 5, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., the Court
finds that the Settlement Agreement appears fair, reasonable, and
adequate and that the Settlement Agreement should be finally
approved pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth therein.

The Court confirms the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
found in the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement and finds that the Settlement Class is properly
certified as a class for settlement purposes.

All Settlement Class Members received notice with no such members
having objected to or opted out of the Settlement.

Upon entry of the Order, compensation to the participating members
of the Settlement Class will be effected pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to any recovery that the Plaintiff may receive under
the Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiff's efforts on
behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the payment of a
service award to Plaintiff Kurt Skau in the amount of $2,500.

The Court approves payment of $1,000 to the Settlement
Administrator for its fees and costs to administer the notice
program.

The Court approves the payment of attorneys' fees and litigation
costs to the Class Counsel in the sum of $100,000.  It has reviewed
the parties' submissions and finds that the lodestar figure is
$222,583.50 for 726.5 hours worked. The Court finds that the
lodestar figure reflects reasonable hourly rates for several
attorneys and their staff and reflects the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation. Given that Class Counsel's
requested fees and costs of $100,000 are far less than its lodestar
figure, which is itself presumptively reasonable, the Court finds
that the requested amount of $100,000 is fair and reasonable. The
attorneys' fees and costs awards will be distributed to Class
Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court dismisses the action with prejudice as to all the
Settlement Class Members.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Order will constitute a
dismissal of this action on the merits with prejudice with respect
to the Defendant, without fees or costs to any party except as
provided in the Settlement Agreement and approved by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2rx2qtep from Leagle.com.


JECHI INC: Cal. App. Partly Flips Order Dismissing Mercado Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division
One, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's order
dismissing the case, ISMAEL MERCADO, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
JECHI, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A158348
(Cal. App.).

Appellant and proposed class representative Mercado brought a class
action alleging various wage and hour violations on behalf of
workers at several restaurants owned or operated by entity
respondents Jechi, Kho Corp., OMC Brands LLC, Eat Bop Corp., and
Kansai Japanese Restaurant, and individual respondents Micha Oh,
Jessica Kwon, Chiyoung Moon, and Dongwon Lee.

In April 2018, Cesareo Perez filed a complaint against two of the
Respondents, Jechi and Kho, asserting five causes of action.  Perez
alleged that Jechi and Kho jointly operated a restaurant called
Charcoal Korean BBQ, where he had worked for seven years as a
produce handler.  He claimed Jechi and Kho had violated various
wage and hour statutes by failing to pay him minimum and overtime
wages, denying him rest and meal breaks, failing to provide
paystubs, and failing to pay wages due at termination.

In May 2018, Mercado joined Perez as a co-Plaintiff in filing an
amended complaint restating the wage and hour violations against
Jechi and Kho.  They alleged that the two companies jointly
operated a second restaurant named Bowl'd (also known as Bowl'd
Albany), where Mercado had worked for two years.  In October, Perez
voluntarily dismissed his claims against Jechi and Kho.  Mercado
sought leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC") to add
class allegations, to add co-Plaintiff Juan Manuel Luna de Anda,
and to name additional defendants. The trial court granted Mercado
leave to file the SAC.

In November 2018, Mercado and de Anda filed the SAC against eight
Defendants, comprised of individual respondents Oh, Kwon, and Moon,
and five corporate respondents, Jechi, Kho, OMC, Eat Bop, and
Kansai.  The SAC alleged that the corporate respondents owned and
operated at least 12 restaurants, including three where Mercado had
worked--Bowl'd Albany, Kansai, and Ohgane Oakland--and two that had
employed de Anda--Bowl'd Albany and Moong Bong Ri.  The SAC did not
identify any employees who worked in the remaining eight
restaurants. Oh, Kwon, and Moon were alleged to have ownership
interests in all five companies and exercised personal control over
the restaurants' day-to-day operations.  The SAC restated the same
wage and hour violations that had previously been alleged, and
prayed for damages of $5 million.

The SAC defined the putative class to include all individuals who
had ever worked at any of the respondents' restaurants in the four
years preceding October 23, 2018, and all individuals who had
worked for the restaurants since Jan. 1, 2017 who had not been paid
a minimum wage.  The alleged basis for class treatment was that
respondents had collectively implemented the same illegal wage and
hour policies in all 12 restaurants.  All the respondents except
for Kansai filed a joint demurrer, contending that the SAC did not
adequately plead facts to show that they were the plaintiffs'
employers or that they had enforced allegedly uniform wage and hour
policies.  De Anda subsequently filed a request for dismissal.

On May 24, 2019, the trial court sustained the respondents'
demurrer to the SAC, denying leave to amend with respect to OMC
based on Mercado's admission in his opposition to a related motion
to bifurcate that he had never worked for any restaurant owned by
OMC.  It otherwise granted leave to amend, while noting that the
respondents had "raised legitimate concerns regarding Mercado's
standing to bring this action against them" and directing that the
Plaintiffs "address these concerns to the best of their ability,
and dismiss any Defendants against whom the Plaintiffs admit they
cannot establish standing."  Addressing Mercado's expressed intent
to add PAGA claims, the trial court stated that its order was not
to be interpreted by the Plaintiffs as permission from the Court to
add any PAGA claims to the complaint" because "this issue is not
directly before the Court."

In May 2019, Mercado filed the TAC, essentially alleging the same
wage and hour claims as before. In addition to the respondents
named in the SAC, Mercado added respondent Dongwon Lee. The TAC
defined the putative class as "all individuals who had worked at
the Restaurants owned by [respondents other than OMC] in the four
years preceding October 23, 2018." This time, Mercado alleged that
he had worked for four of the eight restaurants in question, though
his employment at three of the restaurants lasted for one to two
days each. Mercado alleged that he worked at Bowl'd Albany (owned
by Jechi) for approximately two years, with his employment ending
on December 30, 2017. As to the other four restaurants which had
never employed Mercado, he alleged that one was owned by Jechi and
was subject to the same unlawful wage and hour scheme. He did not
identify which of the respondents owned the other three
restaurants.

In June 2019, Mercado filed a motion seeking leave to file a fourth
amended complaint ("FAC").  The proposed FAC augmented the claims
in the TAC by adding a cause of action under section 558.14 and a
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim against certain
respondents.  The proposed class definition remained unchanged.

The respondents demurred to the TAC on the grounds that Mercado had
failed to cure the standing issues previously noted by the trial
court and could not satisfy the community of interest requirement
for establishing a class action.  In his opposition to the
demurrer, Mercado conceded that his proposed class definition was
"overbroad."

Mercado identified the five proposed subclasses as (1) all workers
at the two Jechi restaurants (Bowl'd Albany and Korean Spoon
Bistro), (2) all workers at the Kho restaurant Oghane, (3) all
workers at Kansai-owned Kansai Japanese restaurant, (4) all workers
at Bowl'd Oakland (owned by Kho and Lee), and (5) all workers at
Eat Bop restaurants.

On Aug. 7, 2019, the trial court entered an order sustaining the
demurrer.  The court found Mercado lacked standing to maintain the
lawsuit as a class action and that he had failed to state a
sufficient basis for class certification.  It granted Mercado leave
to amend "solely as to his viable individual claims against the
respondents."

Mercado subsequently filed a FAC alleging individual claims only.  
The following month, the trial court entered an order denying his
June 2019 motion for leave to file the proposed FAC as moot given
that another version of the FAC had already been filed.  The appeal
followed.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court properly
sustained the demurrer to the TAC's class allegations when it found
that Mercado lacked standing to represent the proposed class and
there was no reasonable possibility he could satisfy the community
of interest requirement for class certification.  However, it
concludes that Mercado should be permitted to amend his complaint
to plead a PAGA claim based on his employment at one of the
restaurants, Bowl'd Albany.

While it does not appear that Mercado had ever proposed the
narrowly defined PAGA claim in the trial court, Mercado's counsel
is correct that a party may advance new legal theories on appeal
when a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend.  To the
extent the trial court's ruling prevented Mercado from stating a
PAGA claim in his August 21, 2019 FAC, the Court of Appeals agrees
he should be allowed the opportunity to amend.  It emphasizes,
however, that such PAGA claim must be confined to the allegations
stated in the current FAC concerning his employment at Bowl'd
Albany, the only restaurant in which he was employed by Jechi.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part,
and the matter is remanded to allow Mercado leave to amend the FAC
to allege, if he is able, a PAGA claim limited in scope to the
matters addressed in the Opinion.  The parties will bear their own
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yw2uffhq from Leagle.com.


JOHN VARVATOS: Court Awards $854K in Attorneys' Fees in Knox Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TESSA KNOX, Plaintiff v. JOHN VARVATOS ENTERPRISES
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 772 (GWG) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees and service payment.

Plaintiff Knox, on behalf of a certified class of female
salespeople, along with 13 other Plaintiffs, brought the action
against the Defendant, alleging that Varvatos' policy of giving a
clothing allowance to male salespeople but not female salespeople,
violates various federal and state equal pay and
anti-discrimination laws.  After a six-day jury trial, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs on all claims.

Varvatos moved to set aside the judgment or for a new trial.  The
Court granted the motion for a new trial on damages but offered the
Plaintiffs a remittitur, Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises Inc., _
F. Supp. 3d. _, 2021 WL 95914 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2021), which the
Plaintiffs accepted.

The Plaintiffs now seek attorney's fees of $1,730,304.50 and costs
of $14,287.21.  They also seek a service payment to Knox of
$300,000 from the punitive damages award and an additional award of
attorney's fees between $50,000 and $125,000 from the punitive
damages award.

Varvatos contests the motion for statutory attorney fees and takes
no position on the request for the service payment and the request
for the extra attorney fee to be taken from the punitive damages
award.

Before addressing those issues, Judge Gorenstein addresses
Varvatos' argument that the requested fees should be reduced based
on the Plaintiffs' allegedly reduced "degree of success."  Now that
the Plaintiffs have accepted the proposed remittitur and the jury
verdict has been reduced by half, Varvatos argues that the outcome
reflects on the Plaintiffs' "degree of success."

The Judge rejects both arguments. He says the Plaintiffs achieved
exactly what they set out to achieve.  Because the Plaintiffs have
"obtained excellent results"--indeed, the best possible results
they could have obtained--their attorney should recover a fully
compensatory fee.  Varvatos also points out that, because the
verdict has been reduced, the fees the Plaintiffs seek are about
the same amount as the verdict rather than half that amount, as had
been true before the remittitur.  The Judge disagrees holding that
it is foreclosed by Second Circuit precedent rejecting the notion
that a fee may be reduced merely because the fee would be
disproportionate to the financial interest at stake in the
litigation.  Thus, attorneys' fee awards well in excess of the
amount recovered by plaintiffs are routinely permitted.

Next, in determining whether the hourly rate is reasonable, the
burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence
that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable
skill, experience and reputation.  Varvatos challenges the
requested rates as unreasonable, arguing that the attorneys' "lack
of experience litigating employment claims and collective and class
actions" mandates a reduction.

The Judge agrees with Varvatos that the experience of counsel is an
important factor for the Court to look to in determining a
reasonable hourly rate.  He has considered all the relevant
factors, including the legal experience of the attorneys, the novel
issues in the case, the attorneys' performance, and the
reputational benefits, and concludes that it would be appropriate
to award the cheapest hourly rate an effective attorney would have
charged.  He will thus award those rates, except that in light of
Weiss' experience and excellent performance as an attorney, he
finds that a rate of $250 for the entire period is appropriate for
his rate.  As for Scileppi, he will award her pre-2017 rate of $325
for the entire period.  And, as the Plaintiffs did not present any
evidence of specialized skills.  Thus, the paralegal rate is
reduced to $75 an hour.

The Plaintiffs must also establish that the number of hours for
which they seek compensation is "reasonable."  Because attorney's
fees are dependent on the unique facts of each case, the resolution
of the issue is committed to the discretion of the district court.
The Plaintiffs represent that their records show that they spent at
least 5,035 hours litigating the action to judgment on March 24,
2020.

The Judge finds that the number of hours sought is completely out
of line with hours awarded in equivalent cases.  Indeed, the
Plaintiffs do not cite any labor or employment cases that awarded
hours anywhere near the number of hours they seek compensation for
in the case but instead simply attempt to distinguish the cases
cited by Varvatos.  In the end, to conform the award to the
reasonable hours awarded in equivalent cases, and to conform to the
Court's own view as to the reasonable number of hours, the Judge
will reduce the hours sought by each professional by 50%.

Varvatos makes no arguments opposing the Plaintiffs' requested
costs of $14,285.21.  The Plaintiffs presented evidence in the form
of invoices substantiating these costs, most of which are related
to conducting depositions.  In light of the lack of any objection,
the Judge will award the entire amount.

Knox seeks to have her service payment come from the portion of the
punitive damages fund attributable to persons other than herself
and those who opted into the FLSA action.  The Judge does see logic
in having the award come from the punitive damages portion of the
award because using this award as the source of funds will prevent
any Plaintiff from receiving less than full compensation.  He does
not see a good reason for excluding the opt-in Plaintiffs from
bearing financial responsibility for the award, however.  Thus, the
service payment of $20,000 to Knox will be taken from the punitive
damages award and will be borne by each Plaintiff receiving such an
award (including Knox) in proportion to her recovery of punitive
damages.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek between $50,000 and $125,000 as an
additional payment to the counsel.  After considering the equities
of the situation, including the excellent performance of the
Plaintiffs' counsel, the unusual risk that they took, and the
existence of a non-compensatory element in the damage award, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' counsel should be awarded
one-quarter of the available punitive damages, or $105,880.21 over
and above the recovery of statutory attorney's fees.  He concludes
that the fee should be drawn from the punitive damages fund rather
than the entire fund because of the critical importance the
punitive fund played in causing us to weigh the equities in favor
of giving the extra award of fees.  The benefit conferred by the
punitive damage award inured to all the Plaintiffs who are eligible
for that award; thus the fees will be borne by all the Plaintiffs
eligible for a punitive damages award, including the named and
opt-in Plaintiffs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorenstein granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorney's fees and the service payment.  He awarded the
Plaintiffs a total of $748,321.21 in statutory attorney's fees and
costs to be paid by Varvatos, and an additional amount of
$105,880.21 in attorney's fees to be paid from the damages award
allocated to punitive damages, for a total of $854,201.42 in
attorney's fees.  Plaintiff Knox is awarded a service payment of
$20,000 from the punitive damages award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32gjkgr7 from Leagle.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baby Powder Causes Ovarian Cancer, McCarty Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MCCARTY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER,
INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; PERSONAL
CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL, f/k/a COSMETIC TOILETRY AND FRAGRANCE
ASSOCIATION (CTFA); JOHN DOES/JANE DOES 1-30; and UNKNOWN
BUSINESSES AND/OR CORPORATIONS 1-50, Case No. ATL-L-000407-21 (N.J.
Super., Atlantic Cty., Feb. 8, 2021) is brought on behalf of the of
Plaintiff and on behalf of other similarly situated arising out of
the Plaintiff McCarty's diagnosis of ovarian cancer, which was
directly and proximately caused by her regular and prolonged use of
talcum powder containing product known as Johnson & Johnson's Baby
Powder (TM) in the perineal area.

The Plaintiff's damages are a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' and/or their corporate predecessors, negligent, willful
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of J&J Baby Powder, the suit
says.

This suit is brought under the New Jersey Products Liability Act,
the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act, and the common law of the
State of New Jersey, and equivalent causes of action under the
statutory and common law of the State of New Jersey, to recover
damages and other relief, including the costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, for the injuries Plaintiff
sustained as a result of the Defendants' and/or their corporate
predecessors' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, formulation, manufacturing, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, distributing, labeling and/or sale
of J&J Baby Powder.

Plaintiff McCarty was born on February 12, 1983 and used J&J Baby
Powder from January 1999 until January 2020. As a direct result of
using J&J Baby Powder, she claims that she was diagnosed with
ovarian cancer in January 2019.

The Defendants was engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing J&J
Baby Powder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Faces Myers Suit Over Reduction of Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MYERS and JEAN TWENGE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01141-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2021) arises out of
McGraw-Hill's class-wide policy of systematically deducting
revenues received from the sale of works available on its digital
Connect platform to reduce the royalty base available to authors,
shorting authors the royalties they are owed and enriching
McGraw-Hill at the authors’ expense.

McGraw-Hill's financial alchemy violates the terms of the
Publishing Agreements. The Publishing Agreements each require that
McGraw-Hill pay Plaintiffs royalties on the net receipts from the
sale of their works, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs and members of the putative class are professors and
leading academics who authored academic textbooks and entered into
contracts with McGraw-Hill (or its predecessors-in-interest) to
publish, sell, and distribute Plaintiffs' textbooks (Publishing
Agreements).

Professor David Myers is an author of Social Psychology and
Exploring Social Psychology. Professor Myers entered into an
agreement with McGraw-Hill dated July 30, 1979 for the publication
of Social Psychology, and has subsequently amended the agreement to
cover multiple editions of the textbook. Professor Myers also
entered into an agreement with McGraw-Hill for the publication of
Exploring Social Psychology. Professor Myers resides in Michigan.

Professor Jean Twenge became a co-author of Social Psychology,
starting with the thirteenth edition, and a co-author of Exploring
Social Psychology, starting with the ninth edition. Professor
Twenge entered into agreements with McGraw-Hill dated May 19, 2017
and March 25, 2020 for the publication of Social Psychology.
Professor Twenge also entered into an agreement with McGraw-Hill
dated May 18, 2019 for the publication of Exploring Social
Psychology. Professor Twenge resides in California.

Defendant McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. is a New York corporation
with its principal offices in New York. McGraw-Hill is an education
and technology company that serves the higher education, K-12,
professional, library, and workforce training markets
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
                  rnath@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Tamar Lusztig, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6023
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Alexander Aiken (pro hac vice to be filed)
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3880
          Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
          E-mail: aaiken@susmangodfrey.com

MDL 2936: Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: Smitty's/CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation," MDL
No. 2936, the Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order
transferring two action pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana to the Western District of Missouri and assigning them to
Judge Stephen R. Bough for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Smitty's Supply, Inc. and CAM2 Tractor Supply are accused by
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company (C.A. No. 2:20-02890) of
deceptively marketing their Smitty's 303 tractor hydraulic fluid as
meeting John Deere 303 specifications, specifically the products'
anti-wear and protective benefits and use oils and diluted
additives that damage equipment.

The panel says these actions merit consolidation since they involve
the same allegedly defective products as the products in the MDL
(Smitty's 303 tractor hydraulic fluid products).

A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/37IpuM7.


MILEA TRUCK: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ PEREZ and JOSE OTERO, on behalf of themselves,
and others similarly situated v. MILEA TRUCK SALES CORP., MTS
REALTY OF QUEENS, INC., and BARRY MILEA, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-01100 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
wages for hours worked, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs, Alberto de la Cruz Perez and Jose Otero, were
employed by the Defendants in Bronx County, New York, preparing
vehicles and vehicle parts for sale and lease to the general public
and delivering said vehicles and vehicle parts to customers.

Mr. de la Cruz Perez was employed continuously beginning May 15,
2016 and ending in mid-February 2020. Mr. Otero was employed
continuously beginning April 15, 2009 and ending on February 11,
2020.

Milea Truck offers commercial truck sales, leasing, full
maintainance leasing and services in NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street -- 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: peooperdjepclaw.cam

NESTLE USA: Coffee Creamer Has Artificial Flavor, Suriano Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Suriano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00717
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 8, 2021) alleges that Nestle USA tell consumers
the coffee creamer's vanilla taste is only from natural flavors,
including vanilla, even though it contains artificial flavor.

Nestle USA manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
non-dairy alternative coffee creamer under its Coffee Mate Natural
Bliss brand made from oat flour, purporting to be flavored from
vanilla and not containing artificial flavors ("Product").

The representations and omissions include "Vanilla," "Natural
Flavor," "All Natural," the brand name of "Natural Bliss," pictures
of cured vanilla beans and the absence of any statement disclosing
the presence of artificial flavor.

The Defendant was required to disclose -- on the front label and
ingredient list -- that the Product's vanilla taste is not from
vanilla ingredients, but from artificial flavor.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Suriano is a citizen of Elmhurst, DuPage
County, Illinois.

Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia, Arlington
County. The Defendant is known to be the largest food company in
the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

NEW YORK: Doe Suit Over Mandatory School Immunization Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE on behalf of herself and her minor child;
JANE BOE, Sr. on behalf of herself and her minor child; JOHN COE,
Sr. and JANE COE, Sr. on behalf of themselves and their minor
children; JOHN FOE, Sr. on behalf of himself and his minor child;
JANE GOE, Sr. on behalf of herself and her minor child; JANE LOE on
behalf of herself and her medically fragile child; JANE JOE on
behalf of herself and her medically fragile child; CHILDREN'S
HEALTH DEFENSE, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HOWARD ZUCKER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health
for the State of New York, et al., and all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-840(BKS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.),
Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York entered an order:

    i. granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint
       under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
       12(b)(6);

   ii. denying as moot the request by the Three Village, South
       Huntington, and Brother Migliorino Defendants' motion to
       transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York; and

  iii. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint as
       futile.

The Plaintiffs, seven families on behalf of their minor children
who are "medically fragile" with impairments in the functioning of
their immune systems, and the Children's Health Defense ("CHD"),
filed the proposed class action challenging New York's allegedly
burdensome and narrow medical exemptions to mandatory school
immunization requirements.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, including the New York
State Department of Health ("DOH"), New York Commissioner of Health
Howard Zucker, the DOH Director of the Bureau of Immunizations
Elizabeth Rausch-Phung, M.D., seven school districts and their
administrators ("School District Defendants"), and the Principal of
St. Anthony's High School Brother David Anthony Migliorino, have
violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and
equal protection rights, liberty interest in parenting and informed
consent, and right to free public education under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C. Section 794(a).

The other Defendants are ELIZABETH RAUSCH-PHUNG, M.D., in her
official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Immunizations at the
New York State Department of Health; the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH; THREE VILLAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; CHERYL PEDISICH,
acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Three Village
Central School District; CORINNE KEANE, acting in her official
capacity as Principal Paul J. Gelinas Jr. High School, Three
Village Central School District; LANSING CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT;
CHRIS PETTOGRASSO, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Lansing Central School District; CHRISTINE REBERA,
acting in her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Middle
School, Lansing Central School District; LORRI WHITEMAN, acting in
her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Elementary School,
Lansing Central School District; PENFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT;
DR. THOMAS PUTNAM, acting in his official capacity as
Superintendent, Penfield Central School District; SOUTH HUNTINGTON
SCHOOL DISTRICT; DR. DAVID P. BENNARDO, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, South Huntington School District; BR.
DAVID MIGLIORINO, acting in his official capacity as Principal, St.
Anthony's High School, South Huntington School District; ITHACA
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DR. LUVELLE BROWN, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, Ithaca City School District; SUSAN
ESCHBACH, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Beverly J.
Martin Elementary School, Ithaca City School District;
COXSACKIE-ATHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; RANDALL SQUIER, Superintendent,
acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Coxsackie-Athens
School District; FREYA MERCER, acting in her official capacity as
Principal, Coxsackie Athens High School, Coxsackie-Athens School
District; ALBANY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; KAWEEDA G. ADAMS, acting in
her official capacity as Superintendent, Albany City School
District; MICHAEL PAOLINO, acting in his official capacity as
Principal, William S. Hackett Middle School and Albany City School
District.

New York Public Health Law Section 2164 ("mandatory vaccination
law" or "mandatory vaccination requirement") requires children aged
two months to eighteen years to be immunized from certain diseases
before they can attend "any public, private or parochial
kindergarten, elementary, intermediate or secondary school."  The
mandatory vaccination law requires children to be immunized against
poliomyelitis, mumps, measles, diphtheria, rubella, varicella,
hepatitis B, pertussis, tetanus, and, where applicable, Haemophilus
influenzae type b (Hib), meningococcal disease, and pneumococcal
disease. N.Y. Pub. Health Law Section 2164(7).  A child may not
attend school in excess of 14 days without documentation showing
that the child was immunized or is in the process of complying with
the immunization series.

The mandatory vaccination law initially contained two exemptions: a
medical exemption requiring a physician's certification that the
physician had determined that the vaccination may be detrimental to
the child's health, N.Y. Pub. Health Law Section 2164(8); and a
non-medical exemption that required a statement by the parent or
guardian indicating that they objected to vaccination on religious
grounds, N.Y. Pub. Health Law Section 2164(9), repealed by L.2019,
c. 35, Section 1, eff. June 13, 2019.  In 2019, the New York
Legislature repealed the religious exemption.

On Aug. 16, 2019, following the repeal of the religious exemption,
the New York Commissioner of Health issued "emergency regulations,"
amending the regulations governing the mandatory vaccination law
"to conform to recent amendments to Section 2164" and to "make the
regulations consistent with national immunization recommendations
and guidelines."  The regulations were adopted permanently as of
Dec. 31, 2019.

Presently before the Court are: The Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6); a request by the Three Village, South Huntington, and
Brother Migliorino Defendants to transfer venue to the Eastern
District of New York; and the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
Complaint.  The parties have briefed these motions fully and on
Jan. 6, 2021, the Court held oral argument.

With their motion to amend, the Plaintiffs have submitted a
proposed First Amended Complaint.  They assert that under Rule
15(a)(1)(B), they may file an amended pleading as to Defendant
Migliorino as a matter of course because they filed their motion to
amend within 21 days of his motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs seek
the Court's leave under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) to file the First
Amended Complaint with respect to all other Defendants.  The
Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to amend in its entirety
on the ground that amendment is futile.

Since the Defendants have had an opportunity to respond to the
proposed amendments, and argue that the amendments are futile,
Judge Sannes considers the merits of the motions to dismiss in
light of the proposed First Amended Complaint.  If the claims in
the proposed First Amended Complaint cannot survive the motions to
dismiss, then the Plaintiffs' motion to amend will be denied as
futile.

She finds that the proposed First Amended Complaint fails (i) to
state a claim for relief against either Superintendent Squier or
Principal Mercer, and (ii) to include individual substantive due
process claims against Superintendent Pettograsso, Principals
Rebera, Whiteman, Superintendent Adams or Principal Paolino,
Superintendent Putnam, Superintendent Bennardo or Brother
Migliorino, Superintendent Brown and Principal Eschbach.  Because
amendment of the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the
individual Defendants has been denied as futile, the Judge need not
address whether any or all of the individual Defendants would be
entitled to qualified immunity as defense to those claims.  And to
the extent the Plaintiffs seek to assert Rehabilitation Act claims
against the individual Defendants in their personal capacities,
their motion to amend is denied as futile.

Having reviewed the proposed First Amended Complaint, Judge Sannes
concludes that the medical exemption is reasonably related to the
State's public health objective: to sustain a high vaccination rate
among children in an attempt to prevent disease outbreaks, the
regulation seeks to ensure that medical exemptions are issued for
medical reasons based on evidence-based guidance.  While she is
sympathetic to the plight of the Plaintiff parents and children in
the case, the Judge is unable to find that they have stated a
plausible constitutional violation or a federal claim.  Rather,
their recourse for any misapplication of the medical exemption in
their particular cases is the state administrative process. For
these reasons, she gwill grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The Three Village and South Huntington Defendants, as well as
Defendant Brother Migliorino, seek severance of their claims and
transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Eastern
District of New York, where they are located.  The Plaintiff
responds that severance is unwarranted.  Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(1), a civil action may be brought in "a judicial district
in which any defendant resides, if all the Defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located."

It is not disputed that many of the Defendants reside in the
Northern District of New York, thus venue in the Northern District
of New York is proper under Section 1391.  In light of her
conclusion that the case must be dismissed, Judge Sannes does not
reach the issue of whether transfer is warranted under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a), "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in
the interest of justice."  Accordingly, she will deny as moot the
Defendants' motion to transfer.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Sannes Plaintiffs' motion to amend
(i) granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss, (ii) denied as
futile the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, and (iii) denied as moot
the Defendants' request for transfer of venue.  She dismissed the
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/1wgysas4 from
Leagle.com.

Sujata S. Gibson -- sg2286@cornell.edu -- The Gibson Law Firm,
PLLC, 407 N. Cayuga Street, Suite 201, in Ithaca, New York, Michael
Sussman -- sussman1@frontiernet.net -- Sussman & Associates, in
Goshen, New York, For Plaintiffs.

Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michael
G. McCartin, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew W. Koster,
Assistant Attorney General, in Albany, New York, For Defendants New
York State Department of Health, Zucker, and Rausch-Phung.

Gregg T. Johnson, Loraine C. Jelinek, Johnson & Laws, LLC, in
Clifton Park, New York, Adam I. Kleinberg, Chelsea Weisbord,
Sokoloff Stern LLP, in Carle Place, New York, For Defendants Albany
City School District, Adams, Paolino; Three Village Central School
District, Pedisich, Keane; South Huntington Central School
District, Bennardo; and Ithaca City School District, Brown and
Eschbach.

James G. Ryan -- JRyan@cullenllp.com -- Roxanne L. Tashjian --
RTashjian@cullenllp.com -- Cullen and Dykman LLP, in Garden City,
New York, For Defendants Coxsackie-Athens School District, Squier,
Mercer; Penfield Central School District, Putnam; Lansing Central
School District, Pettograsso, Rebera, and Whiteman.

Joseph Kim -- Joseph.Kim@lawbhs.com -- Elaine Nancy Chou --
Elaine.Chou@lawbhs.com -- Meishin Riccardulli --
Meishin.Riccardulli@lawbhs.com -- Biedermann Hoenig Semprevivo a
Professional Corporation, in New York City, For Defendant Br. David
Anthony Migliorino.


NEW YORK: Maoli Files Real Property Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State Office
of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al. The case is
captioned as SORIANO, MAOLI v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY
AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; MICHAEL P. HEIN, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, Case
No. 450315/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 8, 2021).

The case arises from real property-related issues and is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Paul A. Goetz.

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
supervises programs that provide services and supports to
low-income families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          One Battery Park PLZ
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6000

NICHOLS GARDEN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nichols Garden
Nursery, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nichols Garden
Nursery, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01587 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

Nichols Garden Nursery -- http://www.nicholsgardennursery.com/--
offers a complete selection of seeds, plants and garden supplies
plus rare herbs and seeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORDSTROM INC: Leone Suit Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALESSANDRO LEONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington corporation, FORESEE
SESSION REPLAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and VERINT SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00975 (N.D. Calif.,
Feb. 8, 2021) is a class action suit brought against the Defendants
for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to the
Defendant Nordstrom's Websites, including Nordstromrack.com.

The wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the
Websites, are allegedly used by the Defendants to secretly observe
and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other
electronic communications, including the entry of Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII"), in real time. By doing so, the
Defendants have violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code sections 631 and 635, and invaded
Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights in violation of the
California Constitution, the suit adds.

In April and May of 2020, Mr. Leone visited Nordstromrack.com,
During the visit, the Defendants recorded his electronic
communications in real time, including his mouse clicks, keystrokes
and payment card information, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class
of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted
through the use of Defendants' wiretap on the Websites.

Nordstrom is an American luxury department store chain. Founded in
1901 by John W. Nordstrom and Carl F. Wallin, it originated as a
shoe store and evolved into a full-line retailer with departments
for clothing, footwear, handbags, jewelry, accessories, cosmetics,
and fragrances. Foresee provides businesses software-as-a-service
("SaaS"), including marketing software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

NUVE MIGUEL: Faces Santos Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Stock Clerks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO HERNANDEZ SANTOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. NUVE MIGUEL CORP. d/b/a KEY
FOODS and LUIS H. URGILES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01335
(S.D.N.Y., February 16, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants seeking to recover all
unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or about June
2006 to in or about May 2020 as a stock person in the Defendants'
produce department.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to properly pay him and other
similarly situated employees all wages owed to them due to its
unlawful time shaving policy;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them proper wage
statements as required under the NYLL; and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them proper wage and hour
notice, including all information required under the NYLL, upon
hiring and therafter.

Nuve Miguel Corp. owns Key Foods supermarket located at 755
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025. Luis H. Urgilles is the owner
and chief executive officer of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th St., Eight Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


ORGAIN LLC: Zahora Sues Over Nutritional Shake's Artificial Flavor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Zahora, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orgain, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00705 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8,
2021) alleges that Defendant misrepresented the Kids Protein
Organic Nutritional Shake Product as flavored only by vanilla and
natural ingredients and not containing artificial flavor.

Orgain manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
nutritional beverages to children, Kids Protein Organic Nutritional
Shake -- Vanilla, under the Orgain brand ("Product").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff would not have purchased
the Product in the absence of Defendant’s misrepresentations and
omissions. The Product was worth less than what Plaintiff paid and
she would not have paid as much absent Defendant's false and
misleading statements and omissions, the suit adds.

Plaintiff Zahora is a citizen of Willowbrook, DuPage County,
Illinois.

The Defendant is a seller of nutritional beverages which provide
added protein. The Product is sold to consumers from retail and
online stores of third-parties across the country and from the
Defendant's Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

ORLANDO FAMILY: Perez Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria E. Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Orlando
Family Medical, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00273 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 8,
2021) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employed Ms. Perez as a full time, non-exempt, hourly
employee, from June 15, 2020, to December 01, 2020, or 24 weeks.
She was hired as a phlebotomist technician and her wage rate was
$14.00 an hour. She worked at the medical center located at 931 W.
Oak Street, Suite 103, Kissimmee, Florida.

The Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with the Defendant
she worked off-the-clock hours that constitute overtime hours that
were not paid to her at any rate, not even the minimum wage rate,
as required by law.

The Defendant provides a complete range of medical services
including patient transportation services. The Company operates at
least 4 Medical Centers throughout central Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

PLANET HOME: Faces Solis $1 MM Suit in Connecticut Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Home Lending,
LLC. The case is captioned as Solis v. Planet Home Lending, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00159-JCH (D. Conn., Feb. 8, 2021).

The suit demands $1 million in damages arising from breach of
contract issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janet C.
Hall.

Planet Home Lending, LLC operates as a multi-state lender. The
Company offers loss mitigation, private label, and escrow
administration services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Patrick J. Solberg, 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
                  psolberg@andersonwanca.com
                  wsolberg@andersonwanca.com

PLANT GROWERS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plant Growers
Workshop, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Plant Growers
Workshop, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01586 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021).

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

Plant Growers Workshop, Inc. is located in Callery, Pennsylvania
and is part of the Lighting Equipment Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAYTIKA LTD: Class Settlement in Wilson Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
grants final approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit
styled SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYTIKA LTD., an Israeli limited
company, and CAESARS INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-5277-RSL
(W.D. Wash.).

The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on February 11, 2021, at
which it heard argument from counsel and allowed others to appear
to voice their support for, or objection to, the Settlement. Based
on all these materials and the statements at the Final Approval
Hearing, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment.

The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the
following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:

     All persons who played Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars
     Casino/Caesars Slots, and Vegas Downtown Slots & Words on or
     before Preliminary Approval of the Settlement while located
     in the State of Washington.

The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action (including all
individual claims and class claims) is dismissed with prejudice on
the merits, without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as
provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final
Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards.

Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive
Awards, the Court awards $9.5 million in attorneys' fees and
$56,835.50 in costs and expenses to the Class Counsel.  It also
awards $5,000 to Sean Wilson for his services as a Class
Representative and awards $1,000 each to David Taylor, Cathy
Burdick, and Jesse Thibert for their services as Class
Representatives.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2exwb684 from Leagle.com.


PORSCHE CARS: Minassian Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Brake System
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZA MINASSIAN, as an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01111-DMG-JPR (C.D. Calif., Feb. 8,
2021) is a civil action alleging breaches of express and implied
warranties pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as violations of the
California Unfair Competition Act ("UCL"), the False Advertisement
Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act arising from the
Defendant's pattern and practice of fraudulently, unfairly,
deceptively, and unlawfully marketing, advertising, promoting, and
leasing/selling various vehicles with a defective brake system that
generates an extremely loud squealing noise when using the brakes.

The complaint contends that as of 2013, if not before, Porsche knew
or should have known Subject Brakes are defective because Porsche
has internal procedures of testing their new vehicles and their
equipment for extended periods of time, in various conditions,
before mass production and distribution of the vehicles.

Plaintiff Minassian is and was at all times relevant herein an
individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. The
Plaintiff leased, and during pertinent times was in possession of,
one of the Subject Vehicles, a 2018 Porsche Cayenne bearing the
Vehicle Identification Number WP1AA2A23KA04387.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          Armen Margarian, Esq.
          Shushanik Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 553-1000
          Facsimile: (818) 553-1005
          E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com
                  armen@margarianlaw.com
                  shushanik@margarianlaw.com

RAR OF OTTAWA: Szarka Seeks Managers & Asst. Managers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JANA SZARKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAR OF OTTAWA, LLC, MILAZZO, LLC,
MILAZZO ENTERPRISES, LLC, and BOBBY MAIER, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00845 (N.D. Ill., February 16, 2021) arises from the
Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Assistant
Manager from March 2017 until January 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated assistant managers and managers as
hourly employee, non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA and the IMWL. In addition to their hourly wage, they received
$200.00 quarterly bonuses based on store performance. However,
although they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
during their tenure with the Defendants, they were not properly
compensated at the rate of one and one-half times of their regular
rates for the overtime hours they worked in a workweek. The
Defendants allegedly failed to include the bonuses paid to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated assistant managers and
managers in their regular rates when calculating their overtime
pay, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated assistant
managers and managers to recover all unpaid overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants own and operate several Culver's
franchises. They have unified operational control and management,
as well as control over employees. Bobby Maier is a principal,
director, officer, and/or owner of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFOD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (800) 615-4946
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com



RCI LLC: Loses Partial Bid to Dismiss Williams-Young's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PHYLLIS N. WILLIAMS-YOUNG, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-841-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied RCI's
Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

The case is before the Court on Defendant RCI's Partial Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The motion requires the
Court to decide whether Plaintiff Williams-Young has sufficiently
pled violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
on behalf of others similarly situated. Williams-Young filed a
response in opposition to the motion.

Ms. Williams-Young alleges that RCI violated the TCPA by placing
unsolicited phone calls to her one to two times a day. She alleges
that she never provided RCI with express written consent to call
her, and that she requested that the calls cease on "at least seven
occasions." Each time she answered she "experienced a distinctive,
noticeable pause prior to being connected to" RCI's representative,
which lead her to believe RCI used an automatic telephone dialing
system to dial her number. She alleges that each time she answered
RCI's calls, the caller would identify themselves as "RCI" or
"Spinnaker for RCI." She also claims that RCI "utilizes third party
vendors to market its services," and that RCI made phone calls to
thousands of consumers. She has filed this lawsuit on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated for violations of the TCPA.

In its Motion, RCI asks the Court to dismiss Williams-Young's
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim to the extent that the Complaint alleges
"either (1) RCI's vicarious liability for third-parties, or (2)
claims on behalf of putative class members." RCI does not move to
dismiss Williams-Young's allegations that RCI violated the TCPA
with respect to her.

In her response, Williams-Young argues she is not asserting a
vicarious liability theory against RCI, instead she says "the
references to third parties in Plaintiff's complaint were intended
to put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff intends on asserting a
theory of vicarious liability in the event discovery reveals that a
third party acting on behalf of Defendant placed the violating
calls to Plaintiff." If discovery reveals a third party made the
calls, Williams-Young states she will amend her Complaint to add a
vicarious liability theory.

Because Williams-Young states that she has not alleged a vicarious
liability theory under the TCPA, there is nothing to dismiss,
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan finds. Should Williams-Young
raise a vicarious liability theory later, RCI will be free to
challenge the allegations at that time.

Judge Corrigan holds that assuming all factual allegations as true,
Williams-Young has alleged enough facts for the class claims to
survive. Williams-Young alleges RCI made "phone calls to thousands
of consumers," and questions such as whether RCI "used an
'automatic telephone dialing system'" would be common to all
putative class members. Further, all the class members allege
violations of the TCPA, and Williams-Young alleges class members
can be identified using RCI's records.

Finally, Williams-Young claims she will "adequately and fairly
represent and protect the interests" of the class, and that a class
action will be the best method of bringing class members' claims
because there will be many claims of low economic value and
economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and
uniformity of decisions ensured.

At this stage, Judge Corrigan opines, Williams-Young has pled
sufficient facts to bring a class action claim against RCI. Of
course, the Court does not prejudge how it will rule on the actual
motion to certify the class.

Accordingly, Defendant RCI's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint is denied.

No later than March 1, 2021, RCI will answer Plaintiff
Williams-Young's Class Action Complaint. In all other respects, the
Case Management and Scheduling Order continues to govern the case.

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


RESTORE WEST: Summers Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESTORE WEST DELRAY, LLC d/b/a RESTORE HYPER
WELLNESS, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-003269 (Fla. Cir., February 16, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited
telemarketing text message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number on or about December 10, 2020 in an attempt to promote and
solicit its cryotherapy, compression, and stretch therapies.
Purportedly, the Defendant has utilized an automatic telephone
dialing system in transmitting unsolicited telemarketing text
messages, which is demonstrated with the impersonal and generic
nature of the Defendant's text message. The Plaintiff asserts that
he never provided the Defendant with his prior express written
consent to be contacted using an ATDS.

The Defendant violated Section 227(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by
using an ATDS to make non-emergency telephone solicitation calls to
the cell phones of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals without their prior express written consent.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been
harmed. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from violating Section 227 of the TCPA, as well as an
award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory
damages, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just.

Restore West Delray, LLC d/b/a Restore Hyper Wellness offers
cryotherapy, compression, and stretch therapies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

                - and –

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  aaron@edelsberglaw.com



ST. ELIZABETH COMMUNITY: Tereba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ST. ELIZABETH
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. The case is
styled as Mark J. Tereba, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. ST. ELIZABETH COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;
DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE; Case No. CGC21589691 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., Feb. 22, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

St. Elizabeth Community Hospital -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/
-- is a hospital that offers many services, including orthopedics,
family birth center, and emergency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Ave, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 323-302-9675
          Fax: 323-549-0101


WALGREENS BOOTS: Gray Suit Moved From New York to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled PHYLLIS GRAY, ET AL., Plaintiffs v.
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., LNK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-04415 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of
Illinois.

Plaintiffs Gray, Erika Brown, Lisa Satchel, and Kenneth Brewer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
the instant litigation on September 21, 2020, to challenge use of
the phrase "fast-release quick gels" on certain acetaminophen
products. Before pursuing the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs, represented
by the same counsel, filed a virtually identical lawsuit against
Walgreens in the Northern District of Illinois on November 15, 2018
-- Erika Brown, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-7585, (N.D. Ill.). Brown proceeded for nearly two years,
during which the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, and the
parties exchanged initial disclosures, participated in various
conferences with the court, and fully briefed and argued a motion
to dismiss.

While the motion to dismiss was pending in Brown, the Plaintiffs
requested discovery from Walgreens. In response, Walgreens filed a
motion to stay discovery until the court issued a decision on the
motion to dismiss. On July 20, 2020, the court granted Walgreens'
motion. Four days later, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
Brown, as the motion to dismiss was still pending.

On September 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant litigation
in the Eastern District of New York. The Defendants now move to
transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). After Walgreens sought permission to move
to transfer venue, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a
second Defendant, LNK. LNK joins Walgreens in seeking to transfer
venue.

District Judge Joan M. Azrack notes that deciding a motion to
transfer involves a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the action could
have initially been brought in the transferee court; and (2)
whether the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and
witnesses will be served by the transfer, citing Stoltz v. Fage
Dairy Processing Indus., S.A., No. 14-CV-3826, 2015 WL 5579872, at
*5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015).

To perform the second part of the inquiry, a district court
considers various factors including, inter alia, (1) the
convenience of witnesses, (2) the convenience of the parties, (3)
the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access
to sources of proof, (4) the locus of operative facts, (5) the
availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses, (6) the relative means of the parties, (7) the forum
state's familiarity with the governing law, (8) the weight accorded
the plaintiff's choice of forum, and (9) trial efficiency and the
interest of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. In
re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, 418
F.Supp.2d 164, 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).

As to the first part of the inquiry, the action could have been
brought--and originally was brought--in the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Azrack notes. That court has jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act and is an appropriate venue given that
Walgreens' headquarters is located in Illinois, Judge Azrack
opines.

With respect to the second part of the inquiry, various factors
weigh in favor of transfer, Judge Azrack finds. In particular,
Walgreens and two of the named class representatives are domiciled
in the Northern District of Illinois. Walgreens has explained that
several of its witnesses live in or near the Northern District of
Illinois and certain records relevant to the case, such as
planograms, are more conveniently accessible in that district. The
factor regarding trial efficiency and the interest of justice also
weighs strongly in favor of transfer.

Judge Azrack also opines that the Northern District of Illinois has
worked through the issues involved in this case since 2018,
repeatedly held conferences with the parties, and heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs have no guarantee
that their concerns with the "protracted delays" they experienced
in the Northern District of Illinois might not occur here as well,
given the calendar congestion in this District and before this
Court, the Judge explains.

These factors outweigh the remaining factors, which the Court finds
are neutral. Accordingly, the Defendants have met their burden of
demonstrating that a transfer to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois would be in the interest of
justice and convenience.

For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Defendants' motion to
transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ys2dsa8m from Leagle.com.


WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss MIKMAR Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKMAR, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. WESTFIELD
INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-01313 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, hotels, restaurants, and other
hospitality businesses have been particularly hard hit. Between
State and local public health directives and consumer reluctance to
travel and to dine out, especially in colder weather, many
businesses in the hospitality industry have closed.  Tragically,
too many of these closures will be permanent.  Those that have not
closed have sustained deep and painful losses.  Various
governmental relief efforts have attempted to direct aid to those
in the hospitality business, among others.  The lawsuit presents
another means by which some have, understandably, sought a
financial lifeline to weather the difficulties and uncertainties in
which the hospitality industry finds itself through no fault of its
own or any particular actor in it.

Plaintiffs MIKMAR and Michael's Inc., doing business as LaMalfa
Centre and Vine Beverage and Caterers, operate an adjoining hotel
and banquet facility.  When they sustained losses due to the
pandemic, the Plaintiffs filed claims for lost business income
under their insurance policies. Defendant Westfield denied the
claims.  That denial prompted the suit, which the Plaintiffs bring
for their own benefit as well as on behalf of a putative class of
other hospitality businesses that own and operate hotels, banquet
halls, and catering or event facilities.

The Plaintiffs allege Westfield denied claims based on an
inapplicable "virus/bacteria exclusion" that does not expressly
exclude coverage for a pandemic.  They otherwise allege that the
coverage and exclusionary language at issue is ambiguous and must
be construed against the Defendant.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert three causes of
action: (1) a declaratory judgment that their policies provide
coverage; (2) breach of contract; and (3) insurance bad faith.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or strike the class
action allegations.  It makes three main arguments for dismissal.
First, the Defendant maintains the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
coverage because they have not suffered a Covered Cause of Loss
under the policies, which requires direct physical loss or damage.
Second, the Plaintiffs' claimed losses also did not trigger Civil
Authority Coverage because there was no damage to property other
than their own and because access to the covered premises was not
completely prohibited as a result of damage to another property.
Third, even if the Plaintiffs' losses were covered under the
policy, the virus exclusion bars recovery.

The Plaintiffs counter that the policy language is "classically
ambiguous" and ask the Court to consider circumstances such as "the
parties' relationship, the Policy's purpose, the pandemic's
novelty, the experts' testimony, and the insureds' expectation(s)."
Among other phrases, they claim that "direct physical loss of or
damage to property" is an ambiguous term.  The Plaintiffs argue
that "physical loss" encompasses loss of use and does not require a
material or physical alteration to the property.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs argue that no exclusion bars coverage.

Judge Calabrese holds that the ordinary and plain meaning of the
phrase "physical loss of or damage to" property requires a
tangible, material destruction or deprivation of possession.  Under
the policies, a Covered Causes of Loss means "direct physical
loss," subject to certain exclusions or limitations.  In this way,
the availability of the coverage under the civil authority
provisions turns on the meaning of the undefined term "direct
physical loss" already discussed.  Because the ordinary and plain
meaning of that term does not apply to the conditions Covid-19 and
the governmental responses to it brought about, the insurance
policies do not, as a matter of law, provide coverage.  He
concludes that the policies at issue do not, as a matter of law,
provide coverage for losses sustained due to Covid-19.

The Judge opines that he does not intend in any way to dismiss or
minimize the pain or difficulties those in the hospitality business
have endured since the outbreak of the pandemic.  But the question
before the Court is a narrow one, limited to interpretation of
language in the Plaintiffs' insurance policies.  He granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which
the Court may grant relief.  This disposition, he says, leaves a
handful of loose ends.  As part of its motion to dismiss, the
Defendant moved to strike the class allegations.  That part of the
motion is now moot.  So is the Plaintiffs' motion to extend
discovery, because discovery is no longer necessary.  The Judge
denied each of these motions as moot.

Finally, the Defendant asserted one counterclaim against each
Plaintiff seeking a declaration that its policies do not cover the
claims the Plaintiffs submitted.  The Plaintiffs answered the
counterclaim.  In its motion for summary judgment, the Defendant
sought judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims, as well as judgment in
its favor on its counterclaims.

Under the Court's Case Management Order, the deadline for a
response to the motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims
was Nov. 30, 2020.  To the extent Defendant seeks summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge denied that motion as moot in
light of dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Because the coverage issues regarding the Defendant's counterclaims
mirror those of the Plaintiffs' claims, and because the Plaintiffs
did not respond to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the
Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on its
counterclaims.  The Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law on its counterclaims seeking a declaration that it has no
coverage obligation to the Plaintiffs under the policies on the
facts alleged.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/12nie9d3 from Leagle.com.


WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PA: Drew's Bid for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
lawsuit captioned ANTOINE DREW and TYRIS L. DAVIS, Plaintiffs v.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY, SEAN KERTES, CHAIRMAN; DOUGLASS W. CHEW,
VICE-CHAIRMAN; GINA CERILLI, SECRETARY; UNKNOWN WARDEN, GEORGE
LOWTHER, DEPUTY WARDEN SEC.; AND ERIC SCHWARTZ, DEPUTY WARDEN OF
TREATMENT; Defendants, Case No. 2:21-CV-00058-CRE (W.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Drew and Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in
the action on January 12, 2021, raising civil rights violations at
Westmoreland County Prison. Also on January 12, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Class Certification,
seeking to maintain this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all practicing Muslims incarcerated/detained in
Westmoreland County Prison ("WCP") and on behalf of all COVID-19
victims in WCP.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that in
order for a plaintiff to obtain class certification, four elements
must be satisfied: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class.

Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy opines that the Plaintiffs
fail to satisfy at least one of these elements. It is well
established that a prisoner proceeding pro se, is unable to satisfy
the fourth element of a class action suit, the Judge points out,
citing Awala v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 227 F. App'x 33,
134 (3d Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, she denied the Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/18lmv9mo from
Leagle.com.



WINNETT PERICO: Bid for Default Judgment in Smith v. Brewer Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in the lawsuit entitled
DEAN T. SMITH, Plaintiff v. DENNIS BREWER, an individual domiciled
in New Jersey; WINNETT PERICO, INC., a Colorado corporation, d.b.a.
WINNETTORGANICS; WINNETTORGANICS, a business entity of unknown
type; WINNETTORGANICS CATTLE COMPANY, INC., a Colorado corporation;
WINNETT CATTLE COMPANY, INC. a Colorado corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-1918 TLN DB (E.D. Cal.).

The matter came before Judge Barnes on September 18, 2020, pursuant
to Local Rule 302(c)(19), for hearing of the Plaintiff's motion for
default judgment. Attorney Geoffrey Evers, Esq., of Evers Law
Group, A Professional Corporation, in Sacramento, California --
g.evers@everslaw.com -- appeared via Zoom on behalf of the
Plaintiff. No appearance was made by, on behalf of, a Defendant. At
that time, oral argument was heard and the motion was taken under
submission. Further inspection of the Plaintiff's filings, however,
finds several issues that must be addressed before a motion for
default judgment can be granted.

In this regard, Plaintiff Smith commenced the action through
counsel on September 20, 2019, by filing a complaint and paying the
required filing fee. The complaint alleges generally that the
Plaintiff "is a green investor, focusing his investments on organic
and sustainable farming." Defendant Brewer, the agent for
Defendants Winnett Perico, Inc., WinnettOrganics, WinnettOrganics
Cattle Co., Inc., and Winnett Cattle Co., Inc., contacted the
Plaintiff and provided a PowerPoint presentation that
WinnettOrganics was an Organic Fresh Food Specialist. On July 26,
2018, the Plaintiff invested $100,000, in the Defendants'
business.

The complaint alleges state law causes of action for breach of
contract, specific performance, violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., fraud, conversion,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of California Corporations
Law Section 25400, et seq., and declaratory relief. On August 4,
2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.

According to the Order, in evaluating a motion for default judgment
the Court considers: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the
plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the
sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the
action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the
strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
favoring decisions on the merits, citing Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶
55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26).

The motion for default judgment fails to address any of the Eitel
factors specifically, Judge Barnes finds. In this regard, the
motion for default judgment does not identify which claims and/or
against which the Defendants the Plaintiff is seeking default
judgment. Nor does the motion evaluate the sufficiency of the
complaint.

This is particularly problematic given the Plaintiff's briefing,
Judge Barnes notes. In this regard, the complaint asserts a cause
of action for breach of contract. The complaint states that a copy
of the contract "is attached as Compl. Appendix 13." The
complaint's appendix does include a copy of a financing statement
signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant Dennis Brewer. The
Plaintiff's briefing, however, does not explain how that agreement
pertains to the complaint's breach of contract claim as to any
specific defendant.

The complaint also asserts a cause of action for fraud but refers
only vaguely to the actions of the "defendants." Again, the
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment does not address the
sufficiency of this claim as to any specific defendant.

The complaint also refers vaguely to a "Class Action" claim.
Federal courts may only adjudicate the rights of putative class
members upon certification of that class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, Judge Barnes holds, citing Partington v.
American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 334, 340 (4th
Cir. 2006).

Moreover, the complaint alleges that the Winnett Defendants are
Colorado corporations. On October 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed
proofs of service on the Winnett Defendants. Those proofs of
service state that service was accomplished on the Winnett
Defendants by serving Defendant Brewer, as the "Agent for Service
of Process."  The Colorado Secretary of State, however, does not
identify Brewer as the Registered Agent for service on the Winnett
Defendants, Judge Barnes finds.

For the reasons set forth in the Order, it is ordered that the
Plaintiff's August 4, 2020 motion for default judgment is denied
without prejudice to renewal of a motion that cures the noted
defects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/cgkgr2w5 from Leagle.com.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Resolves Objections to R&R in Schrader Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada issued an order resolving the Defendants' objections to
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler's report and recommendation and
order in the case, BRENNA SCHRADER, Plaintiff(s) v. STEPHEN ALAN
WYNN, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-CV-2159 JCM (BNW) (D.
Nev.).

Presently before the Court is Judge Weksler's R&R and order.
Defendants Maurice Wooden, Stephen Wynn, Wynn Las Vegas, LLC
("WLV"), and Wynn Resorts, Ltd. ("WRL") object to the report and
recommendation ("R&R") and order.  Plaintiff Schrader filed a
response.

The case is a putative class action arising from Plaintiff
Schrader's employment as a massage therapist with WLV.  Schrader
alleges that she was forced to engage in sexual conduct with
Stephen Wynn, the former CEO and Chairman of WRL, and VIP clients.
She also alleges that Maurice Wooden, the former president of WLV,
Wynn, and others concealed this misconduct, facilitated it for
profit, and coerced victims into silence.

Ms. Schrader seeks to represent several subclasses of current and
former female employees of WLV and WRL that were subject to
discrimination, harassment, and forced sexual servitude.

The Defendants removed the case to federal court in December 2019.
They filed extensive motions to dismiss and a motion for a more
definite statement in March 2020.  These motions remain pending.

In July 2020, Schrader moved for leave to file a first amended
complaint, the gravamen of the instant objections.  Judge Weksler
first denied WLV and WRL's motion to strike Schrader's motion to
amend, ruling that it was not an improper surreply to the motions
to dismiss.  Judge Weksler then partially granted the motion,
ruling that, for the most part, the Defendants did not satisfy
their burden to show that amendment was prejudicial or futile.

The Defendants now object to almost every aspect of Judge Weksler's
R&R and order.

WLV and WRL argue that Schrader's motion to amend is effectively an
improper surreply to the motions to dismiss and should be stricken
under LR 7-2(g).  Schrader admits in her motion to amend that "the
Defendants' numerous motions to dismiss allege that the Plaintiff's
complaint failed to state a claim.  Her first amended complaint
addresses any perceived deficiencies, adds causes of action, makes
clarifications and provides a more definite statement.  WLV and WRL
argue that Schrader's opposition papers cannot "bootstrap new or
additional allegations" so her motion to amend cannot do so either.
They also point out that all the exhibits attached to the 296-page
proposed first amended complaint were either discussed in or
attached to Schrader's opposition papers.

Judge Mahan holds that the parties are not prohibited from
responding to a motion to dismiss with an amended complaint.
Instead, the Court considers the aforementioned factors in deciding
whether to allow amendment.  Thus, the magistrate judge's
application of Rule 15(a) and LR 15-1 was not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.  The denial of WLV and WRL's motion to strike is
will be affirmed.

WLV, WRL, and Wynn object to the magistrate judge's disregard of
their fully briefed and pending motions to dismiss which they
"incorporated, referenced, and expanded on" in their opposition to
amendment.  The Judge holds taht the magistrate judge clearly erred
in her application of LR 7-2.  But the remedy for this clear error
is less clear.  WLV and WRL ask the Court to sustain all the
instant objections and render a brand-new decision on the motion to
amend along with deciding the pending motions to dismiss.

The Judge will not go that far.  Instead, he will closely hew to
the Defendants' opposition to amendment and consider whether the
magistrate judge clearly erred in her futility determinations.  In
doing so, he will consider any specifically cited and incorporated
points and authorities from past briefing that the magistrate judge
disregarded.  This remedy strikes the proper balance between
valuing the judicial resources expended in adjudicating the motion
to amend, the highly deferential standard of review, the
Plaintiff's right to amend and have proper notice of the
Defendants' grounds for opposition, and the parties extensive
motion practice to date.

As to the futility of Schrader's amended claims, among other
things, WLV and WRL oppose amendment of Schrader's (i) Title VII
claim by arguing that she fails to attach her EEOC right to sue
letter and fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim, (ii)
forced labor claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 1589, by arguing that she fails to state a claim,
and (iii) federal RICO claims by incorporating by reference their
motion to dismiss briefing and reemphasizing that she does not have
statutory standing or specific allegations.

The Judge will affirm the magistrate judge's ruling that WLV and
WRL did not prove futility.  He reversed the magistrate judge's
ruling that Schrader stated a forced labor claim, and denied
Schrader's motion to amend without prejudice to the extent she
attempts to amend her forced labor claim.  She also denied
Schrader's motion to amend without prejudice to the extent she
attempts to plead federal RICO claims based on the predicate act of
forced labor, federal RICO claims based on the predicate act of sex
trafficking, and federal RICO claims based on the predicate act of
witness tampering.

The Defendants also oppose amendment on prejudice grounds as well.
They argue that the proposed first amended complaint has no new
facts or exhibits that were originally unavailable.  They also say
they have incurred "gratuitous expense and delay" and will incur
even more expense and delay in preparing a second round of motions
to dismiss.

Citing United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161,
1184 (9th Cir. 2016), the Judge holds that in the absence of bad
faith, litigation expenses incurred before a motion to amend is
filed, do not establish prejudice.  Moreover, he says the case is
at an early stage, discovery is stayed, this is Schrader's first
request to amend, and she is not adding any new parties or legal
theories, assuming that Nevada and federal RICO claims are similar
enough.  Accordingly, the magistrate judge's ruling that amendment
is not prejudicial will be affirmed.

Finally, an amended complaint "supersedes the original, the latter
being treated thereafter as non-existent," citing Ramirez v. Cty.
of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).  As a
result, the Judge finds that an amended complaint will ordinarily
moot a pending motion to dismiss the original complaint.  The
Defendants' pending motions to dismiss and motion for a more
definite statement will be denied as moot given Schrader's first
amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Mahan denied as moot the Defendants'
pending motions to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement
given Schrader's first amended complaint.  He affirmed Judge
Weksler's order denying WLV and WRL's motion to strike, and adopted
her two recommendations.

The Defendants' objections to Judge Weksler's order granting in
part Schrader's motion to amend are sustained in part and overruled
in part, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the order
consistent with the foregoing.

The clerk will file the proposed first amendment complaint and the
case will proceed on the following claims as alleged in the first
amended complaint: (i) Title VII claim against WLV and WRL, (ii)
Nevada RICO claim against WLV, WRL, Wynn, and Wooden, (iii) IIED
claims against WLV, WRL, and Wynn, and (iv) Civil conspiracy claim
against Wynn.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/242xnxfh from Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has 1,200 PI Claims as of Feb. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of Meritor, along with
many other companies, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used
in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021.

The Company states, "Liability for these claims was transferred at
the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell
in 1997. There were approximately 1,200 pending active asbestos
claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other
companies, as defendants at December 31, 2020 and September 30,
2020.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products. Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.

"The company engaged a third-party advisor with extensive
experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to conduct a
study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2020.
Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data and
experience for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the
assumptions used to estimate the liability.

"As of September 30, 2020, the best estimate of the company's
obligation for asbestos-related claims over the next 38 years was
$78 million. The company recognized a liability for pending and
future claims over the next 38 years of $76 million as of December
31, 2020 and $78 million as of September 30, 2020. The ultimate
cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on
the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by
law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with
Rockwell."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Zvicqh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp Sued For Alleged Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in, or accompanying, products made by the Company,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2021.

Graham Corp. states, "The Company is a co-defendant with numerous
other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims. The claims in the Company's current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related
suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for
immaterial amounts. The Company cannot provide any assurances that
any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner
as previous lawsuits.

"As of December 31, 2020, we are subject to the claims noted above,
as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of
the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are
or may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made for the
majority of the claims, we do not believe that the outcomes, either
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on
our results of operations, financial position or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pvdEeh




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $93MM Liabilities at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos
containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29,
2021.

The Company states, "These cases have typically involved product
liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture,
sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained
asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components.

"As of December 31, 2020, the Company's estimated asbestos-related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was $93 million. The
net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of $474 million, of which $49 million was
recorded in other current liabilities and $425 million was recorded
in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintained
separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance
recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position
of $381 million, of which $17 million was recorded in other current
assets, and $364 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets.
Assets included $5 million of cash and $308 million of investments,
which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with
the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the
Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are
probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at December 31,
2020 was $68 million. As of September 30, 2020, the Company's
estimated asbestos-related net liability recorded on a discounted
basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial
position was $115 million. The net liability within the
consolidated statements of financial position was comprised of a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $483 million, of which $49 million was recorded in other current
liabilities and $434 million was recorded in other noncurrent
liabilities. The Company also maintained separate cash, investments
and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the
consolidated statements of financial position of $368 million, of
which $39 million was recorded in other current assets, and $329
million was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included $9
million of cash and $291 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2020 was $68 million.

"The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding
insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs
is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and
estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future
claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from
2068 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the
actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related
claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos-related
defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's
legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates.
The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating
the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical
claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value
claims reasonably projected to be made through 2068. At least
annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated
liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by
evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and
dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims
and settlement experience, the Company considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in
legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense
strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its
insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all
of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of
its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or
insurance receivable is warranted.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's
strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available
information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key
variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims
that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims,
the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with
insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with
respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors
are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or
assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single
variable or assumption predominately influences the determination
of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3jUgHLY


                            *********

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 ***