---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 4, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 40

                            Headlines

2 STAR TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lacen-Elicier Suit Says
22ND CENTURY: Noto Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
9F INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
AIR METHODS: Dearborn Suit Transferred to D. Colorado
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Supracompetitive E-Book Prices

AMERICAN ADVISORS: Faces Baker Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Seeks to Certify Flight Attendant Class
AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Dismisses Ridings Class Suit With Prejudice
AMERICAN SERVICES: Doolittle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARTHUR ANDREW: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AVANTI PIZZA: Montanes Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
BABY BREZZA: Letter Motion to Dismiss Borgese Suit Granted in Part
BAMA TOMATO: Morales Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Under FLSA
BAUER'S INTELLIGENT: Faces Lopez Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baker Files Suit in E.D. California

BILKISH MALEK: Website Lacks Accessible Features Info, Sarwar Says
BLINK CHARGING: Hagens Berman Files Amended Class Action
BURLINGTON FINANCIAL: Spisinki Sues Over Consumer Credit Violations
CALAMOS ASSET: Travelers Unit Doesn't Have to Cover Class Action
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Smid Alleges

CAPE COD: Potato Chips Contain Artificial Flavor, Schoonmaker Says
CARDCONNECT CORP: $7.65M Settlement in Kao Suit Wins Final Approval
CARDCONNECT CORP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Kao Class Suit
CAREGUIDE INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CITY WIDE: Faces Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages

CLARK & GENTRY: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Avrahami Class Suit
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Goodman Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
CONTRACT CALLERS: Christie FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Jacobson Sues Over Unlawful Collection Letter
CREE INC: Young Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
CS LOGISTICS: Faces Delude Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
D & S COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frazier Suit Claims
DASCOR CORPORATION: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Under FLSA

DENTAL EQUITIES: Scoma's Bid to Certify Class Denied W/o Prejudice
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Maree Suit
DICILLO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bradley Suit Alleges
ECO SHIELD: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
EDDY'S LAUNDRY: Faces Pablo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.

EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Chaumont Suit Over Drop in Share Price
ENDURANCE AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss MSP's First Amended Suit Granted
EXETER FINANCE: Goldowsky Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to N.D. Texas
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Managers
FASTENAL COMPANY: Loaiza Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website

FASWD LLC: Howlett Claims Driver's License Info Made Public
FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Wellman Says
FRANCHISE CREATOR: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Practice of Law
FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Second Class Action Over Accounting Errors
FUBOTV: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Claims

FUELCO ENERGY: Helfrich Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Time
G4S SECURE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Immigration Arrests
GALAXY RELAXATION: Faces Tatum-Rios ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GAWFCO ENTERPRISES: Teschera Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smith's Fraud Claim

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt Battery Defects
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Moore Says
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Suit Alleges
GLOBAL TRUST: Thompson RICO Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action Lawsuit for $1.5MM

GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Zeff's Tenants Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Anderson Suit Says
HOME FAMILY CARE: Lubov Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
J-M MANUFACTURING: Faces Talton Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
JMP GROUP: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Tornese Claims

JMP GROUP: Thompson Class Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
JOSE PEPPER'S: Bid to Dismiss Florece Suit Denied Without Prejudice
KROGER CO: Faces Lalli ADA Suit in Central District of California
LIFE TIME FITNESS: Howard Labor Class Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
LONGHORN ORGANICS: Payne Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime

LOUISIANA: DoC Faces Suit for Jailing People Past Release Dates
LOUISIANA: Giroir Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons
LOVE'S TRAVEL: $2.95M Settlement in Lawson FLSA Suit Wins Approval
LOWE'S COS: Class Action Can Include 'Eleventh-Hour' Witnesses
MAESTROVISION INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rahman Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Black Franchise Owners Hold Protest Amid Lawsuit
MDL 2741: Weed Killer Product Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2804: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Ohio Product Liability Cases
MDL 2924: Zantac Class Action Over Drug Ranitidine in Early Stages

MEDNAX SERVICES: Davis Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Fla.
MIA GROUND: Fails to Pay Wages to Helpers, Lacen-Elicier Suit Says
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Balow Appeals Injunction Bid Denial
MICHIGAN: D.R. IDEA Suit Seeks to Certify Eligible Student Class
MILLER & MILONE: Mumin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter

MINDGEEK HOLDING: Susman Godfrey Files Child Pornography Lawsuit
MIRBEAU OF SKANEATELES: Hedges Says Website Inaccessible to Blind
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir.
MORNINGSTAR INC: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
MOUNTAIN VIEW: Double Damages Judgment in Gates Suit Affirmed

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Player's Painkiller Class Action Can Proceed
NATIONAL MILK: Settlement Reached in Milk Conspiracy Class Action
NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Bokor Suit Alleges
NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Delsardo Suit Alleges
NELSON PARTNERS: Parziale Sues Over $75.5 Million of Trust Losses

NEW YORK & COMPANY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Ruiz
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Court Issues Protective Order in Securities Suit
NOVA HOME: Savinova, et al. File Bid for Conditional Certification
NUTRA MANUFACTURING: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Amavizca

PARSEC INC: Sailliez BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: A.W. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
PREMIUM RETAIL: Underpays Merchandisers, Lemm Suit Alleges
PROVIDENCE RESTAURANT: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California
PSC COMMUNITY: Ex-Workers' Bid to Intervene in 1199SEIU Suit Denied

PUBLIC HOLDINGS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUICKRECRUIT LLC: Faces Lander Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
QUICKSERVE ENTERPRISES: Faces De la Rosa Suit in Calif. State Court
REDCLIFFE MEDICAL: Faces Lazo Suit Over Leaf Masks Marketing Fraud
RENEE GROUP: Soto-Aguilera Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages

REP PROCESSING: Conditional Status of Day Rate Inspectors Sought
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moodys Sue for Stock Market Interference
ROBINHOOD GROUP: Kelley Sues Over Stock Market Interference
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
ROYAL DUTCH: Nigerian Communities Can Sue Over Oil Spills

SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes
SALT CREEK: Garrett Seeks to Recover Inspectors' Overtime Wages
SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Infantino Seeks FLSA Collective Certification
SECRET AARDVARK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Monegro Says
SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces Arpitkumar TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia

SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOVEREIGN OFFSHORE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Sheppard Class Suit
SUGAR CREEK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Cordell Suit Claims
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Faces Velasquez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT

SUNMARK CREDIT: Faces DADM Kidz Personal Injury Suit in N.D.N.Y.
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces Scott Suit in Florida Circuit Court
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Budde Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
TATE & LYLE: Technicians Seek Overtime for Pre-shift Work
TAURUS GROUP: Harman Sues Over Pistol's Defective Slide

TEK COLLECT: Taluy Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
THE KROGER: Faces Kibler Suit Over Failure to Pay Supervisors' OT
TORAY ADVANCED: Rodriguez-Lopez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hendricks Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to E.D. Texas
TRADE IDEAS: Faces Monegro Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
TRICIDA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRISTAR BECHNUT: Ghauri Seeks Store Clerks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
TURBO DRILL: Kennedy Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach
TYSON FOODS: Guo Slams Share Drop from COVID-Related Shutdowns

UBER SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Pay, Perks
UCLA HEALTH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Suit Alleges
UNILEVER UNITED: Arroyo Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
UNITED STATES: E.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Dismiss Doe FERSA Suit

UNITED STATES: Haggart Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
UNITED STATES: Perez Seeks 2nd Cir. Review in Habeas Corpus Suit
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Melcone Alleges Misleading Collection Letter
WALMART INC: Underpays Retail Associates, Perez Suit Alleges
WARNER MUSIC: Stevens Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Judge Refuses to Certify Harassment Lawsuit
WHOLE FOODS: Southern District of New York Dismisses Berkley Suit
WORLD TRIATHLON: Court Tosses Class Action Over Canceled Race
XILINX INC: Stanisci Balks at Proposed Merger With Advanced Micro
ZARBEE'S INC: Faces Babb Suit over Mislabeled Baby Cough Syrups


                            *********

2 STAR TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lacen-Elicier Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENIER LACEN-ELICIER, on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. 2 STAR TRUCKING, INC., and BORIS
KOPEYKIN, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00899 (E.D.N.Y., February 19,
2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a helper from in or
about July 2017 through March 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated
employees were not correctly compensated by the Defendants at the
federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in a
workweek and overtime wage rate for all hours worked for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant also failed to
maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records as a
result of its failure to use timekeeping device to track their
employees' hours worked. Instead, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals submitted their time via email. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide him and other similarly situated
employees with accurate wage statements or summary, the Plaintiff
asserts.

2 Star Trucking, Inc. provides trucking services. Boris Kopeykin is
an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of the company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          Imran Ansari, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10036
          Tel: (212) 486-0011
          E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com


22ND CENTURY: Noto Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Noto, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH NOTO, GARDEN STATE TIRE
CORP., STEPHENS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 22ND CENTURY GROUP, INC., HENRY
SICIGNANO, III, JOHN T. BRODFUEHRER, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-1285, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York (Buffalo).

The Plaintiff investors allege a putative securities class action
against Defendant 22nd Century Group, a microcap company; Defendant
Sicignano, 22nd Century's former CEO; and Defendant Brodfuehrer,
22nd Century's former CFO. Plaintiffs allege that they incurred
losses based on Defendants' scheme to inflate 22nd Century's stock
price at investors' expense. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants: (1) commissioned promotional articles that were
presented as independent analysis but, in reality, were written by
authors compensated by Defendants, without disclosing that fact;
and (2) concealed that the SEC was investigating a material
weakness in 22nd Century's accounting controls. Plaintiffs allege
that 22nd Century's stock price rose as a result of Defendants'
conduct, and that the stock price fell precipitously after a former
22nd Century CEO revealed information regarding the promotional
articles and the SEC investigation.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Summary Order dated
January 14, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and dismissing the amended complaint with
prejudice, and Court's Judgment dated January 15, 2021, entering in
favor of 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano, III, and John
T. Brodfuehrer.

The appellate case is captioned as Noto v. 22nd Century Group,
Inc., Case No. 21-347, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, February 12, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp., and
Stephens Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano,
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer are represented by:

          Jonathan H. Friedman, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-7474
          E-mail: jfriedman@foley.com  

               - and -

          Charles C. Ritter, Jr., Esq.
          DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP
          701 Seneca Street
          Buffalo, NY 14210
          Telephone: (716) 855-1111
          E-mail: critter@dhpglaw.com

9F INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 22 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of 9F Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)
between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=9f-inc&id=2566
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 22, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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

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

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

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


AIR METHODS: Dearborn Suit Transferred to D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Dearborn, George Cappadonna, and all
others similarly situated v. Air Methods Corporation, Rocky
Mountain Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00114, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Feb. 25, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00568-MEH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Air Methods Corporation -- https://www.airmethods.com/ -- is an
American privately owned helicopter operator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
          STROM LAW FIRM LLC
          6923 North Trenholm Road, Suite 200
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Phone: (803) 252-4800
          Fax: (803) 252-4801
          Email: mpacella@stromlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Jodene Smith, Esq.
          Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HARD LLP-Denver
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 295-8374
          Fax: (303) 974-1133
          Email: jjsmith@hollandhart.com
                 mjsmith@hollandhart.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Supracompetitive E-Book Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN SILVERMAN and JEFFERY TOMASULO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; HACHETTE BOOK
GROUP, INC; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C.; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING
GROUP, LLC; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01256 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2021) arises from the 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" online retailers such as Amazon, Kobo,
Apple Books, and Barnes & Noble 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." The
publishers 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), the suit says.

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.

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:

          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Meegan Hollywood, Esq.
          David Rochelson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  mhollywood@robinskaplan.com
                   drochelson@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Adam Frankel, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail afrankel@grwlegal.com

AMERICAN ADVISORS: Faces Baker Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00339 (C.D. Cal., February
22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed
numerous unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number beginning on January 11, 2021. The Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number was registered on the Do Not Call Registry on
November 4, 2004. Despite the Plaintiff's request to the
Defendant's employee to stop placing unsolicited call, the
Defendant continued placing unsolicited calls, the suit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unauthorized
solicitation calls have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of their privacy. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals seeking an injunctive relief to requiring the Defendant
to cease all unsolicited calling activity, as well as actual and/or
statutory damages and costs, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

American Advisors Group, Inc. provides refinancing and reverse
mortgage services to consumers nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Seeks to Certify Flight Attendant Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KINCHELOE, VONNA
RUDINE, SANDRA CHRISTAFFERSON, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00515-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying their Age Discrimination in
      Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) claims as a collective
      action and authorizing themselves to send notice under 29
      U.S.C. section 626(b), which incorporates the procedures
      of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to:

      "all current and former flight attendants who accepted the
      Defendant's voluntary early retirement program (VEOP)
      offer first extended in March 2020; and

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs a
      computer-readable data file containing the name, last
      known address, last known email address, and dates of
      service for each such Flight Attendant.

American Airlines admits that it targeted its older flight
attendants, based on their age, for an early retirement program
announced in March 2020. Following closely on the heels of that
admitted age-based early retirement program, American Airlines
offered admittedly superior and richer retirement incentives to its
remaining flight attendants. The Plaintiffs seek to recover the
difference in value between the first, age-based retirement program
and the second retirement program offered to other flight
attendants, plus additional remedies provided under the
ADEA.

American Airlines owns and operates a commercial airline.
www.aa.com. The company employs thousands of flight attendants to
staff its commercial flights. Those flight attendants share the
same primary job duties of providing information and guidance to
passengers, assisting passengers with safety and comfort, and
conducting safety checks.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uBcUrT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric B. Kinglsey, Esq. SBN-185123
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kinglseykingsley.com

               - and -

          Ferne P. Wolf, Esq.
          SILERSTEIN | WOLF, LLC
          530 Maryville Center Drive, Suite 460
          St. Louis, Missouri 63141
          Telephone: (314) 744-4010
          Facsimile: (314) 744-4026
          E-mail: fw@silversteinwolf.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Dismisses Ridings Class Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY R. RIDINGS, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 5715 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted American Family's motion to
dismiss.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant American Family
gave its auto-insurance customers $50 and knocked 10% off premiums
for six months.  Not enough, says Illinois policyholder and
Plaintiff Ridings.

Ridings holds an auto-insurance policy with American Family.  She
claims that American Family gave inadequate premium relief to its
Illinois policyholders with policies in effect as of March 1,
2020.

In March 2020, Illinois took a number of steps to limit the spread
of COVID-19.  The Governor issued a disaster proclamation and
signed a series of executive orders limiting the size of
gatherings; closing schools, restaurants, and other businesses; and
ordering Illinoisans to stay home.  As a result, residents drove
"less frequently and less far," which dramatically emptied
Illinois' roads of vehicle traffic.  This decrease in traffic
resulted in fewer motor vehicle accidents--and, therefore, fewer
auto insurance claims, which will almost certainly continue for the
foreseeable future, and for as long as the COVID crisis continues.
The premiums American Family charged its policyholders--which were
based in part on projections about future claims and costs--thus
"became dramatically overstated" and "grossly excessive."

In response, American Family provided premium relief to its
Illinois policyholders.  In April 2020, it issued a one-time $50
payment to customers with eligible policies in force as of March
11, 2020; it subsequently offered a 10% credit on personal auto
premiums from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2020.

The complaint says this relief has been grossly inadequate and
designed to secure for American Family an unearned and unfair
windfall.   American Family's premium relief falls far short of the
relief that any fair and reasonable actuarial analysis would
require and compares unfavorably to substantially all of the
premium-relief programs established by other Illinois auto insurers
in response to the COVID-19 crisis.

In making its offer for premium relief, American Family represented
that policyholders "can trust" American Family "to support" them
"during the coronavirus."  It also said "we're here when you need
us" and that it offered premium relief to "support our customers
through the changes and challenges brought on by the COVID-19
pandemic."  It represented to Illinois "policyholders (implicitly,
if not explicitly) that such offer was fair and reasonable, when in
fact it was neither.  American Family "concealed" or "omitted to
share" with policyholders "the inadequacy and unfairness of its
offer" and "the fact that such offer compares unfavorably to the
COVID-19 premium relief offered by all or substantially all other
Illinois auto insurers."

Ms. Ridings seeks declaratory relief (Count I) and brings claims
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Count II), common law fraud
(Count III), bad-faith breach of contract (Count IV), and unjust
enrichment (Count V).  American Family moves to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Regarding Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, Judge Shah concludes that the complaint fails to allege
deceptive or unfair conduct that caused any pecuniary damage.  He
finds that the complaint does not allege anything that would
deceive a reasonable consumer.  Ridings has not identified what she
must under the Consumer Fraud Act: a material fact that was
misrepresented, concealed, or omitted.  Ridings has also failed to
allege actual damages.  Lastly, Ridings has not pleaded how the
premium relief she received caused her any pecuniary harm, and even
if she had, it could have been avoided through cancellation of her
policy.  Hence, Count II is dismissed.

With regard to common law fraud, the complaint asserts that Ridings
"justifiably relied on the express and/or implied representations
subsumed within the company's offer of premium relief."  She argues
that American Family's characterization of the relief--casting it
as much-needed 'support' in a time of crisis--was intended to
induce policyholders to accept (and not challenge) the size and
terms of the relief."  But these allegations, according to Judge
Shah, don't cross the plausibility threshold.  Ridings had an
opportunity to compare the program to others and, if she determined
that they were unfair or unsupportive, she could have cancelled her
policy.  Count III is also dismissed.

Ms. Ridings next argues that American Family breached the duty of
good faith and fair dealing.  Judge Shah, however, finds that
Ridings does not allege that American Family breached her insurance
contract or did anything to hinder access to her benefits under it.
She doesn't say, for example, that American Family exercised
discretion under any provision of the contract in bad faith.  She
instead argues that because there was less driving and fewer claims
as a result of COVID-19, "Illinois law affirmatively required at
least some premium relief because the duty of good faith and fair
dealing is implied in every contract, including auto insurance
contracts."  But the duty of good faith and fair dealing doesn't
permit a party to add substantive provisions to a contract when
circumstances change.  Accordingly, Ridings can't use the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing to rewrite her contract to add a
premium relief requirement.  Count IV is dismissed.

For the unjust enrichment claim, Judge Shah opines that Ridings'
failure to allege fraud or a breach of her insurance contract is
also fatal to her unjust enrichment claim.  Ridings fails to plead
unjust enrichment for two independent reasons.  First, she has not
alleged fraud.  Second, "a claim for unjust enrichment is based
upon an implied contract; where there is a specific contract that
governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine has no
application."  Ridings argues that it's contradictory to say that
the dispute is governed by the policy on the one hand, while also
saying she has no remedy under the policy on the other.  Those two
things, the Judge says, are not mutually exclusive, however.
Ridings' relationship for insurance is governed by an actual
contract with American Family, and that contract does not contain a
provision that gives her a remedy in the case.  Thus, unjust
enrichment cannot supply an implied one.  Count V is dismissed.

With the substantive claims resolved, Judge Shah holds that there's
no basis for declaratory relief.  Under the Declaratory Judgment
Act, a court "may declare the rights and other legal relations of
any interested party" in a case or controversy within its
jurisdiction.  The Act's text and history confer federal courts
with significant discretion in deciding whether to declare the
rights of parties.  Courts "often decline to exercise this
discretion when the declaratory judgment claim substantially
overlaps with the plaintiff's substantive claims."

The Judge declines to do so for the same reason.  Ridings concedes
that "to the extent the claim for declaratory relief is
substantively duplicative of other claims pled in the complaint, it
must be dismissed."  Duplicative they are -- there's no daylight
between Ridings' substantive claims and her request for declaratory
relief.  And the complaint even notes that "declaratory relief by
the Court will terminate some or all of the existing controversy
between the parties."  Count I is dismissed.

Finally, the Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend or
explained how she could cure the defects identified by American
Family in its motion to dismiss.  But under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2), courts should freely give leave to amend when
justice requires.  Ridings' claims depend entirely on the faulty
premise that American Family was required to give her premium
relief, and that by not giving her enough of it, it somehow secured
an unlawful windfall.  American Family's decision to give Ridings a
benefit to which she was not entitled under her policy was not
fraudulent or unfair, it caused her no damage, and it was not
contrary to law.  Hence, amendment would be futile.  Ridings'
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Shah granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  He
directed the entry of judgment and termination of the civil case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fc5jabk from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN SERVICES: Doolittle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE DOOLITTLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SERVICES & PROTECTION LLC, AMERICAN
SERVICES LLC, and AARON S. HARPER, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00763-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 22, 2021) brings this
collective and class action complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in 2020 as a
non-exempt security employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate her and other similarly situated non-exempt security
employees for all hours they worked because the Defendants did not
count the time they spent performing pre-shift work duties, which
is integral and indispensable part of their principal duties. As a
result, despite they routinely worked more than 40 hours per
workweek, they were not paid overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked
over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to make,
keep, and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by their
employees before clocking in and/or clocking out each day, the suit
says.

Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff's
last paycheck, thereby failing to pay her minimum wage.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages, treble and
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants provide security services in Ohio. Aaron
S. Harper is the owner, operator, and president of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 824-5770
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


ARTHUR ANDREW: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arthur Andrew
Medical, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Arthur Andrew Medical,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01684 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

Arthur Andrew Medical -- https://arthurandrew.com/ -- is a provider
of innovative, therapeutic-grade supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVANTI PIZZA: Montanes Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Montanes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Avanti Pizza 2 Inc., Avanti Pizza Inc.,
Avanti Pizza 1 Inc., Giovanni Mashkulli, Geni Mashkulli and Ardjent
Mashkulli, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00586 (E.D. N.Y., February 4,
2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria/Italian restaurant,
located in Staten Island under the name "Avanti's Pizza" where
Montanes was employed as a dishwasher, cook and a food preparer. He
claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week
without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. He
also claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BABY BREZZA: Letter Motion to Dismiss Borgese Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part the Defendants' premotion letter to dismiss in the
lawsuit entitled JON BORGESE, Individually and as Guardian of LB.,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. BABY
BREZZA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE BETESH GROUP; and THE BETESH GROUP
HOLDING CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 1180 (VM)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Borgese brings the putative class action, on behalf of
himself as his daughter's guardian, and all others similarly
situated, against the Defendants alleging failures in the design,
sale, and marketing of the Baby Brezza Formula Pro and Formula Pro
Advanced machines.

The Plaintiff purports to represent a class of "all purchasers in
the United States who have purchased a Baby Brezza Formula Pro or
Formula Pro Advanced," excluding the Defendants and the judicial
staff involved in this action, as well as their respective
affiliates.

The Baby Brezza machines are manufactured and sold as automatic
baby formula mixing machines.  The Plaintiff alleges that product
marketing  includes the claim: "Patented mixing technology
automatically mixes formula and water to perfect consistency." But,
according to the Plaintiff's allegations, the machines do not
perform as marketed and in fact mix less formula than required for
proper nutrition.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of consuming formula mixed
by the machines, his child and other similarly situated children
have received poor nutrition and have suffered from associated
complications and injuries. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends
that his child lost weight while being fed with formula mixed by
the Baby Brezza machines and required medical visits, resulting in
medical expenses, physical pain, and emotional distress.

The Plaintiff alleges that Baby Brezza has sold thousands, "if not
tens of thousands" of the machines, despite being aware of
complaints regarding mixing problems for years.  He further asserts
that the Defendants received and suppressed reports of the
potential risks associated with the machines and failed to warn
consumers regarding these risks. According to the allegations, the
products were defective and a number of alternative designs were
available, which the Plaintiff insists would have been safer. The
Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' acts were intentional and
aimed at securing their own economic gain, resulting in damages,
including the costs of the machine and medical and other expenses.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the putative class action on
February 12, 2020. Two days before that, he filed a near-identical
complaint in New York state court ("State Court Action"). The
Complaint in the present action and the complaint in the State
Court Action are indistinguishable in every meaningful way except
the class definition. The action pending before the Court brings
claims on behalf of "all purchasers in the United States," whereas
the State Court Action brings claims on behalf of "all purchasers
in the State of New York."

Consistent with the Court's Individual Practices, the Defendants,
in the Letter Motion, notified the Plaintiff of perceived
deficiencies in the Complaint. The Defendants argue that (1) the
class allegations must be stricken because the Plaintiff has failed
to establish predominance, the claims are highly individualized and
unsuitable for class treatment, and the class lacks standing; (2)
the Complaint must be stayed under the first-filed rule because it
is duplicative of the State Court Action; and (3) each of the
claims fails on the merits.

The Plaintiff's Opposition challenges these asserted grounds for
dismissal. In particular, he contends that (1) the arguments for
striking the class are premature, incorrect, and may be cured by
subclasses; (2) the first-filed rule is inapplicable; and (3) each
claim, contrary to the Defendants' assertions, has been
sufficiently pleaded.

While the Defendants move for a stay under the first-filed rule,
the Court finds that this rule is inapplicable, and construes the
Defendants' request for stay as being made under Colorado River.

The Defendants argue that the class allegations should be stricken
because the Plaintiff cannot establish predominance for two
reasons. First, the Defendants contend that the Court cannot
undertake the required analysis of the variations in state law to
determine whether common questions of law predominate because the
Complaint fails to identify any other potential state's law outside
New York. Second, according to the Defendants, questions regarding
whether putative class members properly used or maintained the
machines, and what medical and other expenses accrued, are highly
individualized and predominate over the generalized questions.

District Judge Victor Marrero states that the Court is unable to
undertake the requisite analysis because the Complaint does not
indicate where the other purchasers of the Baby Brezza machines
reside, where they purchased the machines, or where they may have
suffered any resulting injury. It is, therefore, unable to
determine which state laws apply, and in turn, whether those laws
materially differ. Further complicating matters, the Plaintiff does
not assert any claims under federal law--each of the 10 causes of
action is brought under state law.

To conclude that the class allegations have been plausibly alleged,
the Court would have to assume that the majority of the claims are
brought under state laws that have no "material" differences,
without any indication as to which state laws might be implicated,
and thus no basis to conclude that those state laws are similar. On
its face, then, the Complaint does not allege any common legal
issues, much less common issues that are "more substantial" than
individualized ones, Judge Marrero holds, citing In re U.S.
Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d at 118.

Nor is the Court persuaded that the availability of subclasses
cures this pleading defect. While "the court is empowered under
Rule 23(c)(4) to carve out an appropriate class," it is not
"obligated" to do so on its own initiative, Judge Marrero notes.
The Judge points out that it is the Plaintiff's burden to establish
how the issues could be cured by subclasses, and the conclusory
statement in the Plaintiff's Opposition does not satisfy that
burden.

Furthermore, while the Plaintiff correctly points out that the
Complaint relies on Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) to support the
purported eligibility for class treatment, these additional
provisions do not save the Plaintiff's class allegations, Judge
Marrero opines. First, because the Plaintiff withdraws his prayer
for injunctive relief, and because the Complaint does not seek a
declaratory judgment, the purported class is not eligible for class
treatment under Rule 23(b)(2). Second, the Plaintiff cannot
establish entitlement to class treatment under Rule 23(b)(1)
because subsection (b)(1)(A) generally applies when, unlike his
case, the defendant is obliged by law to treat the members of the
class alike or where the party must treat all alike as a matter of
practical necessity.

Likewise, the Plaintiff cannot establish entitlement to class
treatment under subsection (b)(1)(B) because he has not identified
any additional class members, or provided a basis to conclude that
other, nonparty class members would have any interest in the
litigation apart from possible prejudice to any later action should
the Defendants prevail, which alone is insufficient, Judge Marrero
holds. Moreover, even if these issues could be cured by class
discovery, the class allegations must be stricken for another, more
fundamental reason--the Plaintiff has failed to identify a single
member of the purported class other than himself and he has failed
to conduct an investigation to determine if there are other class
members before filing this action.

The Court is also skeptical that the claims raised are suitable for
class resolution on the merits. The proposed class includes all
buyers of the Baby Brezza machines. But beyond that, no other
information about, or similarities among, the purported class
members are alleged, seemingly because the Plaintiff has not
identified any other class members. The result is the Plaintiff's
failure to plausibly allege that the class is numerous, that there
are questions of law or fact common to the purported class, that
the Plaintiff's claims or defenses are typical of the class
members, and that the representative parties will adequately
protect the class.

Judge Marrero points out that the lack of sufficient allegations is
especially problematic in the present context. While certainly the
product-defect claim could be subject to generalized resolution,
the other claims involving fraud and negligence are not typically
appropriate for class treatment because they require highly
individualized inquiry to determine liability.

On the bare and conclusory allegations in the Complaint, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible
entitlement to class treatment. Determining that the class
allegations must be stricken, the Court need not, and does not,
address the Defendants' additional argument that the proposed class
includes members who lack standing.

The Defendants further argue that the Complaint should be dismissed
under the first-filed rule because the State Court Action is
substantially similar and was brought two days before this one. The
Plaintiff argues that the rule does not apply.

On this point, the Plaintiff has the better argument, Judge Marrero
notes. The first-filed rule applies only when both actions were
filed in federal court--not, as here, when the first action was
filed in state court and the second in federal court.

Nonetheless, on the basis of the facts presented, the Court
concludes that the exercise of federal jurisdiction should be
postponed until after the state court litigation is completed.

The federal lawsuit and the State Court Action are indeed parallel.
The named Plaintiff--Jon Borgese--is the same in both actions. The
Defendants--Baby Brezza Enterprises, LLC, Betesh Group, and The
Betesh Group Holding Corporation, Inc.--are also the same. The 10
causes of action are likewise identical, and importantly, they all
stem from the same alleged conduct: misrepresentations regarding
the Baby Brezza machines' ability to mix the "perfect" baby
formula. The relief requested in each action is also essentially
the same: class certification; designation of Borgese as class
representative and his counsel as class counsel; and equitable and
injunctive relief, including restitution, profit disgorgement,
damages, and attorneys' fees. While the Plaintiff withdraws his
claim for injunctive relief in the present action, the remainder of
the requests for relief is identical, and the Court consequently
does not find that this difference meaningfully alters the symmetry
of these lawsuits.

The only significant distinction between the two actions is the
putative class definition. In the instant case, the Plaintiff
purports to represent "all purchasers in the United States,"
whereas in the State Court Action, the Plaintiff purports to
represent all purchasers in New York. And because the Court strikes
the class allegations here, the case before this Court ultimately
constitutes an individual action on behalf of Borgese. The State
Court Action, therefore, encompasses all the claims presented in
this case, Judge Marrero holds.

Thus, considering the identity of the parties, allegations, legal
issues, and relief sought, the Court concludes that the action and
the State Court Action are "essentially the same," and, therefore,
parallel.

Turning to the Colorado River factors, the first two factors are
neutral and the fourth factor is also neutral because the State
Court Action was initiated just two days before the Complaint in
this case was filed, Judge Marrero finds. Colorado River factors
three and five favor abstention. As to factor five, state law
issues predominate because not a single claim the Plaintiff asserts
here was brought under federal law. The final remaining
consideration--factor six--also weighs substantially in favor of
abstention.

Out of six factors then, three are neutral and three favor of
abstention. The Court is persuaded that the factors supporting
Colorado River abstention in this case substantially outweigh the
factors supporting the Court's exercise of jurisdiction.  For these
reasons, the Court declines to condone similar gamesmanship here
and, thus, stays this case pending resolution of the State Court
Action.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion so deemed by the Court
as filed by Defendants Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC, The Betesh
Group, and The Betesh Group Holding Corporation, Inc. to dismiss
the Complaint of Plaintiff Borgese is granted as to The Betesh
Group.

The motion so deemed by the Court as filed by the Defendants to
strike the class allegations is granted. The motion so deemed by
the Court as filed by the Defendants to stay the action pending
resolution of the parallel action in New York state court is
granted.

The Plaintiff is directed to inform the Court within 30 days of the
adjudication of the state court action concerning such resolution
and the Plaintiff's intent with regard to further litigation in the
present case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Feb. 18,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/492w7327 from
Leagle.com.


BAMA TOMATO: Morales Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA CRUZ MORALES, and JOSE R. CABELLO GONZALEZ v. BAMA TOMATO,
INC., and CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN, Case No. 2:21-cv-00234-AMM (N.D.
Ala., Feb. 15, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages,
lost wages, liquidated damages, front pay, attorney's fees,
interest, and punitive damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees did not
receive wages at the rate of time and one-half the typical hourly
rate for the hours worked in excess of the 40 regular hours in a
given work week. They were not entitled to and did not earn tips
and were not exempted employees. The Plaintiffs are owed by the
Defendants all the compensation for their overtime hours, but the
Defendants have willfully failed to compensate them, the complaint
adds.

Bama Tomato was founded in 1991. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Mr. Griffin is the owner of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicenta Bonet Smith, Esq.
          BONET & SMITH, PC
          3499 Independence Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 870-2222
          Facsimile: (205) 870-3333
          E-mail: info@bonetsmith.com

BAUER'S INTELLIGENT: Faces Lopez Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bauer's Intelligent
Transportation Inc. The case is captioned as FRANK RENE LOPEZ v.
BAUER'S INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION INC., ET AL., Case No.
CGC21589567 (Calif. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 11, 2021).

The suit alleges the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Samuel K. Feng.

A case management conference will be held on July 14, 2021.

Bauer's Intelligent is a transportation company that offers
commuter and charter transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baker Files Suit in E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Corporation. The case is styled as Shelby Baker, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00266-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., Feb. 25,
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:

          Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq.
          Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jsmith@bursor.com
                 breed@bursor.com
                 ltfisher@bursor.com


BILKISH MALEK: Website Lacks Accessible Features Info, Sarwar Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAIM SARWAR, Individually, v. BILKISH Z. MALEK, Individually, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00051-GZS (D. Maine, Feb. 11, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, suing the Defendant for injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant, either itself or by and through a third party,
accepts reservations for its hotel online through one or more
Websites. The purpose of these Websites is so that members of the
public may reserve guest accommodations and review information
pertaining to the goods, services, features, facilities, benefits,
advantages, and accommodations of the Property. As such, these
Websites are subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Section
36.302(e).

The Plaintiff visited the Websites for the purpose of reviewing and
assessing the accessible features at the Property and ascertain
whether they meet the requirements of 28 C.F .R. Section 36.302( e)
and his accessibility needs. However, Plaintiff was unable to do so
because the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set
forth in 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e). As a result, Plaintiff was
deprived the same goods, services, features, facilities, benefits,
advantages, and accommodations of the Property available to the
general public. Specifically, (a) the hotel's online reservations
service operating through www.pittsfieldmotorinn.us failed to
identify accessible rooms, failed to provide an option for booking
an accessible room, and did not provide sufficient information as
to whether the rooms or features at the hotel are accessible; (b)
the hotel's online reservations service operating through
www.ratedotels.com failed to identify accessible rooms, failed to
provide an option for booking an accessible room, and did not
provide sufficient information as to whether the rooms or features
at the hotel are accessible; (c) the hotel's online reservations
service operating through www.booking.com failed to identify
accessible rooms, failed to provide an option for booking an
accessible room, and did not provide sufficient information as to
whether the rooms or features at the hotel are accessible; (d) the
hotel's online reservations service operating through
www.priceline.com failed to identify accessible rooms, failed to
provide an option for booking an accessible room, and did not
provide sufficient information as to whether the rooms or features
at the hotel are accessible; (e) the hotel's online reservations
service operating through www.agoda.com failed to identify
accessible rooms, failed to provide an option for booking an
accessible room, and did not provide sufficient information as to
whether the rooms or features at the hotel are accessible, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, is sui juris, and
qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA.
Plaintiff is unable to engage in the major life activity of walking
more than a few steps without assistive devices. Plaintiff
ambulates in a wheelchair or with a cane or other support and has
limited use of his hands. He is unable to tightly grasp, pinch and
twist of the wrist to operate. When ambulating beyond the comfort
of his own home, Plaintiff often uses a wheelchair or other
assistive device.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Ruggiero, Esq.
          275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400
          Newton, MA 02466
          Telephone: (339) 237-0343
          E-mail: druggieroesq@gmail.com

BLINK CHARGING: Hagens Berman Files Amended Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman and Pomerantz LLP, as Co-Lead Counsel, on Feb. 23
disclosed that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs jointly
represented by the firms have filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the securities fraud class action lawsuit pending
against Blink and certain of its senior executives. The firm
encourages individuals with relevant, non-public information
regarding Blink to contact the firm now.

Blink Charging Co. (BLNK) Securities Class Action:

The action, captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co., et al., No.
20-23527, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on February 19, 2021, on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded
securities of Blink during the period from March 6, 2020 and August
19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you have information regarding Blink's alleged fraud, Hagens
Berman and Pomerantz want to hear from you. Individuals with
non-public information regarding Blink are encouraged to contact
the firms by emailing BLNK@hbsslaw.com or by calling 844-916-0895.

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants misrepresented and concealed the size and functionality
of Blink's electric vehicle ("EV") charging station network.
Specifically, Defendants repeatedly promoted Blink's deployment of
over 15,000 chargers at which EV drivers can "easily charge."
Defendants also touted the advanced technical features of Blink's
charging units. In truth, the Company's public charging station
network consists of just 2,192 stations -- a scant 15% of Blink's
representations. Moreover, Blink's public charging station network
was littered with obsolete and inoperable chargers, which the
Company refused to service or replace.

Investors began to learn the truth on August 19, 2020, when analyst
Culper Research published a scathing report accusing the company of
vastly exaggerating the size of its EV charging network. In
addition, Culper reported "[o]ur on-the-ground visits to 242
stations at 88 locations across the U.S. revealed a plethora of
neglected, abused, non-functional, or otherwise missing chargers."

On this news, Blink's stock price fell from its August 18, 2020
closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing
price of $7.94 per share, representing a two-day drop of over 22%
and erasing over $72 million in market capitalization.

On December 21, 2020, Hagens Berman and Pomerantz were named
co-lead counsel in the case by the Honorable Kathleen M. William.

Individuals with information regarding Blink may contact Hagens
Berman and Pomerantz LLP by emailing BLNK@hbsslaw.com or by calling
844-916-0895.

Contacts:

Reed R. Kathrein - lead attorney
BLNK@hbsslaw.com, 844-916-0895 [GN]


BURLINGTON FINANCIAL: Spisinki Sues Over Consumer Credit Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey R. Spisinki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Burlington Financial Group, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-00442-DCC (D.S.C., Feb. 11, 2021) is a class action suit
against Burlington for violations of the Consumer Credit Counseling
Act by making fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation
to obtain information about a consumer, to solicit business with a
consumer, or otherwise in connection with providing services for or
on behalf of any consumer.

BFG describes itself as a "debt validation business," advertising a
"custom design documents process" and states that it "uses" certain
federal laws to require collectors and creditors to "verify'
information, in an effort to help consumers eliminate or get out of
debts. BFG also tells consumers that it can improve their credit.

BFG requires monthly payments from consumers for its services,
which payments and fees sometimes total more than $10,000.00, some
of which are ostensibly for "debt consolidation." BFG also tells
consumers that, if they are sued while or after using BFG's
"validation process" that BFG will refund the fees paid BFG, that
BFG is in partnership with "Verital Legal Plan, Inc." and
represents that consumers will be "fully protected by us and
Veritas and us throughout your entire Debt Validation Program."

BFG solicits consumers in the State of South Carolina through
"Enrollment Specialists," who are in fact commission based
salespersons with no authorization to give legal advice. In or
around May of 2018, Plaintiff was enrolled in Defendant's "Plan."
Thereafter, Defendant BFG withdrew sums of money each month to
"consolidate" his debts, for its validation services, to "protect"
Plaintiff from collectors or litigation through its "process" or
partnership with Veritas, and to prevent negative information from
appearing on Plaintiff's credit, the suit says.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant, over the next two years, in
excess of $7500.00. The Defendant took no meaningful action,
contrary to its representations, resulting in Plaintiff's being
dunned mercilessly and continuously by creditors and collectors,
suffering damage to his credit, and receiving nothing from the vast
amount of money paid to BFG, added the suit.

The Defendant provided or offered to provide consumers credit
counseling services for a fee, compensation, or gain, or in the
expectation of a fee, compensation, or gain, including debt
management plans, in or to residents of the State of South
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
          P.O. Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 509-6800
          Facsimile: (855) 299-1656
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com

CALAMOS ASSET: Travelers Unit Doesn't Have to Cover Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Delaware federal judge has ruled that a
Travelers unit doesn't have to help cover Calamos Asset
Management's $22 million settlement of a consolidated stockholder
class action over its 2017 merger with insider-controlled
businesses, finding that the stockholders' suit didn't constitute a
covered securities claim. [GN]



CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Smid Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN SMID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, AND PLUM, PBC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02417 (D.N.J., Feb. 11, 2021) is a class action suit
against the Defendants for deceptive business practices, including
misrepresentations and omissions, regarding the presence of
dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals and other contaminants
contained within its organic baby foods that Plaintiff purchased.

Campbell purchased Plum in 2013 for $249 million. At the time,
Campbell touted Plum as the "No. 2 brand of organic baby food in
the United States." Plum represents its food philosophy as "Little
ones deserve the very best food from the very first bite." Plum
prides itself for being on "Team Parent," noting on its website and
advertisements, "Parenting is hard. That's why Plum is easy."

The Defendants do not list heavy metals as an ingredient on the
Products' label nor do they warn of the potential presence of heavy
metals in their Products, the Plaintiff says.

The complaint further asserts that unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Classes, and contrary to the
representations on the Products' label, the Products contain toxic
heavy metals, which, if disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the
proposed Classes prior to purchase, would have caused Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Classes not to purchase or consume the
Products. As a result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and
misleading, added the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings claims for consumer fraud and seek damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

Plaintiff Erin Smid is a citizen of the State of Illinois. She
purchased all of the Products from Amazon between December 29, 2017
and January 13, 2021.

Campbell Soup Company, is a New Jersey corporation with its
headquarters located in Camden, New Jersey.

Plum, PBC, is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CAPE COD: Potato Chips Contain Artificial Flavor, Schoonmaker Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Schoonmaker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cape Cod Potato Chip Company, LLC, Case No.
7:21-cv-01224 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2021) alleges that Cape Cod
manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells kettle cooked
potato chips purporting get their "Sea Salt & Vinegar" taste only
from salt and vinegar, and not containing artificial flavors,
either through the statement of "No Artificial Flavors, Colors or
Preservatives" or the absence of any artificial flavoring statement
("Product").

Though the Product contains actual vinegar and apple cider vinegar,
it is an amount too small to flavor the Product. Instead, the taste
is from malic acid, an artificial flavoring agent in the Product,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff contends that the malic acid and citric acid that the
Defendant adds to the Product are artificial flavoring agents and
function as artificial flavors in the Product. He adds that the
Defendant misrepresented the Product through affirmative
statements, half-truths, and omissions. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at a higher price than it would have in absence of
this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of
consumers, the Plaintiff asserts.

Had the Plaintiff and the proposed class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it. As a result of the alleged false and misleading
representations, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than no less than $1.99 for bags of 1.5 OZ,
excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations.

Plaintiff Justin Schoonmaker is a citizen of Red Hook, Dutchess
County, New York.

The Defendant is an established maker of potato chips, well-known
for its traditional kettle process, which results in a uniquely
crispy chip.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CARDCONNECT CORP: $7.65M Settlement in Kao Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TEH SHOU KAO and T S KAO, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CARDCONNECT CORP., Defendant. TECH LOUNGE SP, LLC and THE LAW
OFFICE OF KEVIN ADAMS, PLLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARDCONNECT CORP., Defendant,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 16-cv-5707 (E.D. Pa.) Judge Gerald J.
Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' final approval motion and
their motion seeking attorneys' fees and an incentive award for the
named Plaintiffs.

CardConnect provides merchant card processing services.  Teh Shou
Kao, T.S. Kao, Inc., Tech Lounge SP, LLC and the Law Office of
Kevin Adams, PLLC, on behalf of themselves and a putative class,
sued CardConnect in separate cases, later consolidated, alleging
CardConnect breached contractual obligations and was unjustly
enriched by increasing and adding new, unspecified fees for its
payment processing services in an automated and programmatic
fashion.

The parties settled their claims and the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' unopposed preliminary approval motion.  The settlement
class is an opt-out class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).  It includes "all CardConnect Merchants that paid at
least one of the Subject Fees from November 1, 2012 through the
date of Preliminary Approval."  "CardConnect Merchants" are those
merchants that became customers by signing an agreement for
processing services with CardConnect that is governed by
Pennsylvania law.  The "Subject Fees" are identified in Paragraph
2.28 of the Settlement.  The settlement class has 110,875 members,
including 43,837 members that are current CardConnect customers.

CardConnect will pay up to $7.65 million to the class, including
cash benefits via checks, incentive awards to the class
representatives, notice and administration costs and legal fees and
expenses.  All settlement class members are eligible to receive a
cash payment. 43,837 current CardConnect customers will receive
their payments automatically via check.  67,038 former customers
were eligible to receive a payment via check upon completion of a
claim form requiring them to provide current contact information
and attest that they contracted with CardConnect during the class
period.

One-third of the net settlement benefit (the amount remaining after
payment of all other obligations) is allocated to current
customers.  The other two-thirds is allocated to former customers.
The amount available to each group is divided as follows: 35% is
equally allocated on a per capita basis to each member and 65% is
allocated to members pro rata based on the total number of calendar
months that a member was a CardConnect customer during the class
period. The formula is intended to fairly compensate the class
members relative to each other.

In addition to monetary relief, the settlement also requires a
change in practices.  CardConnect will amend the terms and
conditions governing its merchant agreement to provide current
customers fifty days after receiving notice of a
CardConnect-initiated fee increase or new fee to terminate their
accounts without payment of an early termination fee.  This new
term must remain in place for at least three years and could result
in a potential $750 savings for any merchant who chooses to cancel
an account instead of paying increased or new fees.  The Settlement
class members retain the right to challenge invoices CardConnect
sent following preliminary approval of the settlement.

By Feb. 19, 2021, the settlement administrator had received 2,894
former customer claims, "meaning approximately 4.32% of the former
customer class members timely filed a claim and will receive a
payment from the settlement.  Any objections to the settlement were
required to be postmarked by Dec. 4, 2020.  As of Dec. 23, 2020,
the settlement administrator had received no objections or requests
for exclusion from the settlement.

Judge Pappert explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)
requires court approval of class action settlements.  Approval is
appropriate "only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate."  The Judge must (1) determine if the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b) are
satisfied; (2) assess whether notice to the proposed class was
adequate; and (3) evaluate if the proposed settlement is fair under
Rule 23(e), citing In re Nat'l Football League Players Concussion
Injury Litig., 775 F.3d 570, 581 (3d Cir. 2014).

Judge Pappert finds that all these factors are satisfied.  There
are no evident interests favoring individual control.  Absent class
certification, the potential class members would lack an incentive
to pursue their individual claims due to the size of their
individual damages claims.  Because all the relevant Rule 23(a) and
(b) factors are met, the settlement class is certified for purposes
of settlement approval.

In addition, the absence of any objections to the settlement
suggests it is fair and reasonable.  Because the necessary Rule 23
factors are met, Judge Pappert granted final approval of the
settlement.

The Defendants have, subject to Court approval, agreed to pay $2.55
million in attorneys' fees--one-third of the $7.65 million
available to settle the class members' claims--and $84,963.23 in
litigation expenses.

Judge Pappert finds that the fees requested--one-third of the
available settlement amount--is in line with fee awards in similar
cases, supporting approval of the requested fee award.  In common
fund cases, fee awards generally range from 19% to 45% of the
settlement fund.  In addition, the settlement provides unique
relief to current customers, ensuring they have additional time to
terminate their agreements with CardConnect in the event of future
fee increases without payment of an early termination fee.  Lastly,
given the facts of the case and the absence of objections to the
requested fees, a lodestar multiplier of 1.69 is acceptable and
does not require the Court to reduce the requested fees.

The requested $15,000 incentive payment to each of the three
settlement class representatives is also reasonable.  The Judge
notes that approving contribution or incentive awards to class
representatives is routine.  Absent the class representatives'
participation, there would have been no case, and settlement class
members would have had to pursue their claims alone.  The purpose
of these payments is to compensate named plaintiffs for the
services they provided and the risks they incurred during the
course of class action litigation, and to reward the public service
of contributing to the enforcement of mandatory laws." Judge
Pappert awarded the requested incentive payment.

An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yrevphkx from Leagle.com.


CARDCONNECT CORP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Kao Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a final judgment in the cases, TEH
SHOU KAO and T S KAO, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARDCONNECT CORP., Defendant.
TECH LOUNGE SP, LLC and THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN ADAMS, PLLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CARDCONNECT CORP., Defendant, Consolidated Civil Action No.
16-cv-5707 (E.D. Pa.).

The Court also granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed (1) Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement and Certification of Settlement
Class; and (2) Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive
Awards.

On Nov. 1, 2016, Plaintiffs T.S. Kao and its owner Teh Shou Kao
filed a class action complaint against CardConnect and filed an
amended class action complaint on Feb. 6, 2017.  On Sept. 7, 2017,
Plaintiffs Tech Lounge SP, LLC and The Law Office of Kevin Adams,
PLLC filed a class action complaint against CardConnect in the
Court under Case No. 17-04014.  On Sept. 26, 2017, the actions were
consolidated under Case No. 16-05707.

The Plaintiffs allege CardConnect charged them and other
CardConnect merchants unauthorized rates and fees for payment
processing services and assert claims for unjust enrichment, breach
of contract, and declaratory relief.  CardConnect disputes the
Plaintiffs' claims both as to the facts and the law, and has
denied, and continues to deny, any liability to the Plaintiffs or
any settlement class member.

The parties have agreed to settle and resolve completely and
finally all of their outstanding differences, disputes, and claims,
whether asserted or unasserted, known or unknown, which were or
could have been asserted by the Plaintiffs and the settlement class
in the action, as well as all other claims and causes of action.

On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed preliminary
approval motion attaching (among other documents) the parties'
settlement agreement.  9. On July 7, 2020, the Court entered an
Order that preliminarily approved the settlement agreement,
preliminarily certified the settlement class for settlement
purposes only, directed notice of the proposed settlement to the
settlement class, and established a Jan. 13, 2021 hearing date, to
consider final approval of the settlement.

On Oct. 1, 2020, the Court entered an Order amending the notice
plan for current customer settlement class members at the parties'
request.  On Dec. 16, 2020, the Court informed the parties the
final hearing would take place by telephone due to restrictions on
in-person proceedings resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and
rescheduled the final hearing date to Jan. 27, 2021.  The
settlement class was notified of the new final hearing date and the
dial-in information for the hearing via the settlement website.

The Preliminary Approval Order and the Amendment Order approved the
notice plan set forth in the settlement agreement which, among
other things, required Defendant to provide notice of the proposed
settlement to current customer class members via email, and
required the settlement administrator (KCC Class Action Services
LLC) to provide notice to former customer class members via
postcard notice and establish a settlement website where additional
information could be obtained.  The Court approved the form and
substance of these notices in its Preliminary Approval Order and
the Amendment Order.

The settlement provides that CardConnect will pay up to $7.65
million in benefits to certain current and former CardConnect
customers that paid at least one subject fee from Nov. 1, 2012
through July 7, 2020.  All the settlement class members are
eligible to receive a cash payment.  Current customer class members
will automatically receive their payments, while former customer
class members will receive a payment if they filed a simple claim
form by Feb. 19, 2021.  The amount of the cash payments is
calculated pursuant to the allocation formula set forth in the
settlement agreement.

The settlement also requires CardConnect to amend its membership
agreements for at least three years to provide current customers
with more opportunity to terminate their accounts without paying an
early termination fee in the event of future CardConnect-initiated
fee increases.

Judge Pappert has reviewed all the filings and evidence related to
the settlement and received testimonial submissions and briefing on
the motions.  Having considered the written submissions, including
a supplemental memorandum in support of the pending motions, after
a hearing on Jan. 27, 2021, and consistent with the accompanying
memorandum of law, he  certified, for settlement purposes only, the
following settlement class: All CardConnect Merchants that paid at
least one of the Subject Fees from Nov. 1, 2012 through the date of
Preliminary Approval.

Plaintiffs T.S. Kao, Inc., Tech Lounge SP, LLC, and The Law Office
of Kevin Adams, PLLC have adequately represented the settlement
class and are appointed as the settlement class representatives.

Matthew C. Klase and E. Adam Webb of Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC have
adequately represented the settlement class and are appointed as
the class counsel.

Judge Pappert has reviewed the settlement agreement's terms.  He
finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under
the circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the
settlement class.  Accordingly, he approved the settlement
agreement.

The Order is the Final Judgment as defined in the settlement
agreement.  The provisions of the Final Judgment are entered as a
result of the agreement and stipulation of the parties.

The Judge dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice the claims
of all the members of the settlement class against the Defendant,
as more fully set out in section 10 of the settlement agreement,
without costs to any party against any other party except as
otherwise provided in the Final Order.  Each member of the
settlement class is barred and permanently enjoined from
prosecuting any action or proceeding in state or federal court,
arbitration, or before any administrative body against the Released
Parties with respect to any Released Claims.

The class counsel's request for $2.55 million in fees and
reimbursement of $84,963.23 for litigation expenses incurred during
the prosecution of the litigation is approved.

The settlement agreement provides that each of the class
representatives--T.S. Kao, Inc., Tech Lounge SP, LLC, and The Law
Office of Kevin Adams, PLLC--is to receive $15,000 for their
service on behalf of the class.  The Judge approved payment of the
requested incentive awards for their efforts.  The awarded fees and
expenses will be paid to the class counsel and the incentive awards
will be paid to the class representatives in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.

In all other respects, the case is dismissed with prejudice.  The
Clerk of the Court will enter the Final Judgment forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5dv4pz5c from Leagle.com.


CAREGUIDE INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Careguide, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Careguide, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01691-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

CareGuide -- https://careguide.com/ -- matches families with care
providers through a portfolio of websites, including Sitter.com,
ElderCare.com, PetSitter.com, Housekeeper.com, CleaningLady.com,
and HouseSitter.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITY WIDE: Faces Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CATHY RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY WIDE HEALTH
FACILITY, INC., ALEXANDER ZHAROV, EDWARD ATBASHYAN, and SIMON
KORENBLIT, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00971 (E.D.N.Y., February
22, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly paid receptionist from in or about April 2017 through on or
about March 28, 2020.

Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was
required to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week. However,
the Defendant did not pay her at the statutorily required overtime
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for hours he
worked in excess of 40. Instead, she was only paid a straight-time,
hourly rate of pay for all hours she worked, including the overtime
hours. In addition, the Defendants failed to timely pay her for
some of her hours worked during multiple workweeks and only paid
her for such hours well after her regular pay day, thereby paying
her less frequently than semi-monthly, the suit says.

In addition, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully
evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL, and failed
to provide the Plaintiff with accurate statements of her wages
earned.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants pursuant
to the collective action provisions of the FLSA to recover unpaid
overtime wages and an additional and equal amount as liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, all attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

City Wide Health Facility, Inc. operates a medical facility that
provides variety of radiology services. The Individual Defendants
had the authority to make payroll and personnel decisions for the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588



CLARK & GENTRY: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Avrahami Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Celia Clark, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Benyamin Avrahami, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Celia Clark, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04631-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants creating and
operating a "microcaptive insurance company." A microcaptive
insurance company is created when the insurer and insured are
related by ownership. Under Section 831 of the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC"), in a legal microcaptive insurance arrangement, the
insurance premiums paid by the insured subsidiaries are tax
deductible by both the insurer and the insured, resulting in
significant tax savings.

The Defendants are seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
January 26, 2021, stating that Defendants' objections to
Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 15 are overruled, and
Court's Order dated February 12, 2021, granting Defendants' Motion
for Miscellaneous Relief to Amend Order to Certify for
Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to Stay
Discovery Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Benyamin Avrahami, et al. v.
Celia Clark, et al., Case No. 21-80011, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents BENYAMIN AVRAHAMI, ORNA AVRAHAMI, FEEDBACK
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BYS COMPANY ACC, CHANDLER ONE LLC,
JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT LLC, O&E CORPORATION, WHITE MOUNTAIN EQUITIES
LLC, and WHITE KNIGHT INVESTMENT ACC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          William Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
          David R. Deary, Esq.
          Donna Lee, Esq.
          John W. McKenzie, III, Esq.
          Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
          Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.           
          LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 572-1700
          E-mail: ralphc@ldsrlaw.com
                  davidd@lfdslaw.com
                  donnal@lfdslaw.com
                  johnm@lfdslaw.com
                  tylers@lfdslaw.com
                  wilsonw@lfdlaw.com    

Defendants-Petitioners CELIA CLARK and CLARK & GENTRY PLLC are
represented by:

          Paul J. McGoldrick, Esq.
          Scott Zerlaut, Esq.
          SHORALL MCGOLDRICK BRINKMANN
          1232 East Missouri Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 230-5400
          E-mail: paulmcgoldrick@smbattorneys.com
                  scottzerlaut@smbattorneys.com

COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Goodman Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Goodman, Lisa Countryman, Sharon Clarke, Cheryl Gallops,
Sherri Stuckey, Lauren Spivey and Tiffany Hairston-Lott,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, V. Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00015, (M.D. Ga., February 2, 2021),
seeks damages, equitable or remedial relief, attorneys' fees and
expenses and any other relief for breach of fiduciary duty and for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries of the Piedmont
Columbus Regional Retirement Savings Plan (formerly Columbus
Regional Healthcare System Retirement Savings Plan), a defined
contribution plan sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional.
Columbus Regional terminated the Plan effective May 31, 2019,
following Columbus Regional's acquisition by Piedmont Healthcare,
Inc. At that time, the Plan had approximately $183 million in
assets and 4,700 participants with account balances.

Columbus Regional allegedly failed to prudently select and monitor
the Plan's investment options, failed to timely remove imprudent
investments, selected and retained investments with unjustifiably
high management fees, failed to monitor and prudently manage the
Plan's administrative expenses, allowed it to enter into one or
more prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest to the Plan,
and failed to adequately disclose to participants the information
they needed to make. Plan participants claim to have lost
approximately $4.6 million due to excessive fees and costs from
January 1, 2015, to May 31, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James H. White, IV, Esq.
     JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
     Landmark Center. Suite 600
     2100 1st Ave North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 383-1812
     Email: james@whitefirmllc.com

            - and -

     John Williamson, Esq.
     Chris York, Esq.
     J. Christopher York, Esq.
     WILLIAMSON AND YORK, LLC
     4200 Northside Parkway, NW, Building No. 10
     Atlanta, GA 30327
     Tel: (678) 358-9317
          (678) 893-0411
     Email: jnw@williamsonyork.com
            jcy@williamsonyork.com


CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CHERY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONDUENT EDUCATION
SERVICES, LLC, f/k/a ACS, ACCESS GROUP, INC., and ACCESS FUNDING
2015-1, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00075-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on April 22, 2021 for an order:

   1. Certifying the following class:

      "All student loan borrowers who submitted an application
      to consolidate one or more Federal Family Education Loan
      Program (FFELP) Loans into a Direct Consolidated Loan
      between January 18, 2012, and the date of the Order
      certifying the Class, for which the Defendants failed to
      provide an LVC within ten days of receiving the request
      therefor;"

   2. Appointing HIMSELF a class representative;

   3. Appointing the law firms Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. and
      Moore Kuehn, PLLC as co-counsel to the class; and

   4. Granting plaintiff such other and further relief as is
      just and appropriate.

Conduent Education Services (formerly ACS Education Services) was a
student loan company that serviced campus-based, private, and
federal student loans. It shut down operations on September 1,
2019, and all of its loans were transferred to other loan
servicers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PgIyKR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class, are:

          Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Moore, Esq.
          MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
          30 Wall Street, 8th floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 709-8245
          E-mail: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com
                  fmoore@moorekuehn.com

               - and -

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

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN C. HINES and JOSEPH NORRIS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00109-PRW (W.D. Okla., Feb. 12, 2021) asserts claims for
failure to pay wages including overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant employed (and continues
to employee) at least 20 employees working under the job title
Completions Foreman and/or a title with similar job duties and
responsibilities. Allegedly, such employees have routinely worked
more than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff Hines began employment with Defendant around July 2014
and is currently employed with the Defendant. Plaintiff Norris was
employed by Defendant from around July 2018 until around April 4,
2020. Both Plaintiffs worked under the job title of Completions
Foreman.

The Defendant is a petroleum and natural gas company engaged in the
business of extracting, producing and distributing oil and gas.
Defendant does business in Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, New
Mexico, and other states such that it engages in interstate
commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          Mark E. Hammons, Esq.
          Brandon D. Roberts, Esq.
          HAMMONS HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          E-mail: amber@hammonslaw.com

CONTRACT CALLERS: Christie FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH CHRISTIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTRACT CALLERS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00518-P (N.D. Tex.), Judge Mark
T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Christie's Complaint.

CCI sent the Plaintiff a 30-day debt validation letter dated May
27, 2019, in which CCI sought payment of a debt.  CCI informed the
Plaintiff at the outset that "the above referenced account has been
listed with our office for collection."  The top-right corner of
the letter provides, inter alia, that the creditor is T-Mobile and
that the amount owed is $64.60.  The letter further provides
several different methods of payment.

Finally, the letter explains, "The law limits how long you can be
sued on a debt.  Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue
you for it. If you do not pay the debt, we CCI may report or
continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid."

On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant putative class
action complaint against CCI, asserting a claim for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  CCI filed a
motion to dismiss, challenging each of the Plaintiff's claims.  The
Plaintiff filed a response, and CCI filed a reply.

First, CCI asserts that the bold language of the May 27, 2019
letter quoted above satisfies the FDCPA because the language was
approved by the Fair Trade Commission and Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau in two consent decrees and because the Fifth
Circuit has approved the language in Manuel v. Merchants &
Professional Bureau, Inc.  The Plaintiff responds that CCI violated
the FDCPA because although the May 27, 2019 letter did state that
"because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it," it
failed to additionally disclose that a partial payment of the debt
would revive the debt under Texas state law.

Judge Pittman opines that the May 27, 2019 letter does not violate
the FDCPA solely because it failed to warn the Plaintiff that a
partial payment could revive an otherwise timebarred debt.
Considering the entirety of the language of the May 27, 2019 letter
from the vantage point of the least sophisticated consumer, he
finds that there is nothing false, deceptive, or misleading when
CCI informed Plaintiff that there is a statute of limitations
limiting how long Plaintiff could be sued to collect the debt and
that Plaintiff would not be sued for debt.  Read together, these
sentences inform even the least sophisticated consumer that there
is a statute of limitations and unequivocally that CCI would not
sue because of the age of the debt.

The Judge does not find any misrepresentation as to the legal
enforceability of the debt from CCI in the May 27, 2019 letter.
Nor does he find any "urgent language and vague threats of
additional but unspecified collection efforts" that the Fifth
Circuit has previously concluded to be violative of the FDCPA.
Accordingly, he dismisses the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims based on
CCI's failure to include warnings about partial payments.

Next, the crux of the Plaintiffs' complaint is that CCI
misrepresented its ability to sue on the debt.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the bolded language quoted above is misleading because
it purports that CCI has the authority and/or the capacity to file
a suit on the debt (although the May 27, 2019 letter expressly
states that the Plaintiff would not be sued) when it is neither a
creditor nor an assignee.  In its motion to dismiss, CCI states
that the use of "we" is not material, so even if a technical
misrepresentation, it is inactionable.

Judge Pittman holds that CCI's use of "we" in the May 27, 2019
letter--purportedly misrepresenting its authority to file suit on
the debt--is not material and thus not violative of the FDCPA.  He
says the conclusion that "simple confusion" does not equate to
FDCPA liability.  Any confusion in the bold language of the May 27,
2019 letter quoted does not create more than simple confusion in
the unsophisticated consumer.  That is, when read as a whole, the
letter is a 30-day debt validation letter that expressly states
there is a statute of limitations that limits how long the
Plaintiff can be sued on a debt and that because of the age of the
debt "we" would not sue the Plaintiff on it.  There is no offer to
"settle" or urgent warnings that the Plaintiff's failure to make a
partial payment would result in litigation.  CCI's statement that
"we" will not sue does not create confusion to the unsophisticated
consumer because the identities of the creditor (T-Mobile) and the
debt collector (CCI) are apparent from the face of the letter.

The fact that CCI may not technically have standing or capacity to
sue would not cause an unsophisticated consumer to alter any
decision-making and give up any substantive right in favor of the
creditor and/or debt collector.  Indeed, while the Plaintiff
alleges that the use of "we" would be misleading to the
unsophisticated consumer, he does not state how, and the Judge does
not discern how the unsophisticated consumer would be misled.
Accordingly, he dismisses the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim based on
CCI's use of "we" in the May 27, 2019 letter.

Finally, the Judge holds that dismissal is warranted as a matter of
law, not because the Plaintiff has failed to plead his best case,
but because it is apparent from the May 27, 2019 letter that no
significant fraction of the population would be misled by it.
Accordingly, he concludes that dismissal should be with prejudice.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Pittman granted CCI's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ys5um4fd from
Leagle.com.


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Jacobson Sues Over Unlawful Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEANN JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. DC-21-02002
(Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., Feb. 11, 2021) asserts claims against
Credence for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and The Texas Debt Collection Act arising from Credence's having
mailed a collection letter of of defaulted consumer debts.

Credence mailed or caused to be mailed a letter dated February 11,
2020 (the Letter) to Ms. Jacobson. The Letter alleges Jacobson
incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation. The Letter states
that Credence is "not obligated to renew this offer." The Letter
does not provide a settlement expiration date upon which the offer
would need to be renewed, says the complaint.

Credence offers third party collection services across.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Clanton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
          926 Chulie
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 226-0800
          Facsimile: (210) 338-8660
          E-mail: bill@clantonlawofce.com

CREE INC: Young Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeff Young filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled JEFF YOUNG, Plaintiff v. CREE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-06252-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2021, the
District Court issued an order in the lawsuit:

   (1) granting motion to strike and exclude Dr. Gary Allen;

   (2) denying as moot motion to strike and exclude Mr. Stefan
       Boedeker; and

   (3) denying renewed motion to certify class.

Plaintiff Young brings the putative class action lawsuit against
Defendant Cree, alleging that Cree engaged in an unfair and
deceptive practice of promising consumers that Cree's
light-emitting-diode ("LED") bulbs will last for particularly long
periods of time up to 35,000 hours with a 100% Satisfaction
Guarantee and yearly energy cost savings ranging from around $0.60
to $2 per bulb per year, in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (Count I); California's False Advertising Law
(Count II); Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Count III); fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment (Count IV); unjust enrichment
(Count V); and breach of express and implied warranties (Count
VI).

Mr. Young and the proposed class assert that they paid a premium
because of these allegedly false, deceptive and misleading
marketing representations regarding longevity. As alleged in the
operative complaint, Cree LED "failed well before the promised time
frame." Young sought in his renewed motion to certify the following
class: "All persons in California who purchased Cree LED Light
bulbs for end use, and not resale, during the period from March
2013 to the present."

Mr. Young seeks a review of the Court's Order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

The appellate case is captioned as Jeff Young v. Cree, Inc., Case
No. 21-80008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, February 12, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner JEFF YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kurt David Kessler, Esq.
          Ling Kuang, Esq.
          Michael McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: kkessler@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent CREE, INC. is represented by:

          Andrew John Demko, Esq.
          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4462
          E-mail: andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com
                  stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com

CS LOGISTICS: Faces Delude Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB DELUDE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CS LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00227-NJ (E.D. Wis., February 19, 2021) brings this
collective and class action complaint against the Defendant for the
purpose of obtaining relief for its alleged unlawful compensation
system that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on or about January 8,
2021 as a non-exempt employee in the position of Delivery Driver
primarily working at the Defendant's Milwaukee, Wisconsin warehouse
facility. His employment with the Defendant ended on or about
February 3, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant willfully failed to
properly and lawfully compensate him and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees for all work performed and/or hours worked at
the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay each workweek. Despite
they regularly work over 40 hours per week, the Defendant only
compensated them for the hours worked each workweek only between
their "first pick up" and their "last delivery" each work day. The
Defendant refused to compensate them for the time they worked
performing duties before their "first pick up" and after their
"last delivery" which takes 30 minutes to 2 hours each work day,
the Plaintiff alleges.

CS Logistics, Inc. is a privately-owned company that provides
distribution services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Robert M. Mihelich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M MIHELICH
          2665 South Moorland Road, Suite 200
          New Berlin, WI 53151
          Tel: (262) 789-9300
          Fax: (262) 785-1729
          E-mail: attyrmm@bizwi.rr.com


D & S COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frazier Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIEDRE FRAZIER, Plaintiff v. D & S COMMERCIAL PAINT, LLC and SENECA
DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00039-WMR (N.D. Ga. February
19, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has been employed by the Defendants as a
painter, alleges that the Defendants deprived him of his lawfully
earned compensation by failing to fully pay him his total worked
hours. Specifically, the Defendants only paid him 25 hours for the
26 hours he worked during his first week of employment, only 15
hours out of 39 hours he worked during his second week, and he was
not paid anything during his final week. As a result, the Plaintiff
was paid by the Defendant less than the federally mandated minimum
wage. Additionally, the Defendants failed to accurately record
their employees' hours worked because they do not have a time
tracking system, the suit says.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants breached its
employment contract when its agreed to pay him an hourly rate of
$17.00 on a weekly pay schedule, but failed to do so.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs,
attorneys' fees and other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.

D & S Commercial Paint, LLC provides top-quality commercial and
residential paint services. Seneca Davis is the owner of the
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
          1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Tel: (877) 443-0999
          E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com


DASCOR CORPORATION: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. DASCOR CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Case No.
0:21-cv-60359-JIC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2021) seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant
DASCOR.

For at least three years prior to this filing Plaintiff, and others
similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours per week during his
employment without being paid the federally mandated wage for
overtime. Specifically, the Defendant's pay policy with respect to
its plumbers and plumber's helpers violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Defendant does not pay its plumbers and
plumber's helpers for all hours worked by automatically deducting
time for a meal break, regardless of whether or not the break was
taken, the complaint says.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt former employee of the Defendant
DASCOR who worked as a plumber/plumber's helper from 2017 until
November 2020 for Defendant's plumbing business located in Broward
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-Mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

DENTAL EQUITIES: Scoma's Bid to Certify Class Denied W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation;
FLORENCE MUSSAT M.D., S.C., an Illinois service corporation; and
WILLIAM P. GRESS, an Illinois resident, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. DENTAL EQUITIES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, FIRST ARKANSAS BANK & TRUST, MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-41-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John L.
Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, entered an order:

      a. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion
for Class Certification;

      b. vacating as moot the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, entered Jan. 29, 2021;

      c. overruling without prejudice as moot the Plaintiffs'
Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Regarding Class Certification;

      d. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Pending Final FCC
Decision on AmeriFactors Petition; and

      e. denying without prejudice as moot the Defendant's
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to (1)
Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report &
Recommendation, and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay.

The case is a junk fax case brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA").  The
Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on Sept. 26,
2016, and the case proceeded with class and expert discovery
through May 2018.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their First Motion to Certify
Class, while the Defendant filed a "Motion to Stay Proceedings"
three days earlier on May 11, 2018.  The Defendant's Motion to Stay
sought to defer a ruling on class certification until after an
order was issued on a Petition pending before the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"") that had been filed by an
unrelated third party, AmeriFactors Financial Group, LLC.

The issue raised by the AmeriFactors Petition was whether
internet-based fax equipment--as opposed to a standalone fax
machine--qualifies as a "telephone facsimile machine" within the
meaning of the TCPA.  According to the Defendant, a ruling by the
FCC in favor of AmeriFactors would mean that one of the three named
Plaintiffs in the matter, Plaintiff Florence Mussat, and the
sub-class of Plaintiffs she sought to represent, would not be able
to state a claim under the TCPA because the faxes sent to them were
forwarded from an online fax service, not a traditional fax
machine.

The Plaintiffs, of course, opposed the Defendant's Motion to Stay,
arguing, among other things, that it was unlikely the FCC would
interpret the statutory term "telephone facsimile machine" to
exclude computers, and also that it would unfairly prejudice them
to stay the case when a class certification motion was pending and
the Defendant could have, but did not, raise its legal challenge to
Plaintiff Mussat's claim earlier in the proceedings.

Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' opposition, however, the previously
assigned district judge entered an order on July 1, 2018 granting
the Defendant's motion and stayed the case pending the FCC's
decision.

The stay remained in effect for approximately eighteen months.  On
Dec. 9, 2019, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, acting
pursuant to authority delegated to it by the FCC, ruled in favor of
AmeriFactors, holding that the TCPA does not apply to online fax
services.  Notice of the ruling was given to the newly assigned
district judge in the matter, who then lifted the stay as of Jan.
2, 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs re-filed their class
certification motion.  Their amended motion seeks certification of
a class of "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
junk fax on the Defendant's behalf between Dec. 18 and 23, 2015."
But if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish between faxes
received on a "stand-alone" fax machine and faxes received via an
"online fax service," then they seek to certify alternative
classes, with Plaintiffs Scoma and Gress representing the
Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class and Plaintiff Mussat representing the
Online Fax Service Class.  The Defendant filed its response to the
Plaintiffs' amended class certification motion on May 27, 2020.

Approximately four years after the case commenced, on June 16,
2020, the case was reassigned to Judge Badalamenti, following which
reply and surreply briefs on the class certification motion were
filed on June 17, 2020 and July 8, 2020, respectively.  The Report
addressing class certification was entered on Jan. 29, 2021.

The Report concludes that class certification is inappropriate for
several reasons.  First, the Magistrate Judge found that the FCC's
AmeriFactors Order is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837
(1984).  Further, the Magistrate Judge reasoned, even if the
undersigned judge found Chevron inapplicable, deferral to the
AmeriFactors Order was still recommended because of the Bureau's
specialized expertise in area.  In light of the Bureau's decision
in the AmeriFactors Order, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
online fax services are outside the scope of the TCPA.

Describing the question of whether online fax services are outside
the scope of the TCPA as a "threshold" issue to the Plaintiffs'
class certification motion, the Magistrate Judge then concluded
that Plaintiff Mussat did not have either constitutional or
statutory standing to bring a claim under the TCPA.

After holding that Plaintiff Mussat did not have a claim under the
TCPA, and that, even if she did, she was prevented from suing on
that claim by the constitutional doctrine of standing, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court finds class
certification inappropriate even as to the sub-class of Plaintiffs
who received faxes on a stand-alone fax machine and thus
indisputably have valid claims under the TCPA.

Four days after the Magistrate Judge entered his Report as to class
certification, on Feb. 2, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit issued an
opinion that upended certifying courts' utilization of the
administrative feasibility test.  Specifically, in Cherry v.
Dometic Corp., 986 F.3d 1296, 2021 WL 346121, at *5 (11th Cir. Feb.
2, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit held that "administrative
feasibility is not a requirement for certification under Rule 23."
The requirement for class certification of ascertainability, the
court explained, is limited "to its traditional scope: a proposed
class is ascertainable if it is adequately defined such that its
membership is capable of determination."

There is no dispute in the case that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
definitions meet the traditional ascertainability rule in that they
sufficiently describe a class membership that is "capable of
determination."  That is, a putative class of all fax recipients
can be ascertained or, alternatively, two sub-classes can be
readily ascertained: (1) the class members who allegedly received
unsolicited faxes via standalone fax machines; and (2) the class
members who allegedly received unsolicited faxes via internet-based
fax service companies that forward the faxes by email.

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Objections to the
Report and Recommendation, in which they argue that the Report
should not be adopted.  They argue that because the Report turns on
a finding of administrative infeasibility, which is not a
requirement under the Eleventh Circuit's articulation of the law in
Cherry, the undersigned should not adopt the Report.  Thus, they
ask the Court to reject the Report and certify their proposed "All
Fax Recipients Class," or, alternatively, their proposed separate
"Online Fax Services Class, and "Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class."

At the same time, however, the Plaintiffs also have filed a motion
requesting a stay, in which they inform the Court that an
Application for Review of the Bureau's declaratory ruling on the
AmeriFactors Petition has been filed with the FCC.  They thus seek
an order staying thiecase pending the issuance of a "final order"
of the FCC on the Application for Review.

As an initial matter, Judge Badalamenti finds that the Magistrate
Judge issued an outstanding, well-reasoned, and exhaustive Report
and Recommendation, analyzing the issues posed by the amended class
certification motion.  Nevertheless, he says it is impossible to
avoid the fact that only four days after the Report was issued,
there was a dramatic shift in the law as a result of the Eleventh
Circuit's decision in Cherry, impacting the class certification
issues that are the subject of the Report.

With due regard for the extensive time and effort invested by the
Magistrate Judge in the detailed and well-reasoned Report entered
on Jan. 29, 2021, Judge Badalamenti must reluctantly conclude that
the best and fairest approach to the situation the case now finds
itself in is to start fresh with new briefing on class
certification that addresses certification in the post-Cherry world
in which all now live.

At the same time, Judge Badalamenti does not believe it makes sense
to issue another stay in the case to wait for yet another FCC
ruling on the question of whether an online fax service falls
within the purview of the TCPA.  That question, after all, he says,
goes to the merits of whether Plaintiff Mussat can state a valid
claim for relief.  It therefore factors into the Rule 23 class
certification question only insofar as a ruling against Plaintiff
Mussat might raise issues "as part of the manageability criterion
of Rule 23(b)(3)(D)."  The Plaintiffs have moved for a stay
apparently on the theory that what is good for the goose is also
good for the gander -- the Defendant argued successfully for a stay
when FCC law was unsettled in the Plaintiffs' favor, and now the
Plaintiffs seek a stay when FCC law is unsettled in the Defendant's
favor.

The FCC's ultimate resolution of the AmeriFactors Petition,
however, is relevant to the case because it may affect a merits
issue that presents a question of law common to the proposed class.
If a later substantive ruling on the merits of the online fax
issue renders a certified class unmanageable, then, as the Eleventh
Circuit observed in Cherry, the district court always has the
discretion to decertify the class. According to Judge Badalamenti,
what does not make sense is for the Court to issue another stay to
wait for the FCC to issue still another ruling on that merits
issue, particularly given that the FCC's final ruling may or may
not be binding on the Court depending on what the controlling law
is on that question at the time of that FCC ruling.

In sum, given the intervening change in controlling law that has
occurred, the Court no longer has the full benefit of the parties'
arguments or the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.  Accordingly,
Judge Badalamenti finds good cause to deny without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification and require new
briefing on a re-filed motion that addresses class certification
with the benefit of the Eleventh Circuit's guidance in Cherry on
the issues raised by the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

Accordingly, the Judge (i) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Class Certification; (ii) vacated as moot the
Report and Recommendation in light of the Eleventh Circuit's recent
decision in Cherry; (iii) overruled without prejudice as moot the
Plaintiffs' objections to the Report and Recommendation; (iv)
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay; and (v) denied without
prejudice as moot the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of
time.

The Judge ordered the parties to file a Joint Notice of Issuance of
Mandate in the case upon the Eleventh Circuit's issuance of the
mandate in Cherry.

The Plaintiffs must file a second amended motion for class
certification no later than 30 days after the mandate in Cherry is
issued by the Eleventh Circuit.  The Defendants must file their
response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' second amended class
certification motion within 21 days thereafter.  The Plaintiffs are
granted leave to file any reply brief in support of their second
amended class certification motion within 14 days thereafter.

Given the impact of Eleventh Circuit's Feb. 2, 2021 intervening
decision in Cherry and the Court's order to re-brief the class
certification issue in light of that decision, the Judge directed
the Clerk of Court to administratively close the file, and to
re-open the case 14 days after the Defendant files its Response to
the Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification.

The Judge notes that the case is more than five years old.  In an
effort to move the case along, he will not grant extensions of time
to file the second amended motion for class certification, the
response, or reply absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
Lastly, after carefully reviewing the entire file and the
applicable law, he urges, but does not order (at least for now),
the parties to consider settlement discussions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/nmhxzdf3 from Leagle.com.


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Maree Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KARLA MAREE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AG,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00885-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1,
2020, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to provide
full refunds to customers whose flights were canceled as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The United States Department of Transportation has issued an
Enforcement Notice clarifying, in the context of the COVID-19
public health emergency, that U.S. and foreign airlines remain
obligated to provide a prompt refund to passengers for flights to,
within, or from the United States when the carrier cancels the
passenger's scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change
and the passenger chooses not to accept the alternative offered by
the carrier.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has canceled a
vast percentage of its international and United States flights.
However, Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant canceled, says the complaint.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order dated January 26,
2021, denying its motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Karla Maree v. Deutsche
Lufthansa A.G., Case No. 21-55154, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. Mediation Questionnaire was
due on March 2, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 22, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on April 20, 2021;

   -- Appellant Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. opening brief is due on
June 1, 2021;

   -- Appellee Karla Maree answering brief is due on July 1, 2021;
and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KARLA MAREE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com  

Defendant-Appellant DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA A.G. is represented by:

          Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US, LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          E-mail: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com  

               - and -

          Christopher Young, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-4748
          E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com

DICILLO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bradley Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANGELO BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICILLO SERVICES, LLC; and
NICHOLAS DICILLO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00397 (N.D. Ohio,
Feb. 19, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bradley was employed by the Defendants as lawncare
maintenance worker.

Dicillo Services, LLC is in the landscape and construction
industry. The Company provides installation services, landscape and
garden materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


ECO SHIELD: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Quatinetz,
individually and on behalf of a class, v. Eco Shield Pest Control
New York City, LLC; and Optio Solutions LLC, Case No.
7:19-cv-08576-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action;

   2. granting preliminary approval of the Class Action
      Settlement Agreement;

   3. appointing himself as the representative of the class;

   4. appointing Ryan Gentile, Esq. and Shimshon Wexler, Esq. as
      counsel for the class; and

   5. authorizing notice of the settlement to be distributed to
      the class members, and granting such other and further
      relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Eco Shield provides safe pest control solutions. Optio Solutions is
a full-service collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
Feb. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2OcAEl7 http://bit.ly/2OcAEl7at no extra
charge.[CC]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Tel: (201) 873-7675
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com

               - and -

          Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
          2244 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 108
          Atlanta, GA 30345
          E-mail: swexleresq@gmail.com

EDDY'S LAUNDRY: Faces Pablo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALOMON PABLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A EDDY'S LAUNDRY &
CLEANERS), EDDY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER CHIN, EDDY CHIN JR., and HEIDY
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01664 (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees
the required minimum wages, failing to pay them overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, and failing to provide them with accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Pablo was employed by the Defendants at Eddy's Laundry &
Cleaners from approximately April 2015 until on or about December
31, 2020.

Eddy's Laundry & Cleaners is a laundry/dry cleaning business with
principal place of business at 1067 First Ave, New York, New York.
[BN]

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

EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Chaumont Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN CHAUMONT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED; HUAZHI HU; RICHARD
JIAN LIU; and EDWARD HUAXIANG XU, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01526 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired EHang
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") between December
12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's purported
regulatory approvals in Europe and North America for its EH2216
were for use as a drone, not for carrying passengers; (2) that
EHang's relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham;
(3) that EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported
sales since its ADSs began trading on the NASDAQ exchange; (4) that
the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and
lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

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

During the trading day on February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack
Research published a scathing report entitled "EHang: A Stock
Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn." In this report, and as
further alleged herein, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang is "an
elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated revenues
based on sham sales contracts with a customer who appears to us to
be more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment
in EHang than about buying its products."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $77.79, or 62.7%, to
close at $46.30 per share, thereby injuring investors.

EHang Holdings Limited operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, focuses on aerial vehicle technology, as
well as offers passenger transportation and logistics services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007


ENDURANCE AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss MSP's First Amended Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiff v.
Endurance American Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
20-23219-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended
class complaint.

The purported class action arises under the Medicare Secondary
Payer ("MSP") provisions of the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y, et seq.  The Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendant is
one of numerous similar actions that have been filed by the
Plaintiff and other related entities in district courts throughout
the United States.  These cases tend to involve similar sets of
allegations, that the Plaintiff or one of its affiliates obtained
an assignment from a Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO"), in
the case Avmed, Inc., to try to recover money linked to payments
made or costs incurred by such MAO for the medical treatment of
their enrollees who were injured in accidents.

The MSP was enacted to combat the rising costs of Medicare.  The
MSP reformed the Medicare system such that Medicare and MAOs became
secondary payers who would not bear the costs of medical procedures
that were already covered by primary payers, i.e. other private
insurance companies.  Under the MSP, Medicare and MAOs could still
make "conditional payments" to cover the medical bills of their
beneficiaries where a primary payer, such as the Defendant, could
not be expected to remit prompt payment.  Where Medicare or an MAO
"has made a conditional payment, the primary payer's responsibility
for such payment has been demonstrated, as by a judgment or
settlement agreement" and the primary payer is responsible to
reimburse Medicare or the MAO within 60 days.  When a primary payer
fails to remit such payment, Medicare can seek double damages from
the primary payer under the MSP's right of action for the
government.  Assignees of MAOs, likewise, can seek double damages
under the MSP's private right of action.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, as a primary payer, has
"systematically and uniformly failed to honor its primary payer
obligations" under the MSP by failing to pay or reimburse Avmed, a
Medicare MAO, for medical expenses "resulting from injuries
sustained in automobile and other accidents that should have been
paid by Defendant but, instead, were paid by Medicare and/or MAOs."
The Plaintiff states it utilizes a "proprietary system" that
matches health care claims data from its assignors like Avmed to
data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"),
police crash and incident reports, and data from primary payers, to
identify instances where a primary payer failed to honor their
obligations under the MSP.  The Plaintiff claims to have used its
proprietary system to identify multiple instances in which Avmed
made conditional payments for accident-related medical expenses
which should have been paid and/or reimbursed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff provides a single exemplar in its complaint of the
Defendant's alleged failure to honor its obligations under the MSP,
which the Plaintiff states illustrates the Defendant's systematic
and uniform failure to fulfill its statutory duty.  It states that
on Dec. 3, 2014, A.A. was enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan
issued and administered by Avmed a MAO.  A.A. was injured in an
accident, and the alleged tortfeasor was insured by the Defendant
under a liability insurance policy.  A.A. required medical services
as a result of the accident, with A.A.'s medical providers having
subsequently issued bills for $7,032.56 in accident-related medical
expenses to Avmed, A.A.'s MAO.

Avmed paid $4,178.43 for A.A.'s accident related expenses, and
following A.A.'s claim against the Defendant's insured, the
Defendant indemnified its insured pursuant to an alleged settlement
with A.A.  As a result of this alleged settlement, the Plaintiff
states that the Defendant became a primary payer subject to
liability for A.A.'s accident-related expenses.  It further claims
that the Defendant reported to CMS it was the primary payer for
A.A., but failed to make payment as is required by the MSP.

Upon review of the complaint and its exhibits, Judge Scola finds
that the Plaintiff has not properly alleged it has been assigned
the right to sue based on A.A.'s claim.  While the complaint
broadly alleges that Avmed assigned certain rights under the
assignment agreement and that A.A.'s claim is not subject to any
carveouts or exclusions, the Plaintiff has provided no factual
assertions to the Court to show that A.A.'s claim was part of the
assignment between Avmed, Inc. and the Plaintiff.  As the
Plaintiff's legal conclusions are unsupported by factual
allegations, and the Judge cannot determine if A.A.'s claim was
actually assigned to the Plaintiff, the Judge must dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim for lack of standing.

Judge Scola, therefore, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's first amended class complaint as the Plaintiff has
failed to allege it has standing.  Accordingly, he dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.  He denied any pending motions, if
any, as moot.  The Clerk is directed to close the case.

Furthermore, Judge Scola denied the Plaintiffs' request for leave
to amend, inserted, as an afterthought, at the end of their
opposition to the Defendant's motion: the request is both
procedurally defective and lacking in substantive support.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t7wna4mn from Leagle.com.


EXETER FINANCE: Goldowsky Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York transferred the case, BRADLEY
GOLDOWSKY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EXETER FINANCE CORP., Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-632A(F) (W.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

In the action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Sections 202, et seq. ("FLSA"), the Plaintiff alleges on
behalf of himself and 36 similarly situated opt-in Plaintiffs who
have filed consents to join the action as parties, as permitted by
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Defendant misclassified them as
exempt from the FLSA's overtime, in excess of 40 hours per week,
pay requirements and failed to compensate them for such overtime at
the FLSA's statutory rate of time and one-half per hour of
overtime.  The Plaintiffs also allege, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367, a class-action based on Defendant's violations of
applicable provisions of the N.Y. Labor Law and those of various
states in which 36 Opt-In Plaintiffs resided and were employed by
the Defendant.

The Plaintiff resided in the district but was employed by the
Defendant at its office located in Albany, New York, in the
Northern District of New York; and one Opt-In Plaintiff, Denise
Gorgone, resided and was employed by the Defendant in Westchester,
New York, in the Southern District of New York.  Unlike the
Plaintiff and 20 of the Opt-In Plaintiffs, who had executed general
arbitration agreements with the Defendant covering the claims
alleged in the instant action, Gorgone and the 16 other Opt-In
Plaintiffs did not execute any such arbitration agreements with
Defendant.

The Defendant, previously a Texas corporation and, since 2017, a
Delaware corporation, is a national provider of sub-prime auto
loans with its principal place of business in Irving, Texas, within
the Northern District of Texas; the Plaintiffs were employed as
underwriters, credit analysts, credit managers, senior credit
managers and assistant area general managers, who evaluated
applicants for the Defendant's loan products based on its credit
criteria.

Pending before the court are the Plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a), to transfer the action to the Southern
District of New York, and the Defendant's cross-motion requesting
the case be transferred to the Northern District of Texas.  Also
pending are the Plaintiffs' Motion For Conditional Certification
And Expedited Notice Pursuant To The FLSA, filed July 17, 2015);
the Plaintiffs' Motion To Expedite Motion For Expedited Notice
Pursuant To The Fair Labor Standards Act, also filed July 17, 2015;
the Defendant's Motion To Compel Arbitration and Stay This Action,
filed Aug. 18, 2015; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed April
29, 2019; the Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Complaint To
Substitute [Opt-In Plaintiff Kenneth Fischer as] The Named
Plaintiff filed May 23, 2019; and the Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend
The Complaint to Substitute [Opt-In Plaintiff Denise Gorgone as]
The Named Plaintiff, filed June 13, 2019.

The Plaintiffs did not oppose the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay proceedings, reserving their rights to
invalidate the arbitration agreements for unconscionability
following the completion of arbitration pursuant to the agreements
between, as noted, 20 of the Opt-In Plaintiffs subject to such
agreements and the Defendant; however, they requested the case
proceed with the 16 Opt-In Plaintiffs who had not executed such
agreements.  The Defendant's motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
was not acted upon; however, the Court was subsequently informed
that the Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs covered by the
agreements had acceded to the Defendant's arbitration demand, but
no further information regarding the result of the arbitrations has
been provided by the parties.

As is apparent, the Plaintiffs' motions to amend and substitute
Fischer and Gorgone represented an effort by the Plaintiffs to
avoid dismissal of the action as to the Plaintiff and the 20 Opt-In
Plaintiffs subject to the arbitration agreements based on the
Defendant's asserted arbitration requirement applicable to these
Plaintiffs; however, the Defendant nevertheless opposed the
Plaintiff's motions contending that their proposed substitutions
were futile given neither Gorgone's nor Fischer's claims could
avoid dismissal for lack of venue in the district for the
Plaintiffs' action required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.  Compliance
with Section 1391 is required for FLSA actions, a proposition the
Plaintiffs do not dispute.

Following the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motions to
Amend to Substitute Fischer and Gorgone as Named Plaintiffs as
indicated, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion.  As the Plaintiffs'
motions to amend and substitute were not acted on because of their
apparent futility in that neither Fischer nor Gorgone's employment
with the Defendant had any connection with the district, the Court
therefore turns to the merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion and the
Defendant's Cross-Motion which both request transfer of the
litigation from the district to either the Southern District of New
York, as the Plaintiffs request, or the Northern District of Texas
where the Defendant is headquartered and is subject to general
jurisdiction and proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(1), as the Defendant requests.

As based on the record in the case, except for Opt-In Plaintiff
Gorgone, Judge Foschio finds that none of the other Opt-In
Plaintiffs, have demonstrated any nexus between their respective
employment with the Defendant and their related unpaid over-time
claims within New York state, such that their claims cannot support
personal jurisdiction in New York based on N.Y.C.P.L.R. 302[a](1)
and, therefore, cannot support service of process upon the
Defendant in the Southern District of New York as Rule 4(k)(1)(A)
requires.  She therefore finds the case, pleaded as a Section
216(b) collective action inclusive of 36 alleged opt-in similarly
situated non-resident employees, could not, for lack of personal
jurisdiction and proper venue over such claims, have been brought
in the Southern District of New York as the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate, as is their
burden, the action could have been brought in the Southern District
of New York as they request and, as such, their Motion must be
denied.

Further, as the Plaintiff's motion fails to meet the threshold
requirement for transfer, by showing jurisdiction and proper venue,
pursuant to Section 1404(a), it is unnecessary to evaluate the
Plaintiff's further contentions based on Section 1404(a)(2)
relating to convenience of witnesses and other relevant factors.
Additionally, as the Defendant is headquartered in the Northern
District of Texas it is therefore "at home" in that district
sufficient to support general jurisdiction over all cognizable
claims, including those brought pursuant to the FLSA in the instant
matter, as it concedes.

Moreover, Judge Foschio notes that the Opt-In Plaintiffs will not
be unfairly prejudiced by transfer to the Northern District of
Texas as the Defendant's Cross-Motion requests.  Sixty percent of
the Opt-In Plaintiffs reside in southern states--nine in Texas,
three in North Carolina, three in Florida, two in Georgia and
Tennessee, and one in Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.  The others
reside in California, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and
Wisconsin.  Thus, as a matter of geographical distribution, Texas,
and more particularly, Dallas, where the Northern District of Texas
courthouse is located, is a more central and convenient location
for litigation of the Plaintiffs' claims than that of the Southern
District of New York with the exception of Opt-In Plaintiff
Gorgone's claims.

Further, with the availability of video-conferencing technology, it
is unlikely that the Plaintiffs will be required to travel to
Dallas for depositions.  The locus of operative facts, particularly
the formulation and implementation of the Defendant's employment
policies and practices at issue in the case, also points to the
Northern District of Texas where the Defendant is headquartered.
Th Defendant's Cross-Motion is therefore granted.

As regards to the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay, based on the Plaintiffs' failure to oppose this motion and
the indications to the court that the Plaintiffs subject to the
arbitration agreements have proceeded to arbitration of their
claims with the Defendant it appears that the Defendant's motion is
moot and as such should be dismissed.  Similarly, given that the
Defendant's Cross-Motion to Transfer is granted, the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, asserting deficient jurisdiction and improper
venue, and the  Plaintiff's Motions to Amend and to Substitute
Kenneth Fischer and Denise Gorgone as the Named Plaintiffs should
also be dismissed as moot.  The Plaintiff's Motions for Conditional
Certification and for Notice relating to the merits of the case
should be addressed by the transferee court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Foschi denied the Plaintiff's Motion
and granted the Defendant's Cross-Motion.  She dismissed as moot
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay; the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and the Plaintiffs' Motions to Amend
and to Substitute Kenneth Fischer and Denise Gorgone as the Named
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification
Notice and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Conditional
Certification and Notice should be addressed by the transferee
court.  The Clerk of Court is directed to take all steps necessary
to transfer the matter to the Northern District of Texas.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyuebu5c from Leagle.com.

THOMAS & SOLOMON, LLP JONATHAN W. FERRIS, MICHAEL J. LINGLE, of
Counsel, in Rochester, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC EVAN V. CITRON --
evan.citron@ogletree.com -- AARON WARSHAW --
aaron.warshaw@ogletree.com -- of Counsel, in New York City,
Attorneys for Defendant.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE PEREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
INC., and EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-07752-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. Conditionally certifying a class of:

      "persons who at any point in the last three years from the
      date of this motion worked for Express Scripts, Inc. And
      Express Scripts Holding Company as a "manager" at level I
      and below and were designated by Express Scripts as an
      Individual Contributor;"

   2. Directing Express Scripts to produce a computer-readable
      list identifying by name, last known mail address, last
      known email address, and telephone number all persons
      described above within 10 days of entry of the Order;

   3. Authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the Notice to putative
      class members via U.S. Mail and/or email and the Consent
      to Join form attached thereto; and

   4. Authorizing Express Scripts to post the Notice in a
      conspicuous common area in its facilities.

Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefit management organization. In
2017, it was the 22nd-largest company in the United States by total
revenue as well as the largest pharmacy benefit management
organization in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
Feb. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3bO2kFd at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and
Class, are:

          Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 259-6990
          Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
          E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Russell S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
          473 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-1234
          Telephone: (21) 503-0773
          Facsimile: (201) 503-0776
          E-mail: mail@RWarrenlaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 964-9610
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

FASTENAL COMPANY: Loaiza Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Loaiza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fastenal Company and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive,, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01034 (C.D. Cal., February
4, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Fastenal's website, https://www.fastenal.com/home, provides
consumers access to an expert consultant, a logistics company, a
technology provider and a distributor of wide-ranging industrial
and construction products. Loaiza is legally blind and claims that
said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FASWD LLC: Howlett Claims Driver's License Info Made Public
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel B. Howlett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FASWD, LLC and Rod C. Henderson,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00245, (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2021),
seeks actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the
amount of $2,500 per class member, punitive damages for the willful
or reckless disregard of the Driver Privacy Protection Act,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other preliminary and equitable
relief.

FASWD, LLC operates as FAS Windows and Door, a Florida window and
door dealer. Henderson, its sales representative, visited Howlett
at his residence in Hillsborough County to provide a quote and a
proposed contract to replace eleven windows and asked for his
Driver's License details. FASWD publicly filed the un-redacted
Notice of Commencement in Hillsborough County, Florida, on June 25,
2020.

Howlett complained about his driver's license information being
publicly filed on the Notice of Commencement and requested FASWD
withdraw the notice. Defendants refused to withdraw the Notice of
Commencement and his driver's license information remained public
record. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
      Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.
      WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
      601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 225-4000
      Email: Jason@WagnerLaw.com
             Kevin@wagnerlaw.com
             arelys@wagnerlaw.com


FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Wellman Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH WELLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flo Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01099 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 12, 2021) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff after knowledge that her personal identifying
information has been tracked, collected, and shared by the
Defendant to dozens of third parties for targeted advertising and
other commercial exploitation, in direct violation of the
California state laws and without limiting what these companies
could do with the users' information.

The third parties include Google, LLC; Google's separate marketing
service, Fabric (Fabric); Facebook, Inc., through its Facebook
Analytics tool ("Facebook"); marketing firm AppsFlyer, Inc.
("AppsFlyer") and analytics firm Flurry, Inc.

The Plaintiff contends that personal information was provided to
the third parties despite the Defendant promising users that it
would keep their health data private. The collection and sharing of
her private health data presents an egregious invasion of her
privacy. Furthermore, the transfer of data by the Defendant to
third parties harmed her by diminishing the value of her personal
information and the privacy violation caused when the extracted
data is used to target and profile her with unwanted and/or harmful
content, the Plaintiff says.

Defendant Flo has developed, advertised, offered for sale, sold,
and distributed, the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, a mobile
application ("app") powered by artificial intelligence that
functions as an ovulation calendar, period tracker, and pregnancy
guide ("Flo App").

Millions of women use the Flo App, giving Defendant private details
of their menstruation and gynecological health in hopes it will aid
in ovulation and aid in pregnancy and childbirth.

The Flo App is available for download for free in online stores,
including Google's "Play Store" and Apple's "App Store." Flo App
users also have the option of purchasing subscription plans for a
monthly fee. The Flo App is one of the most popular health and
fitness apps available to consumers.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the Defendant's unlawful
practices and sequester its unlawfully obtained information, an
award of reasonable damages for the violations, and attorneys' fees
and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
          BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com

               - and -

          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          Melissa H. Nafash, Esq.
          Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
                  mcanty@labaton.com
                  mnafash@labaton.com
                  rkamhi@labaton.com

FRANCHISE CREATOR: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Practice of Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHARMABOX, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and MIRACLE
LEAF FRANCHISING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company v.
HOSSEIN KASMAI, an individual, and FRANCHISE CREATOR, Case No.
121259165 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 11, 2021) is an
unauthorized practice of law action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
asserting claims for rescission, violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment.

Defendant Franchise Creator is a franchise consulting firm that
offers small businesses the opportunity to expand their businesses
through franchising. The Defendants advertise that they specialize
in franchise law and offer to provide an array of legal services to
emerging and established franchise companies. The Defendants'
services include consulting clients on federal and state franchise
laws, preparing federally-mandated franchise disclosure documents,
preparing franchise agreements, structuring the franchise
organization and forming legal entities in Florida, providing legal
services with respect to trademark law, and other related services
to their clients that are traditionally performed by law firms.

While Franchise Creator maintains an in-house attorney that works
with its clients, the Defendant Kasmai, Franchise Creator's
principal and Chief Executive Officer, is not and has never been
licensed to practice law. As such, the Defendants' provision of
legal advisory and drafting services constitutes the unauthorized
practice of law. In blatant disregard of the Florida Supreme Court
and Florida Bar's regulation of the practice of law, Defendants
essentially act as their franchisor-clients' full-service law firm
in providing them with legal services in connection with
establishing their franchise system and in operating their
franchise system, the suit says.

Franchise Creator's clients are required to sign a standard
"Franchise Consulting Agreement," which on its face provides for
legal services to be rendered by Franchise Creator.

Because the Defendants are not licensed to practice law, the
contracts that they entered into with Plaintiffs and the Class
members are void for illegality and should be rescinded such that
the Defendants must refund the monies they received pursuant to the
void contracts. In addition, the Defendants' legal advertisements
and unauthorized practice of law constitute an unfair and deceptive
trade practice in violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practice Act, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leon Hirzel, Esq.
          Andre Dreyfuss, Esq.
          HIRZEL DREYFUSS & DEMPSEY PLLC
          2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 615-1617
          E-mail: hirzel@hddlawfirm.com
                  dreyfuss@hddlawfirm.com
                  eservice@hddlawfirm.com



FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Second Class Action Over Accounting Errors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Freedom Foods Group and its auditors Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
have been slapped with a second class action, alleging accounting
errors that overstated the company's financial position.

The proceeding in the Victorian Supreme Court alleges the company
breached the Corporations Act, the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission Act and the Australian Consumer Law. [GN]




FUBOTV: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Monroe, writing for Legal Sports Betting, reports that
FuboTV is being hit with a class-action lawsuit based on claims of
the company's thriving business projections including the viability
of a future sportsbook endeavor.

Anyone that invested in fuboTV stock from March 23, 2020, to
January 4, 2021, is entitled to add their name to the list as a
plaintiff as this was the period for which the company is said to
have misled the public with its positive trajectory.

To be included, the courts are giving stakeholders until April 19
to apply to be a part of the case. In doing so, any financial
compensation won for plaintiffs will be split among those that have
put their name on the list.

The Case Against FuboTV
February 17 was the day that all of this began for fuboTV. Reports
were filed against the business saying that fuboTV had falsely
publicized numbers that misled individuals to purchase their
stock.

Some of the allegations being made against the business include
fuboTV telling their investors of their future profits through
subscription growth as well as being able to find ways to gain
revenue through advertising. Advertising would then open up more
customers to subscribe to their platform.

All of these profit reports, from what could be accumulated and
overall total revenues, were grossly exaggerated per the lawsuit by
those who invested in the company.

In fact, there has been data gathered which suggests there is no
way that the business could sustain running a sportsbook that was
in their plan for the future. Outside of being able to launch one,
they could not handle the competition of other mobile sportsbooks
and would eventually go under research claims.

While fuboTV bought Balto Sports to help them with their legal
sports betting sector as an operator, the knowledge that Balto was
supposed to bring to the table has not yet shown results of getting
fuboTV any closer to a sportsbook opening. The company has not yet
commented on these allegations.

But, the news of the lawsuit has seen their stock price drop
considerably. There has been a 54% drop in fuboTV stock prices,
going from $52.59 on December 23 to $24.24 twelve days later on
January 4, 2021.

Brager Eagel & Squire, P.C. will be representing the plaintiffs in
this case. Anyone that wants more information has any information,
or would like to be a part of this class action lawsuit should
contact the firm.

It looks like a fuboTV owned sportsbook may not be in the cards
after all but their stock price has climbed back up to $41.94 as of
close on February 19. [GN]


FUELCO ENERGY: Helfrich Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Time
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Helfrich, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Fuelco Energy LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00111, (W.D. Tex., February 4, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, declaratory relief, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees and taxable costs of court pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fuelco Energy LLC is a finished fuel and refined product wholesale
and retail marketer and transportation provider for the oil and gas
service industry where Helfrich worked as an hourly-paid Fuel Tech
in Fuelco's yard in Midland, Texas facility. He claims to have
regularly work more than forty hours in a workweek but not paid
overtime for drive time between the company's base to the worksites
to service its customers. He claims time spent driving between the
yard and the job sites each day as compensable time that should
constitute overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Tel: (713) 223–8855
      Fax: (713) 623–6399
      Email: trang@tranlf.com
             service@tranlf.com

G4S SECURE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Immigration Arrests
------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
third-party contractor that arrests immigrants released from state
and local custody only to put them back behind bars in federal
facilities faces a class action filed by a woman who has lived in
the United States since she was 2 years old and fears being
arrested and deported after serving 22 years in state custody.

Gabriela Solano filed a 33-page class action complaint in the
Northern District of California on Feb. 22, asking a judge to find
that policies by ICE allowing private contractor G4S Secure
Solutions to arrest immigrants for deportation violates the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits using private
security companies to make immigration arrests.

Solano claims immigration officials have openly flouted federal
laws barring ICE from using private contractors to make arrests in
San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix since at least 2016, paving
the way G4S to arrest hundreds of immigrants -- mostly in
California -- and transfer them from state and local custody to
immigration custody upon their release.

ICE's current contract with G4S is effective through 2023,
according to the complaint.

The lawsuit follows the introduction of the VISION Act, California
Assembly Bill 937, by state Assembly member Wendy Carrillo. If
passed, the act would ensure immigrants eligible for release from
state prison or local jail are not turned over to ICE.

Attorney Jenny Zhao with the Immigrant Rights Program at Asian
Americans Advancing Justice represents Solano. In an interview,
Zhao said Solano's is the first lawsuit challenging the use of
private security companies to arrest state detainees to transfer
them to ICE custody.

Zhao said the practice has been bolstered by California's
cooperation with ICE officials. She said the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation notifies ICE of inmates who are
about to be released and will release inmates early to accommodate
pick-up schedules by ICE's contractor G4S.

"It is a practice that has been going on for many years," Zhao
said. "I'm not sure this is a political decision that has been
made; it seems a matter of convenience. It may be a cost-cutting
measure, [but] it violates the law."

A survivor of domestic violence, Solano was brought to the United
States as a toddler and was recently found suitable for release
from state prison on parole after serving 22 years for a murder
charge. Solano had served as a driver for her abusive ex-partner
after he had shot and killed a pedestrian in a botched robbery.
Under the felony murder rule, she was convicted of murder and
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole even though she
had not killed anyone

Solano earned two degrees while in prison, took over 1,000 hours of
rehabilitative classes and has worked as an office clerk for 12
years. Her life sentence was commuted to 20 years to life in 2018
by Governor Jerry Brown, making her eligible for parole.

But ICE has notified her it intends to detain her for removal
proceedings upon her release from the California Women's Facility
in Chowchilla, according to the complaint.

"I've been dreaming of being reunited with my family and community
for so long, and now it could finally happen. But the fear of being
arrested by G4S, locked in an ICE detention center, and possibly
deported to Mexico, keeps me up at night," Solano said in a
statement.

She added: "I was brought here to the U.S. at the age of two and my
closest family is here. This is where I hope to build a new life
with the second chance I've been given."

The lawsuit isn't the first time G4S's practices have been
challenged by immigrant detainees. In 2019, four women claimed they
faced inhumane conditions when being transferred from one detention
facility to another in a van ride which should have taken five
hours but took over a day.

ICE declined comment, citing pending litigation. [GN]


GALAXY RELAXATION: Faces Tatum-Rios ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galaxy Relaxation
LLC. The case is captioned as Lynnette Tatum-Rios v. Galaxy
Relaxation LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01232-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11,
2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams.

Galaxy manufactures Moon Pod, a zero-gravity beanbag engineered to
deliver a full-body weightless sensation for all-day stress relief
and relaxation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com

GAWFCO ENTERPRISES: Teschera Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JULIO TESCHERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAWFCO ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21CV376213 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
February 19, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged systemic
illegal employment practices that violated the California Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in or around May 2013 to
work as a non-exempt car wash supervisor. His employment was
terminated on or about June 6, 2020.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees worked more than 8 hours in a workday
and/or 40 hours in a workweek, they were not properly compensated
by the Defendant at the proper amount of overtime pay. The
Defendant did not include their non-discretionary incentive into
their regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime pay. In
addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide them with
accurate itemized wage statements in every wage payment.

Moreover, the Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor
& Workforce Development Agency on or about December 16, 2020 and to
the Defendant' regarding its Labor Code violations. However, the
LWDA has not provided written notice as to whether it intends to
investigate the Labor Code violations set forth in the Plaintiff's
written notice.

Pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Industrial
Welfare Commission's (IWC) Wage Orders, and the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a
class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendant seeking for penalties
and damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.

Gawfco Enterprises, Inc. provides petroleum products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Tel: (831) 531-4214
          Fax: (831) 634-0333
        
                - and –

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554


GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smith's Fraud Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms
the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment, state
statutory consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims in the
lawsuit titled JAMES SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-1614 (6th
Cir.).

Judge John B. Nalbandian delivered the opinion of the court in
which Judge Richard Fred Suhrheinrich joined. Judge Jane
Branstetter Stranch delivered a separate opinion concurring in the
judgment.

The Plaintiffs' multi-state class action suit alleges that GM
knowingly sold them vehicles with defective dashboards. According
to the Plaintiffs, that defect produces dashboard cracking that
could cause severe injuries because malfunctioning airbags could
turn the plastic dashboards into deadly projectiles during a crash.
But no class member, or any other GM customer, experienced that
dangerous scenario. At worst, the Plaintiffs suffered only cosmetic
damage and a potential reduced resale value from owning cars with
cracked dashboards. Even still, they contend that GM knew about the
defect and its dangers. And they believe that is enough to justify
relief.

Between 2005 and 2006, GM changed the dashboard used for GMT900
model cars from a multi-piece design to a single-piece design. This
change made the dashboard prone to cracking in two places. The
Plaintiffs, who reside and bought GM vehicles in many states,
allege that GMT900 vehicles produced between 2007 and 2014
contained a faulty, dangerous dashboard. This line of vehicles
contains some of the most popular cars in America, such as the
Chevrolet Silverado, the GMC Sierra, the Chevrolet Tahoe, and the
Cadillac Escalade. Fixing dashboard cracks can cost up to $1,800.
Even worse, the design change allegedly created a safety hazard--a
crack near the steering column that could lead to an airbag
malfunction or shrapnel spray during a crash. But GM never recalled
GMT900 dashboards or publicly disclosed this defect.

The Plaintiffs allege that GM first learned about the dashboard
defect during the pre-production testing stage. Automotive industry
standards suggest that car manufactures use a Production Part
Approval Test (PPAT) when redesigning vehicles. This test allows
car manufacturers to identify and remedy potential failure modes
and their associated causes/mechanisms.

After greenlighting the GTM900 series for mass production and sales
in 2007, GM received customer complaints about those cars beginning
in 2009. For instance, drivers complained about cracked dashboards
on websites like ChevroletForum.com. By monitoring these forums, GM
could have learned about the defective dashboards. Around the same
time, complaints about cracked dashboards began to increase on the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") website.
These included 1,589 complaints about GMC and Chevrolet cars with
the words "dashboard" and "crack" in the description. And 1,138
complaints came from GMT900 series cars, 240 of which asserted the
dashboards were unsafe. One complaint voiced a concern that the
defective dashboard could become hazardous during a crash by
creating shrapnel. In a similar vein, GM saw a rise in warranty
claims and complaints relating to GMT900 vehicles.

Most of the complaints, however, related to cars driven for many
years and many miles (another potential reason against warranty
coverage). All of the named Plaintiffs complained about defects in
vehicles driven between 23,000 and 156,000 miles over multiple
years.

Judge Nalbandian notes that the Plaintiffs' complaint contains no
allegation that any of them have been hurt by the allegedly
defective dashboards. It only theorizes that the dashboard cracks
can interfere with the planned deployment of the passenger side
airbag, thus creating a safety risk. The Plaintiffs also confirmed
that they did not have evidence showing that the dashboard's
alleged safety defect ever caused an injury to anyone driving or
riding in a GMT900 series car.

The Plaintiffs (who hail from 25 states) sued GM on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class in the Eastern District of
Michigan, alleging that GM should be liable for fraudulent
concealment and unjust enrichment, violated state consumer
protection statutes, and skirted the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

GM moved to dismiss the suit, relying heavily on Mross v. Gen.
Motors Co., No. 15-C-0435, 2016 WL 4497300 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25,
2016), a case in which different consumers had sued GM over the
same dashboard defect. There, applying common legal principles, the
district court explained that "for all named plaintiffs to have
viable fraud claims, the complaint must adequately allege that GM
knew . . . both that the dashboards were likely to crack and that
this defect posed the safety concerns alleged in the complaint"
before they had purchased their vehicles.

In response to GM's motion, the Plaintiffs also urged the district
court to follow Mross because they believed that case actually
supported the viability of their claims. But later in their
response, the Plaintiffs argued that they were "Not Required to
Plead GM's Knowledge of the Safety Risk" because knowledge of the
defect is sufficient so knowledge of the safety risk is
unnecessary. Then, in the alternative, they argued that even if it
were required, the Plaintiffs have pled GM's knowledge of the
safety risk.

The district court held a hearing in February 2019 on GM's motion.
After hearing argument, the district court ruled in GM's favor. It
noted that the Plaintiffs had sent mixed signals about what they
believed the law required them to plead: "Plaintiffs suggest they
do not need to plead that GM had knowledge of the safety issue, but
at the same time, they ask the Court to follow Mross." The court
noted that they cannot have it both ways. And, applying Mross, it
ruled that the Plaintiffs need to plead facts that make it
plausible to infer that GM knew of the safety issue. And it
determined that the Plaintiffs' allegations about pre-production
testing and customer complaints were not enough to support an
inference that GM knew about the alleged safety risk related to the
dashboard cracks. So the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims because they failed to show that GM had the requisite
knowledge.

The appeal followed in which the Plaintiffs appeal only the
dismissal of their fraudulent concealment, state statutory consumer
protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

The Plaintiffs asserted fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
and consumer protection claims, and they now challenge the
dismissal of those claims on appeal. The district court dismissed
these claims because it ruled that Plaintiffs had failed to
adequately plead that GM knew the dashboard defect posed a safety
risk prior to sale of the vehicles. It determined that Plaintiffs
needed to plead knowledge of the safety risk for all three claims
based on how Plaintiffs had responded to GM's motion to dismiss.
And it concluded that they had failed to do so.

Presumably because the district court dismissed each of these
claims under the same knowledge standard, the Plaintiffs simply
argue that the district court erred in requiring them to plead
knowledge of the safety risk as opposed to mere knowledge of the
defect coupled with existence of a safety risk. In the alternative,
they argue that they adequately pled that GM knew about the safety
risk.

Their arguments, thus, rest on the assumption that each claim is
governed by a single generalized legal standard for purposes of
this appeal, which means two things, Judge Nalbandian holds. First,
it means that each claim rises or falls with the other two claims.
Second, it means that their briefing assumes the law about whether
knowledge of a safety risk is required for each of the three claims
is materially identical throughout the country. But the Plaintiffs
present their case without providing citations to support these two
underlying assumptions, the Judge observes. And that is troubling
because it highlights that the Plaintiffs have failed to specify
which jurisdiction's laws, federal or otherwise, govern their suit.
And that failure implicates Erie and the Rules of Decision Act
(Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).

The Plaintiffs' choice to simply rely on general tort principles
rather than specify which jurisdiction's law governs their claims
is odd because product liability cases often turn on specific state
law requirements, Judge Nalbandian notes. And their assumption that
general tort principles govern each claim also toes a dangerous
line with the Rules of Decision Act and the Erie doctrine. By
asserting that a generalized framework governs, they venture close
to asking the Court to apply the general common law or federal
common law overruled by Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64
(1938), rather than "the laws of the several states," Rules of
Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. 1652. And under the Erie doctrine, parties
typically cannot escape the general rule that "[i]n diversity cases
we apply the choice-of-law rules and substantive law of the forum
state."

In the case, various state laws recognize causes of action like the
claims at issue on appeal, Judge Nalbandian finds. And
unsurprisingly, the state laws governing these types of claims do
not appear to be completely uniform.  The district court correctly
determined that it could resolve this case despite any possible
(and unbriefed) differences in state law given the way the parties
argued GM's motion to dismiss. And that same reason provides an
avenue for the Appellate Court to affirm the district court's
decision, Judge Nalbandian points out.

In their appeal, the Plaintiffs assert, among other things, that
the district court applied the incorrect pleading standard to
dismiss their claims. The district court assessed the Plaintiffs'
complaint using the pleading standard used in Mross, a case in
which different plaintiffs sued GM over the same dashboard defect.
The lower court did so at least partially because the Plaintiffs
had argued that Mross governed their dispute. Even so, the
Plaintiffs now argue that the Mross court (and thus the district
court) employed the incorrect pleading standard "when it required
them to plead GM's knowledge of the safety risk."

Judge Nalbandian finds that it looks as if Mross' ultimate
conclusion that plaintiffs must plead knowledge of the safety risk
flows logically from the principles described in the Restatement
(Second) of Torts. Ultimately, the existence of some federal cases
that that may cut the other way does not, without more, render
Mross, which appears to correctly follow the principles outlined in
the Restatement, an outlier. Based on the briefing before the
Appellate Court, it is entirely possible that their primarily
California-based cases are the outlier, not Mross. And so the
Appellate Court does not hesitate to hold the Plaintiffs to their
request that Mross should govern because the Plaintiffs have both
failed to show that the Mross standard is wrong and invited any
error caused by following that standard. Judge Nalbandian concludes
that the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.

The Plaintiffs also argue that even if they needed to plead
knowledge of the safety risk, dismissal was inappropriate because
their factual allegations raise a plausible inference of pre-sale
knowledge of the safety risk. The Appellate Court disagrees.

Judge Nalbandian notes that Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure imposes a heightened pleading requirement for claims
alleging fraud. That means that parties bringing a fraudulent
concealment claim "must specify 'the who, what, when, where, and
how' of the alleged omission." Republic Bank & Tr. Co. v. Bear
Stearns & Co., 683 F.3d 239, 256 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Carroll
v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 2006)). And they
must do so with particularity.

In the context of the case under the standard in Mross, that means
that the Plaintiffs needed to "state with particularity" factual
allegations supporting the assertion that GM knew about the safety
implications of the dashboard defect, Judge Nalbandian holds. But
the Plaintiffs' allegations merely identify the dashboard defect
and say the manufacturer could have theoretically known about the
flaw. And that's not enough, the Judge points out.

The Plaintiffs claim that their allegations about GM's pre-release
testing, customer complaints made to the NHTSA and GM dealers, and
increased warranty claims involving GMT900 vehicles support their
assertion that GM knew about the safety defect. But taken as a
whole with inferences made in the Plaintiffs' favor, these factual
allegations do not rise above mere speculation and recitation of
legal claims. And so they are not enough to withstand a 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, Judge Nalbandian concludes.

In sum, Judge Nalbandian states, the Plaintiffs' factual
allegations fail to plausibly support their assertion that GM knew
about the potential for cracked dashboards in its vehicles to
explode and emit dangerous shrapnel. To support such a claim, a
complaint must contain specific facts showing the manufacturer's
knowledge of the defect that it allegedly fraudulently concealed.
Mere assertions that a manufacturer's routine testing, along with
customer feedback and increased warranty claims, should have
alerted it to a dangerous defect are not enough to meet the
12(b)(6) pleading standard.

In similar automobile class actions that have proceeded past the
motion to dismiss stage, other plaintiffs have asserted concrete
factual allegations--not just speculation about what testing might
have shown. Because the Plaintiffs present scant evidence that GM
knew that cracked dashboards in its vehicles might have posed a
safety hazard, the district court rightly granted GM's motion to
dismiss, Judge Nalbandian adds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 18, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32wyr2uk from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Jason H. Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, in Boca Raton, Florida, for Appellants.

James C. McGrath -- jcmcgrath@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Jason H. Alperstein, Mark J. Dearman --
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, in Boca
Raton, Florida, E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC, in
Rochester, Michigan, Caroline F. Bartlett --
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- CARELA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C., in Roseland, New Jersey, for Appellants.

James C. McGrath, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, in Boston, Massachusetts,
Robyn E. Marsh -- rmarsh@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, in
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt Battery Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevy
Bolt class action lawsuit alleges owners and lessees aren't
receiving the range they paid for because General Motors won't
allow customers to fully charge the batteries.

According to the lawsuit, GM allegedly concealed widespread defects
in the 60 kWh 350V lithium-ion batteries that cause the Bolt cars
to catch fire.

The Chevy Bolt class action lawsuit includes all U.S. owners and
lessees of 2017-2019 Bolts.

According to the Bolt lawsuit, drivers began to have problems with
the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt batteries, allegedly including the sudden
inability to accelerate. The plaintiff says GM announced a customer
satisfaction program for certain 2017 Bolts because of battery
cells with low voltage levels.

The automaker said it would replace the battery packs in the
affected 2017 Bolts, but the plaintiff says nothing was done about
2018-2019 models.

"GM did not address any possible widespread issue with the
Defective Battery, and treated affected vehicles as individualized
manufacturing errors or defects. However, there was a more
insidious and widespread problem." - Chevy Bolt class action
lawsuit.

The GM owner who sued claims the high-voltage battery can overheat
when it's nearly or fully charged, a problem GM is still trying to
find a way to fix.

The Bolt lawsuit references a November 2020 Chevy Bolt recall for
nearly 51,000 Bolt EV cars worldwide following at least five fires
and two injuries. But the plaintiff claims GM waited years to issue
the recall, then when it did announce the recall there were no
repairs to prevent the cars from catching fire.

Owners of 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolts were told to park outside, at
least until the recalled electric cars are fixed.

However, the class action lawsuit alleges the interim fix offered
by GM only reprograms the Bolts to charge the batteries up to 90%
capacity.

The plaintiff says this means owners and lessees aren't getting the
same travel range as advertised, and Bolt drivers must charge the
batteries more often than advertised because of the reduced battery
range.

The Bolt class action also alleges the cars have lost value because
GM can't properly repair the vehicles.

The Chevy Bolt class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Shawn Walker, v.
General Motors LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Markovits,
and Stock & DeMarco, LLC. [GN]


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Moore Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition North America), Case No.
2:21-cv-02516-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Feb. 12, 2021) is a consumer class
action brought individually by the Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all persons, all of whom purchased one or more of certain
baby foods manufactured by Gerber.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best throughout the United States.

The Defendant does not list heavy metals as an ingredient on the
Products' labels nor does it warn of the potential presence of
heavy metals in the Products. Hain also does not disclose that the
ingredients of its supposedly organic Products contain inorganic
arsenic, the Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, unbeknown to the Plaintiff and members
of the Class, and contrary to the representations on the Products
label, the Products contain heavy metals, including inorganic
arsenic, cadmium and lead at levels above what is considered safe
for babies, which, if disclosed to the Plaintiff and members of the
Class prior to purchase, would have caused Plaintiff and members of
the Class not to purchase or consume the Products. As a result, the
Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs and the Class thus bring claims for consumer fraud
and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

Gerber is an American manufacturer of Baby Food Products. Gerber
claims to be one of the "world’s most trusted name in baby
food."

The Gerber products at issue are: Gerber Toddler Mashed Potatoes &
Gravy with Roasted Chicken Meal, Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken &
Carrot Ravioli Meal, Gerber Toddler Spaghetti Rings in Meat Sauce
Meal, Gerber Toddler Spiral Pasta in Turkey, Meat Sauce Meal,
Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken & Carrot Ravioli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 297-1484
          Facsimile: (973) 297-1485
          E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          Julie B. Palley, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com
                  jpalley@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800)-551-8649
          Facsimile: (501)-286-4659
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE WALLACE, AHKILAH JOHNSON, VANESSA GALLUCI, SARAH WARDALE,
SARAH BROWN and JENNIFER GAETAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, BEECH-NUT
NUTRITION COMPANY, NURTURE, INC. and HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02531 (D.N.J., Feb. 12, 2021) is a consumer class
action brought individually by the Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all persons, all of whom purchased one or more of certain
baby foods manufactured by Hain, Gerber, Beech-Nut, and Nurture.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and sell baby food products under the brand name Earth's Best
throughout the United States.

The Defendants do not list heavy metals as an ingredient on the
Products' labels nor does it warn of the potential presence of
heavy metals in the Products. The Defendants also do not disclose
that the ingredients of its supposedly organic Products contain
inorganic arsenic, the Plaintiffs contend.

According to the complaint, unbeknown to the Plaintiffs and members
of the Class, and contrary to the representations on the Products
label, the Products contain heavy metals, including inorganic
arsenic, cadmium and lead at levels above what is considered safe
for babies, which, if disclosed to the Plaintiffs and members of
the Class prior to purchase, would have caused Plaintiff and
members of the Class not to purchase or consume the Products. As a
result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, the
suit adds.

The Plaintiffs and the Class thus bring claims for consumer fraud
and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Hain products at issue are all baby foods sold by the defendant
that contain one or more of the following ingredients: organic
barley flour, organic chopped broccoli, organic date paste, organic
cinnamon powder, organic brown flax milled, organic yellow papaya
puree, organic whole what fine, organic red lentils, organic oat
flakes, organic oat flour; organic vitamin pre-mix, organic brown
rice flour, organic whole raisins, and organic soft white wheat
flour.

The Gerber products at issue are: Gerber Toddler Mashed Potatoes &
Gravy with Roasted Chicken Meal, Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken &
Carrot Ravioli Meal, Gerber Toddler Spaghetti Rings in Meat Sauce
Meal, Gerber Toddler Spiral Pasta in Turkey, Meat Sauce Meal,
Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken & Carrot Ravioli Meal, Gerber
Toddler Spaghetti Rings in Meat Sauce Meal, and Gerber Sitter 2nd
Foods Turkey Rice Dinner Plastic Tub.

The Beech-Nut products at issue are all baby foods sold by the
defendant that contain one or more of the following ingredients
and/or commodities: Cinnamon, Organic Cumin, Organic Coriander,
Oregano, Alpha Amylase, Organic Lemon, Tumeric, Sunflower Lecithin,
Sweet Potato, Quinoa Flower, and Prune Puree.

The Nurture products at issue are the following HappyBABY foods
sold by defendant: Blueberry Rice Cakes; Stage 3 Root Vegetables &
Turkey; Apple & Broccoli Puffs; Apple Cinnamon Oat Jar; Apple
Spinach Jar; Kale & Spinach Puffs; Apple Mango Beet; Pear Prune
Jar; Apple Spinach Pea & Kiwi; Pea Spinach Teether; Strawberry
Yogis; Sweet Potato & Carrot Puffs; Banana & Pumpkin Puffs; and
Apples Blueberries & Oats.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000
          Facsimile: (201) 308-845-356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  memert@kgglaw.com

GLOBAL TRUST: Thompson RICO Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Tonona Thompson, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Global Trust Management LLC,
Quick Processing Solutions, Case No. 3:20-cv-00844, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Feb. 25, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00458-MSS-AEP to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as filed pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Global Trust Management -- http://www.gtmcorporation.com/-- is a
fully Licensed & Bonded accounts receivable firm located in Tampa
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Leigh Austin, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (804) 905-9904
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: amyaustin@clalegal.com
                 craig@clalegal.com
                 lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZI PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Rd Ste 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7572
          Fax: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                 aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dustin Mitchell Paul, Esq.
          VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP (Norfolk)
          101 W Main St Suite 500
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Phone: (757) 446-8665
          Email: dpaul@vanblacklaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action Lawsuit for $1.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for BloombergTax, reports that Google LLC and
Silicon Valley staffing company Vaco Technology Services LLC have
agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle class action claims alleging
they failed to pay certain employees for all their hours and denied
them uninterrupted meal and rest breaks.

Christina Bush brought claims under California law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act. She sought to have the case certified as a
class action on behalf of order audit operation specialists,
content bug technicians, and Google Expedition team leads and
associates. [GN]



GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Zeff's Tenants Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned
ZACHARY ZEFF, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07122-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Greystar is the largest owner, manager, and operator of apartments
in the U.S. It owns, manages, and operates thousands of apartment
units in California, including at least 79 large apartment
communities in the Bay Area. Plaintiff Zeff was a tenant at a
Greystar apartment community in San Rafael, California. While a
tenant, the Plaintiff was subject to Greystar's alleged unlawful
late penalty scheme.

Plaintiff Zeff has filed a putative class action against Defendant
Greystar, alleging that Greystar charges its tenants illegal
late-fee penalties for late rent and utility payments and
unlawfully withholds tenants' security deposits beyond 21 days of
move-out. He alleges a violation of, inter alia, California Civil
Code Sections 1671 and 1950.5, and California's Unfair Competition
Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.).

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and restitution for the
money Greystar has unlawfully withheld, and a declaratory judgment
that Greystar's late-fee penalties and security deposit practices
are unlawful. The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for failure to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party
under Rule 19.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action pursuant to Rules
23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Plaintiff proposes the following two sub-classes:

   A. The Illegal Penalties Class:

      All of Defendant's California tenants who were charged
      penalties or fees for paying rent or other charges
      Defendant deemed as late or deficient; and

   B. The Security Deposit Class:

      All of Defendant's California tenants whose security
      deposits were not returned within 21 days of move-out or
      had deductions without corresponding itemized statements or
      receipts.

The Plaintiff does not provide the size of the class but estimates
that it is "into the thousands."

Greystar states that the Plaintiff entered into a lease with his
landlord, Bel Albert Holdings, LLC, and Greystar was not a party to
that contract. It alleges that Bel Albert is the party, who owns
the property where the Plaintiff lived, and that Bel Albert was
paid all rents and fees. As a result, the Plaintiff cannot pursue
his claims, either individually or on a class-wide basis, without
naming Bel Albert as a party to this suit.

Greystar contends specifically that Bel Albert is a necessary party
under Rule 19. It asserts several reasons, including that Bel
Albert has a legally protected interest in this suit that will be
impaired or impeded if it is not joined.

Because it is feasible to join Bel Albert as a party to the action,
Greystar asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice so he can amend his complaint to add Bel Albert
as a defendant. Further, it argues that Bel Albert is an
indispensable party under Rule 19(b) and that the case cannot
proceed without it, because cases arising out of a contract cannot
proceed without the contracting parties.

District Judge Edward M. Chen notes that even if Bel Albert had
claimed a legally patented interest in the litigation, joinder
would not be required. Bel Albert is not a necessary party under
Rule 19(a)(1)(A), because the Court can accord complete relief
among existing parties. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff can
obtain complete relief against Greystar because as the manager who
allegedly engaged directly in the wrongful acts, it is jointly and
severally liable for those wrongful acts, citing C. B. v. City of
Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court can enjoin
Greystar from any further collection of illegal fees and retention
of security deposits.

Greystar contends that, if the Court only enjoined Greystar from
collecting the late fee in the Plaintiff's Lease Contract, Bel
Albert can simply replace Greystar with another property management
company to enforce the late fee provision.

Even if the Court were to assume that Bel Albert did have such a
sufficiently protected interest at stake, that interest would not
be impaired by the litigation, Judge Chen holds. He opines that
Greystar has failed to demonstrate any such impairment, because Bel
Albert would not be bound by any judgment which the Court issued.

The Court, thus, finds that Bel Albert is not a necessary party
under Rule 19, and it denies Greystar's Motion to Dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(7).

Judge Chen also opines, among other things, that the terms of
Greystar's late fee provision suggest a "plausible mismatch" with
the damage it actually suffers. Greystar's liquidated damages
provision is presumptively void, and Greystar has the burden of
proof of showing its lawfulness. It has, thus far, failed to do so.
The Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under Section 1671. The
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Greystar's stacking scheme is
an unlawful liquidated damage provision in violation of Civil Code
Section 1671.

For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant Greystar's Motion to
Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
12(b)(7).

The Order disposes of Docket No. 16.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 18, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8tehp2wr from Leagle.com.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Anderson Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00500-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 21, 2021) is an action
against the Defendant for its negligent, reckless, and intentional
practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the
presence of toxic heavy metals in its baby food products.

According to the complaint that the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, labels and sells baby food products in numerous forms,
i.e., pouches, purees, snacks, etc., under its Earth's Best Organic
brand, which consist mainly of rice and other ingredients.
("Products").

However, nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and packaging does defendant disclose that the Product
contains significant, non-trace levels of arsenic, mercury, lead,
cadmium, and perchlorate -- all known to pose health risks to
humans and especially infants, the suit says.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
no less than $1.49 for pouches of 4.2 OZ, excluding tax, compared
to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and
higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


HOME FAMILY CARE: Lubov Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Konik Lubov, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home Family Care Inc.,
Aleksander Kiselev and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00614 (E.D. N.Y., February 4, 2021), seeks minimum wages as
required under the Wage Parity Act and New York Labor Law, overtime
pay, spread-of-hours premium as required by the New York Labor Law
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations
and damages under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Home Family Care Inc. is an employment agency that sent Lubov to
work as a home health aide/maid for customers located in New York
City. Lubov worked as a home health aide from about November 19,
2017 to May 11, 2018 and then from July 13, 2018 to January 28,
2020, who worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which she was paid for
only 12 of the 24 hours worked with no meal breaks and did not get
5 hours of uninterrupted sleep. She worked for Defendants for more
than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Phone: (212) 286-1425
      Fax: (646) 688-3078


J-M MANUFACTURING: Faces Talton Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J-M Manufacturing
Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Allen Talton, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public vs. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. which will do
business in California as J-M Pipe Manufacturing Company, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0001303 (Calif.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 11, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Carter Holly.

A case management conference will be held on Aug 11, 2021.

J-M manufactures plastic pipe, fittings and tubing products.[BN]


JMP GROUP: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Tornese Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD TORNESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH JOLSON, RICHARD P. BUCKANAVAGE,
DORIAN B. KLEIN, JACK G. LEVIN, RICHARD A. SEBASTIAO, JMP GROUP
LLC, and HARVEST CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2021-0167 (Del. Ch., February 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and
abetting.

The case arises from the Defendants' action to file a materially
incomplete and misleading Form N-14 Registration Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince stockholders
to vote in favor of the merger agreement between Harvest Capital
Credit Corporation (HCAP) and Portman Ridge Finance Corporation
(PTMN). In particular, the Registration Statement contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
HCAP's financial projections used by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.
(KBW) in support of its fairness opinion, the financial analyses
performed by KBW in connection with its fairness opinion, and
potential conflicts of interest related to KBW and the HCAP's
controlling stockholders. In facilitating the proposed transaction
and disseminating the incomplete and misleading Registration
Statement, each of the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
the suit alleges.

JMP Group LLC is a full-service investment banking and asset
management firm based in San Francisco, California.

Harvest Capital Credit Corporation is a close-end management
investment company, headquartered in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         The Nemours Building
         1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3889

                - and –

         Michael Palestina, Esq.
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: (504) 455-1400
         Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
         E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com

JMP GROUP: Thompson Class Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH JOLSON, RICHARD P.
BUCKANAVAGE, DORIAN B. KLEIN, JACK G. LEVIN, RICHARD A. SEBASTIAO,
JMP GROUP LLC, and HARVEST CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 2021-0164 (Del. Ch., February 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and
abetting.

The case arises from the Defendants' action to file a materially
incomplete and misleading Form N-14 Registration Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince stockholders
to vote in favor of the merger agreement between Harvest Capital
Credit Corporation (HCAP) and Portman Ridge Finance Corporation
(PTMN). In particular, the Registration Statement contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
HCAP's financial projections used by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.
(KBW) in support of its fairness opinion, the financial analyses
performed by KBW in connection with its fairness opinion, and
potential conflicts of interest related to KBW and the HCAP's
controlling stockholders. In facilitating the proposed transaction
and disseminating the incomplete and misleading Registration
Statement, each of the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
the suit alleges.

JMP Group LLC is a full-service investment banking and asset
management firm based in San Francisco, California.

Harvest Capital Credit Corporation is a close-end management
investment company, headquartered in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         The Nemours Building
         1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3889

                - and –

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (646) 300-8921
         Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

JOSE PEPPER'S: Bid to Dismiss Florece Suit Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIRA FLORECE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. JOSE PEPPER'S RESTAURANTS, LLC,
AND EDWARD J. GIESELMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02339-TC-ADM
(D. Kan.), Judge Toby Crouse of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice.

Ms. Florece filed the action on her own behalf and as a putative
collective and class action against her former employer for alleged
minimum wage and overtime pay violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), and
Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 290.500, et seq.
("MMWL").

Ms. Florece's Complaint alleges that Defendant Jose Pepper's owns
and operates nine Jose Pepper's restaurants in Kansas.  Defendant
Gieselman wholly owns both that LLC and four additional restaurants
in Missouri, including Jose Pepper's Belton.  Florece contends that
all 13 restaurants operate as a joint employer under the FLSA and
that the locations share employee services.

Ms. Florece, a Missouri resident, alleges that she worked as a
server at Jose Pepper's Belton between April 2019 and February
2020.  She claims that the Defendants did not pay her or similarly
situated employees across the thirteen Jose Pepper's locations
appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation per the FLSA and,
for employees at the Missouri locations, the MMWL.

Specifically, Florece states that the Defendants implemented four
policies and practices that violated federal and state minimum wage
and overtime laws: (1) prohibiting employees from clocking in until
they began serving customers, even though they were required to be
present and working prior to serving customers; (2) allowing
employees to work overtime if they did not clock in; (3) denying
overtime compensation after removing reported overtime hours from
the timekeeping system; and (4) asking employees to report their
overtime hours as regular hours worked under other employees'
names.  She alleges that she personally refused to work overtime
when not clocked in and to report overtime hours as regular hours
under another employee's name.

Ms. Florece's Complaint contains two basic claims on behalf of
herself and putative class members.  In Count I, she asserts a
claim arising under the FLSA.  The proposed class is defined as
those persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers in the
Defendants' restaurants within three years prior to filing her
Complaint.  In Count II, she lodges a claim under the MMWL.  The
proposed class is similar to the FLSA claim, but obviously focuses
on those who worked in Missouri.

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims.  They argue that Florece
lacks standing and fails to sufficiently state that she or anyone
else worked overtime.  They also urge the Court to either decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MMWL claims or find
that the FLSA preempts MMWL minimum wage and overtime pay claims.

Initially, the Defendants claim that Florece lacks standing
"because her Complaint affirmatively states that she did not suffer
the alleged injury."  He explains that there are three general
aspects of modern standing jurisprudence.  To have standing, a
plaintiff must have suffered (1) an injury-in-fact that is (2)
fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and (3) likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision.  Whether Florece's allegations
sufficiently allege standing depends on the nature of her claim.

Judge Crouse holds that Florece's Complaint sufficiently alleges
that she has standing to bring these claims.  He finds that the
injury-in-fact component is met because Florece contends that she
(and her similarly situated potential class members) routinely
worked more than 40 hours per week and did not receive correct
wages for that time.  As the MMWL also ensures overtime and minimum
wage compensation, Florece's FLSA injury also constitutes an MMWL
injury-in-fact.  The other two aspects of standing are easily
satisfied (and not materially challenged by the Defendants).  The
Complaint alleges it was the Defendants' policy to deny overtime
through a variety of artifices and seeks a ruling in Florece's
favor for wages that would be paid to her directly.  That is
sufficient.

The Defendants do not expressly contend that Florece lacks standing
for purposes of representing the putative group of "similarly
situated" current or former employees.  Judge Crouse holds that
inquiry appears better suited to the class-certification process.
In fact, he says discovery relating to the class is on-going.
Whether Florece has standing to represent the class(es) is a
question that can be addressed at the certification stage.

Next, the Defendants also argue that Florece's Complaint fails to
allege sufficient facts to plausibly state an FLSA claim.  But in
light of the governing standard, Florece adequately pled a factual
basis for an FLSA claim Judge Crouse holds.  Plausibility depends
on context.  The Judge notes that the requisite showing depends on
the claims alleged, and the inquiry usually starts with determining
what the plaintiff must prove at trial.  He finds that Florece's
complaint satisfies this standard. As he noted, Florece alleges
that she worked as the Defendants' employee in excess of 40 hours
per week and that the Defendants refused to pay her the minimum
wage and overtime she was entitled to receive.

The Defendants then argue that the Court should not consider the
MMWL claim for two independent reasons: (1) preemption and (2)
supplemental jurisdiction.  Neither merits the relief the
Defendants seek, Judge Crouse finds.  The Defendants have not
established obstacle or conflict preemption could happen.  First,
the Judge finds that the Defendants have not identified any
controlling authority to suggest the possibility of duplicative
remedies violating the Supremacy Clause.  Second, he says the
remedies available under the FLSA and MMWL do not completely
overlap.  The MMWL appears to afford greater remedies: Missouri
minimum wages are higher than the federal minimum, and the MMWL
allows double the amount of liquidated damages available under the
FLSA, compare 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with Mo. Rev Stat. Section
290.527.

The Defendants finally assert that the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MMWL claims.  Judge
Crouse however finds that the Defendants have not provided a
meaningful basis on which to decline the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction. Forcing Florece to litigate her related claims in
different jurisdictions would be a waste of the parties' and
judicial resources.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Crouse denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/b92cnufe from Leagle.com.


KROGER CO: Faces Lalli ADA Suit in Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The
case is captioned as Gabriel Lalli v. The Kroger Co., et al., Case
No. 8:21-cv-00274-JLS-DFM (C.D. Calif., Feb. 11, 2021).

The case alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton.

The Kroger Company is an American retail company founded by Bernard
Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the United States'
largest supermarket by revenue, and the second-largest general
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIFE TIME FITNESS: Howard Labor Class Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAURA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., LTF CLUB
OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, AND LTF
YOGA COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 20-CV-01407-PJS-HB, was removed from
the State of Minnesota District Court, County of Hennepin, Fourth
Judicial District to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on February 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:21-cv-00574 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unjust enrichment by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated gym
fitness instructors for the time they worked before and after each
group fitness class.

LIFE Time Fitness, Inc. is a health club located in Minnesota.

LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. is a health and fitness club
based in Minnesota.

LTF Club Management Company, LLC is a health and fitness club based
in Minnesota.

LTF Yoga Company, LLC is a health club based in Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq.
         Joel O'Malley, Esq.
         Courtney M. Blanchard, Esq.
         Jason P. Hungerford, Esq.
         NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
         250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 305-7500
         E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com
                 jomalley@nilanjohnson.com
                 cblanchard@nilanjohnson.com
                 jhungerford@nilanjohnson.com

LONGHORN ORGANICS: Payne Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00351-X (N.D. Tex., February 19, 2021) alleges the
Defendant of violations of his statutory employment right to
receive overtime pay from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an installer of life
support systems for large commercial aquariums for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he and other similarly situated
installers regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per work week for
the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the law. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to
maintain records of its employees, including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover unpaid wages and overtime due to him and all other
similarly situated installers, as well as liquidated damages,
litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court
deems just.

Longhorn Organics, LLC operates our restaurants located in Tyler,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: (903) 596-7100
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


LOUISIANA: DoC Faces Suit for Jailing People Past Release Dates
---------------------------------------------------------------
WDSU reports that a new class-action lawsuit seeks to stop the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections from keeping
people in prison or jail past their release dates, the suit says.

The suit, filed on Feb. 19 in federal court, follows a December
announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice that it has opened
an investigation into the same practice. The Department of Justice
said its probe will look into the state corrections department's
policies and practices for ensuring the timely release of state
prisoners in both state and local facilities, including those
eligible for immediate release.

In response to the federal investigation, a DOC spokesman said in
statement on Dec. 3 the agency, "takes this very seriously, and
will assist in whatever way necessary in this investigation," he
said.

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Joel Giroir, was eligible for
immediate release the day of his sentencing on Jan. 26. But as of
Feb. 19, he remained jailed, his lawyers' news release says. Daily
calls from his family and friends seeking answers about his
continued incarceration went unheeded, the release says.

"Internal investigations, individual lawsuits, and public pressure
have failed to convince the Department of Corrections to stop
holding thousands of people past their release dates each year. A
court order is now needed," Caroline Gabriel, of Most & Associates,
said in a statement.

WDSU has reached out to corrections department for comment.

Instances of overdetention well documented

Multiple ongoing federal lawsuits and a 2017 Legislative Auditor's
report allege the state routinely keeps prisoners in jail past
theirs release dates, for days, weeks and even months. The cause of
overdetention stems in part from the corrections departments'
time-consuming method of processing release paperwork, which can be
impacted by a lack of efficient coordination with court clerks'
offices and sheriff's offices, the lawsuits reveal.

WDSU reported a year ago that court documents in one federal suit
stated the corrections department admitted that in a single month
in 2019, 231 inmates were held for an average of 44 days "after a
judge ordered them free."

An Orleans Public Defender's Office attorney at the time called
over detention "a huge problem." Attorney Stas Moroz said then the
office identified a new case of someone being detained past their
release date on a weekly basis.

In 2019, state lawmakers adopted legislation to set up a task force
to examine the issue.

"We really need to not just look at it but fix it. It's just not
excusable to have people sitting in jail weeks or months longer
than they're legally entitled to release," Moroz said last year, of
the task force.

A 2019 state auditor's report also found problems with the
correction department's method of calculating release dates. The
auditor reviewed 40 sentence computations and found errors in five
of them. The errors resulted in the wrong release dates, which in
three of the cases were off by 15, 90 and 248 days. In a letter
responding to the audit, Department of Corrections Secretary James
LeBlanc said the agency lacks resources to review each computation
but noted supervisors do audit a sample of them and review those of
new employees. [GN]


LOUISIANA: Giroir Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL GIROIR, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. JAMES LEBLANC,
in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Public Safety & Corrections; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ (M.D.
La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting his motion
to certify a class defined as:

   "all persons who have been, or will be, sentenced to the
   custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety &
   Corrections (DOC), and who were, or will be, entitled to
   release at the time of their sentencing, but who nevertheless
   remain in custody, now or in the future, for more than 48
   hours past their sentencing dates."

According to the complaint, for at least eight years, the DOC has
been unlawfully and knowingly overdetaining thousands of Louisiana
residents in its custody every year.

The Plaintiff Giroir seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
against DOC's alleged false and unlawful overdetention.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pWSK88at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen H. Weil, Esq.
          John Hazinski, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: sarah@loevy.com

               - and -

          William Most, Esq.
          MOST & ASSOCIATES
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 114, No. 101
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 509-5023
          E-mail: williammost@gmail.com

LOVE'S TRAVEL: $2.95M Settlement in Lawson FLSA Suit Wins Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTOPHER LAWSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. LOVE'S TRAVEL
STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 1:17-CV-1266
(M.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement of
Collective Action and to Dismiss Action with Prejudice.

On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective action brought on behalf of current and former
Operations Managers ("OMs") employed at various Love's Travel
Stops.  The Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the OMs were
misclassified as exempt managerial employees under the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and accordingly were not paid overtime
as required by federal law.

The case presented litigative obstacles of the highest order, which
were addressed by all the counsel in an exceptionally skilled
manner.  Following an intensive course of pre-trial litigation, the
parties commenced settlement negotiations in 2020.  They then
conducted protracted and intense settlement discussions with the
occasional assistance of the Court. Those arms'-length negotiations
culminated with the parties' agreement on the terms of a proposed
collective settlement.  The parties then consented to magistrate
judge jurisdiction, and submitted their proposed settlement
agreement to the Court for its approval, as required by the FLSA.

That agreement is embodied in a 66-page document consisting of the
proposed agreement and attachments.  In pertinent part, the
agreement provides for the creation of a total settlement fund of
$2.95 million.  From this sum, $1.5 million is set aside as a
collective member fund for payment to the participating individual
collective Plaintiffs.  A portion of this $1.5 million sum totaling
$37,500 is designated as service payment allocations for six Lead
Plaintiffs whose role in the litigation warrants service award
payments.

The agreement then calls for the payment of $137,195.83 in
litigation expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs' counsel from the
settlement fund.  Finally, under the terms of the agreement, the
Plaintiffs' counsel, who have taken the lead over the past four
years in pursuing the highly complex and difficult FLSA action, are
to receive attorneys' fees of up to $1,312,804.17.  According to
affidavits submitted in support of this motion seeking approval of
the settlement agreement, the negotiated attorneys' fee award
constituted a significant reduction below the actual fees incurred
in the prosecution of the case, fees which would have otherwise
potentially exceeded $2.27 million.

Contingent upon Court approval, the agreement then provides for a
comprehensive notice process to FLSA collective members and
prescribes a procedure for the allocation of payments from the $1.5
million fund among participating collective members.  The
settlement agreement further defines the Defendant's payment
obligations; the release of claims by the named Plaintiffs and the
FLSA collective members; reaffirms the parties' counsel's authority
to act; and contains final provisions pledging mutual cooperation
in the execution of the agreement, as well as prescribing rules for
the interpretation of the agreement.

Upon consideration of the agreement, and the parties' supplemental
submissions, Judge Carlson approved the settlement as a fair,
reasonable, and adequate resolution of the complex and protracted
FLSA collective action.  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement of Collective Action
and to Dismiss Action with Prejudice.  He approved the parties'
Settlement and all of its terms.  The Claims Administrator is
authorized to send the notices and issue payments pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement.  The Judge dismissed the Action with
prejudice.  The clerk is directed to otherwise close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rd9h628h from Leagle.com.


LOWE'S COS: Class Action Can Include 'Eleventh-Hour' Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a looming
trial over how Lowe's Cos. managed its 401(k) plan can include
testimony from three witnesses the retailer didn't disclose until 9
p.m. on the final day of the discovery period, after a federal
judge in North Carolina said on Feb. 22 that the witnesses could
"easily be deposed long before the scheduled trial."

A class of 250,000 investors in the company's 401(k) plan, who are
challenging the decision to move more than $1 billion in plan
assets to an underperforming Aon Hewitt fund, in December asked
Judge Kenneth D. Bell to exclude testimony from nearly three dozen
witnesses. [GN]


MAESTROVISION INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MaestroVision, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MaestroVision, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01690 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

MaestroVision -- https://maestrovision.com/ -- is a leading
supplier of audio & video management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Rahman Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arifur Rahman, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Arifur Rahmanan, individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00654-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15,
2020, the lawsuit arises out of a massive cybersecurity breach
affecting 5.2 million consumers, who entrusted their highly
sensitive personal and confidential information to the Defendant.

Marriott announced the data breach on March 31, 2020, and sent
e-mails to customers affected by the security debacle, informing
them that information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and
e-mail addresses -- all information that is solid gold for identity
thieves -- were accessed by unauthorized persons. According to the
complaint, this catastrophic and inexcusable mishap was
unmistakably the result of Marriott's complete failure to exercise
reasonable care and implement adequate security systems, institute
the most basic cybersecurity policies and procedures, and
adequately train employees and franchisees on such policies and
procedures.

The Plaintiff sought to hold Marriott accountable for its utter
disregard for the privacy and sanctity of its customer's data that
Marriott does not hesitate to take from customers for marketing
analytics to upsell and increase revenues and to even share with
third-parties, while making $20 Billion in revenue. Fortunately for
consumers, the legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy
Act so that companies may finally learn their lesson when it comes
to securing consumer data and being honest with them about what
they are doing with that data. The Plaintiff and the class members
intend to vindicate those rights in this case, said the complaint.


The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order January
12, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Arifur Rahman, et al. v.
Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 21-55112, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 12, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Juan Gonzalez, Catherine Hosino, Raymond Paret,
Arifur Rahman and Kathryn Rohrer Mediation Questionnaire was due on
February 19, 2021;

   -- Appellants Juan Gonzalez, Catherine Hosino, Raymond Paret,
Arifur Rahman and Kathryn Rohrer opening brief is due on April 12,
2021;

   -- Appellee Marriott International, Inc. answering brief is due
on May 12, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ARIFUR RAHMAN, CATHERINE HOSINO, KATHRYN
ROHRER, RAYMOND PARET, and JUAN GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq.
          AI LAW, PLC
          4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1100
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 266-1240
          E-mail: aibrahim@ailawfirm.com  

Defendant-Appellee MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Lindsay Harrison, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001-4412
          Telephone: (202) 639-6000
          E-mail: lharrison@jenner.com

               - and -

          Todd C. Toral, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-2294
          E-mail: ttoral@jenner.com

MCDONALD'S CORP: Black Franchise Owners Hold Protest Amid Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manny Ramos, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that community
organizers on Feb. 22 kicked off 90 days of picketing at McDonald's
world headquarters in the West Loop, hoping to call attention to
what they say are discriminatory practices against Black-owned
franchises.

"We are coming after every McDonald's that we shop in," activist
Mark Carter said on Feb. 22. "We send this message starting today
that if you don't want to see us outside of your headquarters, then
it would be in your best interest to sit down with those who have
traveled 700 miles from Memphis, Tennessee."

The protest was organized ahead of a meeting scheduled for Feb. 23
in Chicago between McDonald's executives and two brothers from
Memphis, James Byrd and Darrell Byrd, who own four locations
between them. The Byrd brothers filed a class-action lawsuit
against the company in October, alleging McDonald's growth has been
"predatory in nature" against Black-owned franchises.

"McDonald's has denied the Black franchisees the same opportunities
as white operators and continually steer them to economically
depressed and dangerous areas with low volume sales," said Wallace
"Gator" Bradley, president of United in Peace, a political activist
group fighting for the needs of the Black community.

The company issued a statement in response to the protest.

"McDonald's takes its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion
seriously and does not tolerate discrimination of any kind," Reggie
Miller, the company's global chief diversity, equity and inclusion
officer, was quoted as saying. "We must go further and remain
focused on serious action to accelerate meaningful and overdue
societal change."

According to court filings, James Byrd has been a McDonald's
franchisee for 31 years. At one point, he operated 10 restaurants;
now, he has two. Darrell Byrd has been a franchisee for 22 years
and, like his brother, owns two locations now; at one point, he had
four.

James Byrd said some now-shuttered locations were closed over the
years after McDonald's "deemed them to be of no value." It happened
to other Black franchisees too, he said.

During the late-1990s, James Byrd said, McDonald's had about 377
Black franchisees nationwide; that has dwindled to about 186
today.

James Byrd also alleged there is a $900,000 annual cash flow gap
between Black franchisees and white operators — $2.9 million
versus $2 million.

The Byrd brothers argued McDonald's has put Black operators in
economically distressed communities with high levels of crime,
leading to higher costs, such as for security, insurance, employee
turnover and even rent.

White franchisees, they alleged, aren't treated that way.

"The right thing is not being done to African American operators in
America with our company," Darrell Byrd said. "I'm still trying to
figure out why? Why am I struggling? Why am I paying higher rents
for my restaurants? Why am I paying a greater fee to be in the same
business as my white counterpart?"

They want McDonald's to grow the Black owner base back to 377 or
more by creating a "minority franchise fund" that will pump a
minimum of $500 million into a new base of franchisees. They also
want to loosen the regulations and inspections, imposed by
McDonald's, that sometimes are used to break franchise agreements.

A similar lawsuit was filed earlier in February by former Major
League Baseball player Herbert Washington claiming the company's
discriminatory practices led to a $700,000 sales gap between
Black-owned franchises and those owned by white people. [GN]


MDL 2741: Weed Killer Product Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring one
action pending each in the Northern District of Alabama and the
Eastern District of Missouri to the Northern District of California
and assigned to Vince Chhabria for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These actions involve common questions of fact arising out of
allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate that causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Like the plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff in said actions asserts
product liability claims against Monsanto and alleges that exposure
to Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and share multiple factual
issues with the cases already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3bZB2f8.


MDL 2804: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Ohio Product Liability Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied plaintiffs' motions for Section
1407 remand of two actions in the Northern District of Ohio.

Plaintiffs in the two actions filed motions to seek return to the
transferor court to obtain a ruling on their motions to remand to
state court, without first obtaining a suggestion of remand from
the transferee judge, Judge Dan Polster. The panel argues that that
the transferee judge, who is responsible for the day-to-day
management of this exceedingly complex litigation, will address
these and other plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court in due
course.

These action allege improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country. Defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, CVS
Health, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis
Pharma, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan U.S.A., Inc., Cephalon
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson Laboratories Inc. are
pharmaceutical companies and dealers.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3bUNQn7.


MDL 2924: Zantac Class Action Over Drug Ranitidine in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Matters reports that the United States Food and Drug
Administration made a recall request for Zantac and other products
containing the ingredient ranitidine.

The recall stems from the fact that these products produce the
cancer-causing agent NDMA when stored for extended periods.

Consumers are filing lawsuits seeking compensation from the makers
of Zantac after learning the medicine may have led to their cancer
diagnosis. Several class-action lawsuits are also forming against
the Zantac manufacturer. It is worth noting to potential plaintiffs
that the main difference in a lawsuit vs class action lawsuit for
Zantac cases is that class action filings benefit every consumer
that purchased the medicine. The plaintiff doesn't need to receive
a cancer diagnosis.

1. What Is Zantac?
Zantac is the brand name for the drug ranitidine. The main use of
Zantac is to reduce the amount of stomach acid the user produces.
Zantac is available through prescription and over-the-counter. The
assortment of digestive issues that benefit from Zantac include:

Stomach ulcers
Acid indigestion
Heartburn
GERD
Peptic ulcer disease
Zollinger-Ellison syndrome

2. Problem with Zantac
The FDA advised the public in September of 2019 that NDMA, a known
carcinogen, was found in ranitidine. Low levels of NDMA exposure
may not pose a threat to consumers. However, the NDMA levels found
in Zantac and other products that list ranitidine as an ingredient
are more than the amount permitted by FDA guidelines.

Surprisingly, even though the FDA's own laboratory tests haven't
revealed higher-than-normal levels of NDMA in the samples it
analyzed, FDA researchers have found that the NDMA in those samples
became increasingly toxic when the drugs were stored at high
temperatures.

The risk was even higher if the Zantac user-added nitrates to their
diet. Nitrates are a class of food additives usually found in deli
meats, hot dogs, ham, and bacon. They can also be ingested by
drinking tap water if the groundwater has been contaminated with
nitrate-based fertilizers and other chemicals.

In April 2020, the FDA urged all ranitidine drug manufacturers to
recall all ranitidine medications from the U.S. market, advising
users to stop taking any type of ranitidine-based drugs, to safely
discard any leftovers, and to talk to their treating doctors about
safer alternatives to Zantac.

3. Basis of the Class Action Lawsuit
Zantac class action lawsuits nationwide accuse ranitidine drug
manufacturers of profiting from an untrue perception that drugs
containing ranitidine are safe for consumer use. Plaintiffs also
claim the manufacturers mislead them regarding many of the possible
side-effects of taking Zantac over extended periods of time.

There are American consumers who religiously took the popular
heartburn drug for more than two decades every single day. Many of
those users developed various forms of cancer, especially liver,
stomach, and bladder cancer, and they are now suing the Zantac
manufacturer for damages.

Zantac lawyers have so far won hundreds of cases by proving that
the drug was "defective" and that the manufacturers have failed to
warn users of its many health risks on the drug's label.

4. Risks Associated with Zantac
NDMA exposure can result in damage to the liver, kidney, and lungs.
Other symptoms of NDMA exposure that some Zantac users experienced
include headaches, nausea, and abdominal cramps. But the NDMA
quality that is responsible for the current recall is its
designation as a cancer-causing agent. The cancer types that Zantac
takers may become more susceptible to includes:

Bladder Cancer
Liver Cancer
Kidney Cancer
Pancreatic Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Thyroid Cancer
Testicular Cancer

According to the FDA, up to 96 nanograms of NDMA per day are safe
for human consumption. Yet, Zantac and other ranitidine drugs
contain up to 3 million nanograms of the cancer-causing compound
per tablet. In Zantac users, the NDMA levels in their urine were up
to 400 times higher than in non-users.

5. Where the Legal Fight Started
Plaintiffs in California are responsible for the first Zantac
class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit argues that the drug
manufacturer, Sanofi, and other companies who took part in making
products containing ranitidine withheld information regarding the
cancer risks associated with taking the drug. Similar class actions
soon followed in New Jersey and Connecticut. The six total
class-action lawsuits have become Zantac Multidistrict Litigation
case 2924.

Numerous individual lawsuits are also open against Zantac
manufacturers due to alleged deception regarding the threat the
medicine posed.

6. Eligibility Requirements
Zantac customers who can demonstrate proof of purchase are eligible
to join a Zantac Class Action lawsuit. Plaintiffs joining the class
action will not need to show they experienced harm from the
medication. To prove that they took the drug, they only need to
show that they purchased the medicine without knowing the risk
involved.

Users will need to keep all receipts, prescription records, empty
pill bottles, and have a treating doctor's testimony that the
patient was diagnosed with cancer after dutifully taking the
heartburn drug for many years. Medical records and prescription
drug monitoring program records are also valuable resources to
prove one's case.

If the plaintiff took Zantac without a prescription, proving that
they took the drug is a bit more challenging unless they kept all
receipts and the packaging. In this case, other types of evidence
might help, including a flexible spending account, a health
reimbursement account, a health saving account, and/or prescription
discount cards.

7. How to Join the Fight
Many Zantac class action lawsuits are in the early stages of the
process. People affected by Zantac who want to join this fight can
do so now since there is a short statute of limitations to file a
claim in a Zantac lawsuit.

Financial compensation may become available to reimburse all money
spent on Zantac products. There may also be money to provide
plaintiffs with reparation for any physical, mental, or emotional
distress resulting from the use of the medication.

Zantac users who feel they have a case against the manufacturer can
contact a lawyer about becoming part of MDL 2924. [GN]


MEDNAX SERVICES: Davis Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KASHARI DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. MEDNAX SERVICES,
INC., Case No. CACE-21-000625 (Filed Jan. 11, 2021), was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale) on Feb. 12,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-60347-JEM to the
proceeding.

According to the allegations in the complaint, the Plaintiff and
the members of the putative class she purports to represent are
persons whose personally identifiable information (PII) was
allegedly compromised in a phishing attack perpetrated by a
criminal third-party actor against certain Microsoft Office
360-hosted Mednax business e-mail accounts.

The Complaint alleges seven counts for negligence; negligence per
se; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; breach of
confidence; violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA).

Mednax provides physician services. The Company offers neonatology,
maternal-fetal medicine, and anesthesiology, as well as provides
pediatric, cardiology, intensive care, emergency medicine, surgery,
urology, and hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Feuer, Esq.
          LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
          Miami Tower
          100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131-2158
          Telephone: (305) 347-4040
          Facsimile: (305) 347-3050
          E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com
                  jfeuer@lashgoldberg.com
                  Kristine McAlister Brown

               - and -

          Gavin Reinke, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com
                  gavin.reinke@alston.com

MIA GROUND: Fails to Pay Wages to Helpers, Lacen-Elicier Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENIER LACEN-ELICIER, on behalf of Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MIA GROUND SERVICE,
INC., and GEORGE KOVANIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00898
(E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a helper from in or
about May 2019 through October 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to correctly pay their employees'
overtime compensation at the overtime wage rate for all hours they
worked over 40 in a workweek;

     -- The Defendants failed to correctly pay their employees'
minimum wage at the minimum wage rate for all hours they worked in
a workweek;

     -- The Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient
time records; and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide their employees with an
accurate wage statement.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated current and former non-exempt drivers and
helpers, who worked for the Defendants and were deprived of their
wages, to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and statutory
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court determines to be juts and
proper.

Mia Ground Service, Inc. provides ground handling services. George
Kovanis is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          Imran Ansari, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10036
          Tel: (212) 486-0011
          E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com


MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Balow Appeals Injunction Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sophia Balow, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SOPHIA BALOW, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00044, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

According to the complaint, Michigan State University (MSU)
announced in October 2020 that, due to budget constraints, it would
discontinue its men's and women's varsity swimming and diving
programs after the end of the 2020-2021 season. The Plaintiffs are
current members of MSU's varsity women's swimming and diving team.
They claim that MSU discriminates against women, in violation of
Title IX, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681 et seq. Specifically, in Count I
of their complaint, Plaintiffs claim that MSU provides "fewer and
poorer athletic participation opportunities" for women than it does
for men. The Plaintiffs believe that the elimination of their team
would exacerbate this problem; accordingly, they have asked the
Court for a preliminary injunction requiring MSU to maintain its
varsity women's swimming and diving team for the duration of this
lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Order dated February 19,
2021, denying their motion to strike and motion for preliminary
injunction.

The appellate case is captioned as Sophia Balow, et al. v. Michigan
State University, et al., Case No. 21-1183, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, February 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SOPHIA BALOW, AVA BOUTROUS, JULIA COFFMAN,
KYLIE GOIT, EMMA INCH, SHERIDAN PHALEN, MADELINE REILLY, OLIVIA
STARZOMSKI, SARAH ZOFCHAK, TAYLOR ARNOLD, and ELISE TURKE,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN PLC
          521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          E-mail: lbullock@newkirklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SAMUEL L. STANLEY, JR., and BILL
BEEKMAN are represented by:

          Ashley N. Higginson, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC
          1 Michigan Avenue, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 487-2070
          E-mail: higginson@millercanfield.com

MICHIGAN: D.R. IDEA Suit Seeks to Certify Eligible Student Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.R., as a minor through
parent and next friend Dawn Richardson, et al., v. Michigan
Department of Education, Genesee Intermediate School District and
Flint Community Schools, Case No. 2:16-cv-13694-AJT-APP (E.D.
Mich.,), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification of a
      stipulated class consisting of:

      "all present and future children, ages 3 through 26, who
      resided in the City of Flint on or after April 2014 up
      until December 31, 2018, or who were on the City of Flint
      Water Supply on or after April 2014 up until December 31,
      2018, or who were impacted by the Flint Water Crisis, and
      who require special education and related services
      pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
      Act (IDEA) and its federal implementing regulations,
      and/or 504 services pursuant to Section 504, as well as
      analogous provisions of Michigan state law (Eligible
      Students).

   2. appointing Gregory G. Little, Lindsay M. Heck, and Daniel
      S. Korobkin, as class counsel;

   3. preliminarily approving the class settlement;

   4. approving class notice as proposed; and

   5. scheduling a fairness hearing for a date and time not
      before March 22, 2021.

In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to
discharge their "Child Find" obligations to identify all children
with disabilities and provide comprehensive evaluations in all
areas of suspected disability; that Defendants have failed to
provide required special education and related services to
qualifying students with disabilities; that the Defendants have
further failed to apply necessary procedural safeguards in the
administration of disciplinary practices; and that they have
unfairly discriminated against students with disabilities who
qualify or who should be found to qualify for special education and
related services.

The Plaintiffs include A.K., as a minor through parent and next
friend, Angy Keelin, C.D.M., as a minor through parent and next
friend Crystal McCadden, C.M., as a minor through parent and next
friend Crystal McCadden, J.T., as a minor through parent and next
friend Nakiya Wakes, N.S., as a minor through parent and next
friend Nakiya Wakes, J.W., as a minor through parent and next
friend Kathy Wright, C.D., as a minor through parent and next
friend Twanda Davis, D.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, M.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, O.N., as a minor through parent and next friend
Manita Davis, D.T. as a minor through parent and next friend Manita
Davis, D.D. as a minor through parent and next friend Chandrika
Walker, C.W. as minor through parent and next friend Chandrinka
Walker, J.B. as a minor through parent and next friend Jeree Brown,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons.

The Michigan Department of Education is a state agency of Michigan,
in the United States. The MDE oversees public school districts in
the state. The department is governed by the State Board of
Education. Genesee Intermediate School District is an Intermediate
School District in Michigan serving the school districts that
primarily lie within Genesee County.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kznb3i
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Kristin L. Totten, Esq.
          ACLU FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6800
          E-mail: dkorobkin@aclumich.org
          ktotten@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Gregory G. Little, Esq.
          David G. Sciarra, Esq.
          Jessica A. Levin, Esq.
          Education Law Center
          60 Park Place, Suite 300
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 624-1815
          E-mail: glittle@edlawcenter.org
                  dsciarra@edlawcenter.org
                  jlevin@edlawcenter.org

MILLER & MILONE: Mumin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
AYANA MUMIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLER & MILONE, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01553-GBD (S.D.N.Y., February 22, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant deprived her of her rights
by sending her a misleading collection letter in an effort to
collect an alleged debt, which arises from personal medical
services rendered to her. The letter dated May 14, 2020, which was
the initial written communication that the Plaintiff has received
from the Defendant concerning the alleged debt, claims that the
Plaintiff owes $1,639.24. However, the Plaintiff did not owe the
Claimed Amount at the time the alleged debt was assigned or
otherwise transferred to the Defendant for collection, and at the
time the Defendant sent the letter to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Defendant allegedly misrepresented the legal status of the debt
as a collectible, when it was not, and its allegation that the
Plaintiff owed the Claimed Amount is a false representation and
deceptive means made in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.

Miller & Milone, P.C. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Tel: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 282-7878
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


MINDGEEK HOLDING: Susman Godfrey Files Child Pornography Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey LLP filed a proposed class action against PornHub
parent company MindGeek on February 19, 2021 alleging MindGeek has
violated federal sex trafficking and child pornography laws by
knowingly posting, enabling the posting of and profiting from
thousands of pornographic videos featuring persons under the age of
18.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Jane Doe and similarly situated
individuals, states that MindGeek chose to prioritize profits over
the safety and welfare of children around the world, refusing to
institute an age verification policy. The complaint includes public
Reddit posts by Pornhub's Senior Community Manager stating that age
verification would be a "disaster," claiming it to be costly and
that it would result in 50 percent reduction in traffic.

Jane Doe states that she contacted PornHub in March 2020 after
learning that the website allowed videos of her at age 16 to be
uploaded to the site, without her knowledge or consent. While
PornHub ultimately removed the videos, it warned her that it could
not guarantee the videos would not be uploaded again.

"This lawsuit aims to hold MindGeek responsible for the abhorrent
and illegal business tactics that it continues to employ across
PornHub and its other websites," said Krysta Kauble Pachman. "Over
the years, MindGeek has repeatedly prioritized profit over the
safety and welfare of minors. These individuals are victims of sex
trafficking and child pornography, they want to see an end to these
harmful practices, and they deserve to be compensated for the
damage MindGeek has caused."

If you are an individual who was under the age of 18 when you
appeared in a video or image that was later made available for
viewing on any website owned by MindGeek (including PornHub,
RedTube or YouPorn) in the last 10 years and are interested in
learning more about this lawsuit, please contact Krysta Kauble
Pachman at KPachman@SusmanGodfrey.com.

The Susman Godfrey team is led by partners Arun Subramanian, Krysta
Kauble Pachman and Davida Brook. Pollock Cohen LLP is serving as
co-counsel.

The case, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, is Jane Doe v. MindGeek
USA Incorporated et al.

                      About Susman Godfrey

Susman Godfrey is a nationwide law firm of more than 130 trial
lawyers. We handle high-stakes litigation in a broad range of
practice areas and industries, for both plaintiffs and defendants.
We are creative in finding the fee arrangement—contingent, flat,
hourly, or hybrid—that best suits a client's case. With a
relentless focus on winning at trial, Susman Godfrey has been
ranked by Vault as the #1 litigation boutique in America for 10
consecutive years. Visit susmangodfrey.com to learn more about our
unique approach to winning cases.

Contact:
Krysta Kauble Pachman
KPachman@susmangodfrey.com
(310) 789-3118 [GN]


MIRBEAU OF SKANEATELES: Hedges Says Website Inaccessible to Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Hedges, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Mirbeau of
Skaneateles L.P., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00949 (S.D. N.Y.,
October 7, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Mirbeau of Skaneateles owns, operates and manages Crosby Street
Hotel located in Skanaeteles, New York. Its website
https://www.mirbeau.com/skaneateles gives access to their hotels'
reservation system by way of offering a link on their website.
Hedges is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
             jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ray C. Turnage, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RAY C. TURNAGE, REVEREND D.
FRANKLIN BROWNE, DENNIS D. HENDERSON, CARLOS WILSON, FRED BURNS,
CHARLES BARTLEY, CLARENCE MAGEE, LINDA PATRICK-CRAFTON, BARBARA
YOUNG, JUANITA J. GRIGGS, CHERNISE SEAPHUS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. SAM BRITTON, Mississippi
Public Service Commissioner; CECIL BROWN, Mississippi Public
Service Commissioner; BRANDON PRESLEY; and MISSISSIPPI POWER
COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-CV-818, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

This class action seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief
and monetary damages based on the facts that (1) the Mississippi
Public Service Commission (MPSC) allowed Mississippi Power Company
(MPC) to include in its rate base preconstruction and construction
costs (CWIP) for the Kemper project; (2) by allowing MPC to add
CWIP to its rate base, the MPSC has allowed MPC to recover its
preconstruction and construction financing costs for the Kemper
Project, prior to placing the Kemper plaint in service.
Furthermore, MPC underpaid of statutory interest on the $357
million increased electrical rates collected pursuant to MPSC Final
Order dated March 5, 2013.

This suit was brought to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1332
(d)(2) (Class Action Fairness Act) 1343(3) and the common law of
the State of Mississippi on behalf of the MPC's 186,000 consumers
who paid increased rates for MPC electricity from April 2013 to
July 20, 2015, and who received their court-ordered refunds ending
with the last batch of check printed and mailed on December 4,
2015.

The Plaintiffs seek to review the Court's Orders dated March 27,
2020 and May 26, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss;
Court's Order dated January 22, 2021, denying Plaintiff's motion to
vacate final judgment and motion for leave to file second amended
class action complaint; and Court's Judgment dated November 10,
2020, denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct and motion for
reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned as Turnage v. Britton, Case No.
21-60130, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
February 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Ray C. Turnage, Reverend D. Franklin Browne,
Dennis D. Henderson, Carlos Wilson, Fred Burns, Charles Bartley,
Clarence Magee, Linda Patrick-Crafton, Barbara Young, Juanita J.
Griggs, and Chernise Seaphus, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Mount Carmel Baptist Church; Pinebelt
Community Services, Incorporated; Hall-Fairley Mortuary; and
Deborah Delgado are represented by:

          Ellis Turnage, Esq.
          TURNAGE LAW OFFICE
          108 N. Pearman Avenue, P.O. Box 216
          Cleveland, MS 38732
          Telephone: (662) 843-2811
          E-mail: eturnage@etlawms.com  

Defendant-Appellee Sam Britton, Mississippi Public Service
Commissioner; Cecil Brown, Mississippi Public Service Commissioner;
Brandon Presley; and Mississippi Power Company are represented by:

          Justin Lee Matheny, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          550 High Street
          Walter Sillers Building
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 359-3825
          E-mail: jmath@ago.state.ms.us

               - and -

          Jonathan Paul Dyal, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM, L.L.P.
          1310 25th Avenue
          Gulfport, MS 39501
          Telephone: (228) 214-0406
          E-mail: jdyal@balch.com  

               - and -

          Jason Brent Tompkins, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM, L.L.P.
          1901 6th Avenue, N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-8743
          E-mail: jtompkins@balch.com

MORNINGSTAR INC: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Morningstar, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00936, (S.D. N.Y., February 3, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Morningstar, Inc. is a financial services company that owns and
operates the website, www.morningstar.com, that allows the ability
to browse investment management services for purchase, view a help
center, and obtain contact information. Sanchez is legally blind
and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOUNTAIN VIEW: Double Damages Judgment in Gates Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGO GATES & others v. MOUNTAIN VIEW MHC, LLC, &
another, Case No. 19-P-966 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court of
Massachusetts affirmed the judgment of the Housing Court judge
imposing double damages against Mountain View and Morgan
Management, LLC for willful and knowing violations of c. 93A.

Mountain View, the owner of Mountain View Manufactured Home Park, a
manufactured housing community in Ludlow, commenced summary process
proceedings in the Housing Court to evict several tenants of the
park for nonpayment of rent, including a cumulative three-year
retroactive rent increase.  The tenants asserted in class action
counterclaims that the rent increases were illegal and invalid, and
that the actions of Mountain View and the manager of the park,
Morgan, in implementing the increases amounted to unfair or
deceptive trade practices in violation of G. L. c. 93A.

The Housing Court judge agreed with the tenants and imposed double
damages against Mountain View and Morgan ("Appellants") for willful
and knowing violations of c. 93A.  On appeal, the Appellants argue
primarily that because the rent increase was approved by the Ludlow
Rent Control Board and the tenants did not timely seek judicial
review of the board's approval, the tenants' attacks on the
increases are procedurally barred.  Morgan also denies
responsibility for the violations.

First, the Housing Court judge dismissed as untimely the tenants'
third-party complaint for judicial review of the board's decision
of February 4, 2010, approving the rent increase.  Nonetheless, the
judge granted the tenants' request for relief under G. L. c. 231A
and declared that the board's approval, and Mountain View's
implementation, of a retroactive rent increase, and of a rent
increase that included the cost of upgrading the park's sewer
system, were unlawful.  The Appellants assert that because the
increases were authorized by the board, and the tenants did not
timely seek judicial review of the board's authorization, the judge
abused her discretion in granting declaratory relief.

The Appeals Court notes that the normal course of administrative
review requires a timely appeal to the Superior Court under G. L.
c. 30A, Section 14.  Absent special circumstances, an action for a
declaratory judgment cannot be used as a substitute for timely
appeal under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14.  The judge determined that
the procedural history and substantive determination in the case
establish 'special circumstances of public import,' citing Swansea
v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 43 Mass.App.Ct. 402, 406
(1997), which cry out for declaratory relief."

The Appeals Court agree.  It notes that the decision of the board,
inadequate on its face, has evaded all administrative and judicial
review.  These circumstances are sufficient to warrant the unusual
relief that may and should be provided by proceedings for a
declaratory judgment, notwithstanding the expiration of the
limitations period.  The judge acted within her discretion in
granting declaratory relief.

Second, regarding res judicata and collateral estoppel, the Appeals
Court points out that it is implicit in its discussion that the
tenants' failure to file an appeal from the board's ruling on
Mountain View's petition for a rent increase had no preclusive
effect with respect to the tenants' claims for declaratory relief.
In Swansea, parties that had failed to timely seek judicial review
of agency decisions adverse to them were nonetheless permitted to
obtain declaratory relief from those decisions.  Nor was the
board's decision res judicata as to the tenants' claims.  Simply
put, the board did not make any findings against the tenants that
Mountain View could assert against them in subsequent litigation.
Finally, even if the tenants had intervened in the board
proceedings, the doctrine of claim preclusion would not prevent
them from filing a subsequent suit under c. 93A.  The tenants
simply had no opportunity to litigate their c. 93A claims in
proceedings before the board.

Third, the Appeals Court holds that there is no merit to the
Appellants' claim that the tenants were required to exhaust
administrative remedies before asserting claims for declaratory
relief and violation of c. 93A in the Housing Court.  It says, the
exhaustion doctrine deprives a court of jurisdiction when
administrative proceedings have begun but have not yet been
completed.  In the case, the administrative proceedings were
complete; indeed, the Appellants themselves assert that the board
reached a final decision on Mountain View's petition for a rent
increase in February 2010, and that the tenants are too late to
challenge the administrative proceedings.

Fourth, the Appeals Court rejects the Appellants' contention that
the judge in the present Housing Court matter engaged in improper
appellate review of the Superior Court "decision."  It finds that
the tenants cannot be faulted for failing to appeal from the
agreement for judgment that Mountain View and the board filed in
the Superior Court to settle the case.  The tenants were not
parties to that case8 and therefore had no right to appeal.  To the
extent it has any binding effect whatsoever on the tenants or the
Housing Court judge, the Court holds that the agreement for
judgment entered in the mandamus case established only that
Mountain View had the board's approval to implement a retroactive
rent increase.  It did not adjudicate the legality of the rent
increases under G. L. c. 140, Section 32J; G. L. c. 186, Section
12; or 940 Code Mass. Regs. Section 10.03 (1996), and it did not
give Mountain View carte blanche to impose the increases in a
manner that violated those provisions.

Fifth, the Appellants are not entitled to the protection of G. L.
c. 93A, Section 3, which exempts transactions or actions otherwise
permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or
officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth or of
the United States, the Appeals Court holds.  The act and bylaws
governing the board do not provide such authority.  Morgan's
reliance on the board's decision to persist in its efforts to
implement the patently illegal rent increases and to resist any
efforts to settle was not objectively reasonable.  In any event,
the award of multiple damages was warranted on the basis of
Morgan's willful and knowing conduct, which was a separate and
independent basis to impose double damages under Section 9 (3).

Finally, the Appeals Court allowed the tenants' request for
attorney's fees in connection with the appeal.  The tenants may
submit, within 15 days of the issuance of the rescript in the case,
a petition for fees, together with supporting documentation, as
discussed in Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).  The
Appellants will have 15 days thereafter to respond.

Based on the foregoing, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yubvmeaf from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Player's Painkiller Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the NFL failed,
for now, to shake off proposed class action claims by Hall of Famer
Richard Dent and other retired players over the alleged
distribution of drugs to keep them on the field, after the Northern
District of California ruled that the league hasn't shown federal
labor law bars the claims.

The league unsuccessfully argued the Labor Management Relations Act
preempts the players' claims that the NFL voluntarily assumed a
duty to ensure proper record keeping, administration, and
distribution of medications, the court said, denying its motion to
dismiss.

But the league isn't foreclosed from raising the issue again after
the parties have gone to discovery or a trial, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California said Feb. 19.

The court's ruling was on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which ordered the lower court to consider
whether those "voluntary undertaking" claims were preempted.

The federal law preempts state law claims based on rights created
by collective bargaining agreements and claims "substantially
dependent on analysis" of a CBA. The proper administration and
distribution of medications isn't a subject the CBA explicitly
covers, Judge William Alsup said.

The players therefore have a chance to prove their voluntary
undertaking claim without reference to the CBA, such as through
voluntary programs the NFL allegedly imposed on the individual
clubs, the court said.

It will then be necessary to compare each alleged voluntary
undertaking against the CBAs to determine "the extent to which
interpretations of the CBAs are intertwined with the voluntary
programs," the court said.

In addition to Dent -- a former Chicago Bears defensive star -- the
lead plaintiffs are ex-quarterback Jim McMahon, who won Super Bowls
with the Bears and the Green Bay Packers, former Pro Bowler
Marcellus Wiley, and a half-dozen other retired football pros.

The trial court initially dismissed the case in 2014, finding it
preempted by the LMRA.

The Ninth Circuit reinstated it in 2018, saying the LMRA didn't bar
claims over the NFL's handling of controlled substances because the
league's collective bargaining agreements with its players didn't
cover that subject.

The trial judge then tossed the suit again, ruling that the league
itself wasn't sufficiently involved in the prescribing practices to
face liability.

The Ninth Circuit again partly reversed, reinstating the voluntary
undertaking claims but dismissing claims that the league had a duty
due to a "special relationship" with the players or that it was
negligent per se absent a showing that the league -- as opposed to
the individual teams -- provided direct medical care and
treatment.

Silverman Thompson Slutkin White LLC, and Robbins Geller Rudman
Dowd LLP represent the players. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP represent the NFL.

The case is Dent v. Nat'l Football League, N.D. Cal., No. 14-02324,
2/19/21. [GN]


NATIONAL MILK: Settlement Reached in Milk Conspiracy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $220 million settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit brought against National Milk Producers Federation,
Agri-Mark, Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., and Land O'Lakes,
Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The lawsuit claimed that an
effort known as Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) operated a Herd
Retirement Program that was a conspiracy to reduce milk output that
violated the law. The Defendants deny doing anything wrong. The
Court has not decided who is right.

On April 27, 2020, the Court granted final approval of this $220
million class action settlement and issued a Final Judgment. The
settlement is no longer subject to appeal because the period for
appeals has passed. On April 27, 2020 the Court approved a Plan of
Distribution and set a deadline of April 23, 2021 for claims to be
postmarked or received by the Administrator.

The Court decided that the Class includes all persons and entities
in the United States that purchased butter and/or cheese directly
from one or more Members of Defendant, Cooperatives Working
Together and/or their subsidiaries, during the period from December
6, 2008 to July 31, 2013 who did not timely opt-out of the Class.
Those that are included are called "Class Members." To be eligible
for a payment, a Class Member must have purchased butter or cheese
made by a CWT Member. Class Members who are consumers must have
purchased butter or cheese made by a CWT Member at one of the dairy
co-op stores. Go to the website for a list of CWT Members along
with their store names and locations. The Settlement does not
include Milk purchases.

The settlement provides that payments to Class Members will be
allocated: 37% to the Butter Sub-Class, and 63% to the Cheese
Sub-Class. Total payments will be $220 million plus interest,
minus: attorneys' fees and expenses; payments to the Named
Plaintiffs; notice and administration costs; and taxes.

Class Members who would like to claim purchases of butter and/or
cheese made from Defendants must complete and submit the Submitted
Documented Claim Form with proof of their purchases. Class Members
who do not have documentation to show their butter and/or cheese
purchases can complete the Undocumented Claim Form. Both claim
forms can be found online at www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com.

Claim Forms must be signed and verified by the claimant or a person
authorized to act on behalf of the claimant and must be postmarked
no later than April 23, 2021. Claim Forms should be addressed to:
Butter and Cheese Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 4290,
Portland, OR 97208-4290. Do not send Claim Forms to the Court or to
any of the parties or their counsel. Complete only one Claim Form
covering all qualifying purchases. Do not submit more than one
claim, and do not submit duplicate claims.

Detailed information and copies of the relevant Court documents are
available at www.ButterandCheeseClassAction.com and toll-free at
1-855-804-8574. [GN]


NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Bokor Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG BOKOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION a/k/a THE
NCAA, THE AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE f/k/a THE BIG EAST
CONFERENCE, THE ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, and THE UNIVERSITY OF
PITTSBURGH, Case No. 2:21-cv-00211-NBF (W.D. Pa., Feb. 13, 2021) is
a class action complaint against the Defendants to obtain redress
for all persons injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard for
the health and safety of Pittsburgh student athletes.

The Plaintiff is a former college football player seeking to
represent a class of other similarly situated student-athletes
(Players) who suffered concussive and sub-concussive head injuries
while participating in football games and practices at the
University of Pittsburgh.

The NCAA was created to protect the students that participate in
various college sports, including football. Despite its purpose,
the NCAA has allegedly failed to take reasonable actions to protect
Players from the chronic risks created by such injuries and
fraudulently concealed those risks from Players.

Approximately 100 years ago, medical studies first revealed that
athletes who endured repeated head contact risked long-term brain
damage. Numerous subsequent medical studies established that the
head trauma routinely inflicted in football games can cause
neurocognitive decline, permanent mental disability and death.

NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes
from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.

The University of Pittsburgh is a state-related public research
university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Steven Berman, Esq.
          Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: wsberman@napolilaw.com
                  hunter@napolilaw.com
                  sbadala@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW, P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-0007
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Delsardo Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DELSARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION a/k/a THE
NCAA, THE AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE f/k/a THE BIG EAST
CONFERENCE, THE ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, and THE UNIVERSITY OF
PITTSBURGH, Case No. 2:21-cv-00213-MJH (W.D. Pa., Feb. 12, 2021) is
a class action complaint against the Defendants to obtain redress
for all persons injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard for
the health and safety of Pittsburgh student athletes.

The Plaintiff is a former college football player seeking to
represent a class of other similarly situated student-athletes
(Players) who suffered concussive and sub-concussive head injuries
while participating in football games and practices at the
University of Pittsburgh.

The NCAA was created to protect the students that participate in
various college sports, including football. Despite its alleged
purpose, the NCAA has allegedly failed to take reasonable actions
to protect Players from the chronic risks created by such injuries
and fraudulently concealed those risks from Players.

Approximately 100 years ago, medical studies first revealed that
athletes who endured repeated head contact risked long-term brain
damage. Numerous subsequent medical studies established that the
head trauma routinely inflicted in football games can cause
neurocognitive decline, permanent mental disability and death.

NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes
from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.

The University of Pittsburgh is a state-related public research
university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Steven Berman, Esq.
          Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: wsberman@napolilaw.com
                  hunter@napolilaw.com
                  sbadala@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW, P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-0007
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

NELSON PARTNERS: Parziale Sues Over $75.5 Million of Trust Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA PARZIALE, as co-trustee of the Parziale Family Trust, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PATRICK NELSON; NELSON PARTNERS, LLC; NP SKYLOFT ST, LLC; NP
SKYLOFT JV, LLC; ACO SKYLOFT MANAGER, LLC; AXONIC CREDIT
OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND, LP; AXSPV LLC SERIES NB CRE LENDER;
AXSPV LLC SERIES SBL CRE LENDER; AXSPV LLC SERIES ACO CRE LENDER;
AXONIC CAPITAL, LLC; CLAYTON DEGIANCINTO; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01803 (C.D. Cal., February
25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of federal securities law and California securities law, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose material
information concerning the offering of beneficial interests in NP
SkyLoft, DST, a Delaware statutory trust, pursuant to a
Confidential Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) dated December 19,
2018 and the Supplement to the PPM dated March 2, 2019. The
Supplement failed to disclose that on February 26, 2019, the Axonic
Preferred Equity Providers were admitted as special members into NP
Skyloft JV, LLC, which is the managing member of the Trustee of the
Trust, and thus had management control over the Trust pursuant to a
Limited Liability Agreement. As a result, Axonic Preferred Equity
Providers have the ability to take control of the Trustee and Trust
and force the sale of the Trust Property in their sole and absolute
discretion, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and the Class have allegedly lost their entire
investment of $75.5 million in the Trust, resulting from the
exercise of the rights of certain of the Defendants that were
concealed from the investors in the offering of the interests.

NP Skyloft ST, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and a
trust signatory trustee.

NP Skyloft JV, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
managing member of a trustee.

NP Skyloft Equity, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
was an initial managing member of NP Skyloft JV, LLC.

Nelson Partners, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Orange County, California.

ACO Skyloft Manager LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
a managing member of NP Skyloft JV, LLC.

Axonic Credit Opportunities Master Fund, LP is a Cayman Island
limited partnership and is the managing member of ACO Skyloft
Manager LLC.

AxSPV LLC Series NB CRE Lender is a Delaware limited liability
company.

AxSPV LLC Series SBL CRE Lender is a Delaware limited liability
company.

AxSPV LLC Series ACO CRE Lender is a Delaware limited liability
company.

Axonic Capital LLC is a Delaware limited liability company which
manages and controls Axonic Preferred Equity Providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
         Ryan T. Hansen, Esq.
         BROWNLIE HANSEN LLP
         10920 Via Frontera, Suite 550
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 357-8001
         E-mail: Robert.Brownlie@brownliehansen.com
                 Ryan.Hansen@brownliehansen.com

NEW YORK & COMPANY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York & Company
Stores, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Young,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. New
York & Company Stores, Inc., a New York corporation; Does 1 to 10,
inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00344-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 25,
2021).

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

New York & Company, Inc. (NY&C) -- https://www.nyandcompany.com/ --
is an American workwear retailer for women. New York & Company
apparel and accessories are sold through a nationwide network of
retail stores, New York & Company Outlet Stores and through its
e-commerce site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Ruiz
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated January 15, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated January
15, 2021, classifying Rosa Ruiz as a member of the Plaintiff class
in this action, and holding that she is entitled to monetary and
injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries
she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the
Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-297, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, February 12, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Rosa Ruiz is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com  

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Court Issues Protective Order in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
signed the parties' Stipulated Protective Order in the lawsuit
titled IN RE NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-07143-JMF (S.D.N.Y.).

Disclosure and discovery activity in the Action may call for the
production or disclosure of trade secret or other proprietary or
confidential research, development or commercial information within
the meaning of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
other private or competitively sensitive information and/or
personally identifiable information for which protection from
public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
prosecuting and defending the Action is warranted. Accordingly, the
Parties stipulate to and ask the Court to enter the Stipulated
Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

District Judge Jesse M. Furman notes that the protections conferred
by the Order and the limitations on the use of information obtained
during the course of discovery in the matter as set forth in the
Order cover not only Discovery Material but also any information
copied or extracted therefrom, including all copies, excerpts,
summaries or compilations thereof, as well as any materials quoting
or disclosing Protected Material, including without limitation
briefs, memoranda, testimony, and conversations or presentations by
Parties or counsel in settings that might reveal Protected
Material.

The confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in
effect until the Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or
the Court orders otherwise.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

Subject to any other written agreement among or between Producing
Parties and/or Receiving Parties, a Receiving Party may access or
use Discovery Material disclosed or produced by a Producing Party
only in connection with the prosecution, defense, appeal or
attempted settlement of, or enforcement of insurance rights with
respect to, this Action. Except as required by law, Discovery
Material may not be used for any other purpose, including any
business or commercial purpose, contractual demands, any purpose
related to any other investigation or proceeding, or evaluation or
prosecution of any potential claims not asserted in the Second
Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.
Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of
persons and under the conditions described in this Order. Following
the termination of this Action, each Receiving Party must comply
with the provisions of of this Order.

In the event the Counsel for any Party determines to file or submit
in writing to the Clerk of Court's office or file on ECF any
Protected Material containing information satisfying any of the
five categories of "sensitive information" or six categories of
information requiring caution under the ECF Privacy Policy of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
or any papers containing or making reference to the substance of
such material or information, such documents or portions thereof
containing or making reference to such material or information will
be filed in redacted form or under seal in accordance with the
rules of the Court.

Filing under seal will be without prejudice to any Party's right to
argue to the Court that such document is not Confidential Material
or Highly Confidential Material and need not be preserved under
seal.

In the event that: (i) all Parties to the Action reach a settlement
resolving all of the then pending claims among them; or (ii) any
court enters an order resolving all of the then-pending claims
among the Parties, except as provided below, the provisions of this
Order restricting the use of Confidential and Highly Confidential
information will continue to be binding unless otherwise agreed or
ordered by the Court. Upon entry of final judgment either by reason
of settlement or Court order, each Receiving Party will undertake
commercially reasonable efforts to prevent anyone acting on its
behalf from accessing, reviewing, copying, summarizing or making
any other use of a Producing Party's Discovery Material, including
directing the Receiving Party's discovery vendor(s) to take data
offline or take other steps to prevent access to the Discovery
Material.

Except as provided by law or other regulatory authority or unless
otherwise ordered or agreed in writing by the Producing Party,
within 60 calendar days after the final termination of this Action,
including any appeals, each Receiving Party will undertake
commercially reasonable efforts to return to the Producing Party
all Protected Material or, at the option of the Receiving Party, to
destroy all Protected Material. With respect to Protected Material
stored in electronic form, the Receiving Party will erase such data
in conformity with the NIST 800-88 Purge standard or NSA/CSS Policy
Manual 9-12 (Dec. 15, 2014).

In order to claw back inadvertently produced Privileged Material,
the Producing Party must provide notice in writing to the Receiving
Party specifying the production number of the Discovery Material it
wishes to claw back and the basis of the claim that it is
Privileged Material.

The Stipulation binds the parties to treat as confidential the
documents so classified. The Court, however, has not reviewed the
documents referenced here; therefore, by so ordering this
Stipulation, the Court makes no finding as to whether the documents
are confidential. That finding will be made, if ever, upon a
document-by-document review pursuant to the procedures set forth in
the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and subject to the
presumption in favor of public access to "judicial documents."

A full-text copy of the Court's Protective Order dated Feb. 18,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/456kc32u from
Leagle.com.


NOVA HOME: Savinova, et al. File Bid for Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-MPS (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiff files a motion for conditional certification and
notice to potential Plaintiffs.

In the Plaintiffs' complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate
their live-in homecare employees in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act
("CMWA"). Consequently, these current and former employees are
entitled to unpaid hourly and overtime wages, statutory damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Nova Home is a provider of Home Health Care in Farmington Hills,
Michigan.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 19, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37WcT7X at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the putative collective, are:

          Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com

NUTRA MANUFACTURING: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Amavizca
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nutra Manufacturing, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RIGO AMAVIZCA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NUTRA MANUFACTURING, LLC; and INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01324-RGK-MAA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 3, 2020, the
lawsuit is a class action on behalf of all purchasers of any
products manufactured and distributed by the Defendants labeled to
contain Glucosamine Sulfate.

According to the complaint, in or around May 2019, the Plaintiff
purchased a bottle of "Glucosamine Sulfate 550" from the GNC
Atlantic Square storefront in Monterey Park, CA 91754. In March
2020, the Plaintiff's counsel sent some of the contents of the
bottle of "Glucosamine Sulfate 550" that the Plaintiff had
purchased, and some of which he had consumed, to a laboratory for
analysis. The lab's "Report of Analysis" concluded that the primary
composition of the capsules consisted of Glucosamine Hydrochloride
and Sodium Sulfate. The analysis found no trace of Glucosamine
Sulfate, contrary to the claims on the product label.

The Plaintiff and the class suffered damage and detriment as a
result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased "Glucosamine Sulfate 550," one of the
Defendants' Glucosamine Sulfate Products, because he believed it
contained Glucosamine Sulfate. Had the product label truthfully
disclosed that it did not contain Glucosamine Sulfate, the
Plaintiff would not have purchased the product.

The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Order dated January 27,
2021, granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Rigo Amavizca v. Nutra
Manufacturing, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-80009, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 12, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RIGO AMAVIZCA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9154
          E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 451-9631
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com   

Defendants-Petitioners NUTRA MANUFACTURING, LLC and INTERNATIONAL
VITAMIN CORPORATION are represented by:

          Jean-Claude Andre, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Jackson, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Telephone: (310) 576-2148  
          E-mail: jcandre@bclplaw.com
                  jjackson@bclplaw.com

PARSEC INC: Sailliez BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK SAILLIEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARSEC, INC., Case No. 2021 CH 000012,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois,
Twelfth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on February 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01118 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using the fingerprints of the Plaintiff and the Class without
providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing
data retention policies.

Parsec, Inc. is a transportation company based in Cincinnati, Ohio.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
         Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
         Jonathan B. Cifonelli, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 787-4949
         Facsimile: (312) 787-4995
         E-mail: Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com
                 Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
                 Jonathan.Cifonelli@jacksonlewis.com

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: A.W. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as A. W. by and through her Next Friend B.W.
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C., Case No. 2016-CV26057 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for Western District of Missouri on Feb. 25,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00119-DGK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Pediatrix Medical Group, a MEDNAX company --
http://info.pediatrix.com/-- offers accredited continuing
education resources for physicians and advanced practice providers
across a variety of specialties.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gavin Reinke, Esq.
          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 881-7000
          Email: gavin.reinke@alston.com
                 kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          James R. Jarrow
          BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
          Phone: (816) 471-2121
          Fax: (816) 472-0288
          Email: jarrow@bscr-law.com


PREMIUM RETAIL: Underpays Merchandisers, Lemm Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ALLEN LEMM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00171 (W.D. Mich., February 22, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt
Merchandiser in Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania from approximately
October 2008 to October 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not properly pay him
and other similarly situated employees for their travel time
between multiple jobsites during the workday. The Defendant
compensated them only for work performed from the time they arrived
and left each jobsite. The uncompensated drive time is integral and
indispensable to the Plaintiff and other Merchandisers' main job
duties. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful policy and
practice of not counting their Merchandisers' travel time as part
of their total hours worked, the Defendant deprived them of their
lawfully earned wages, including overtime premium for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Merchandisers, the Plaintiff seeks back pay damages, including
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours payments and
unpaid wages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest and
liquidated damages to the fullest extent permitted under the law,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees to the fullest
extent permitted under the law, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

Premium Retail Services, Inc. is a retail solutions company that
provides retail merchandising, strategy, and support to companies
nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 North Main St., Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Tel: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

                - and –

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4620
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net


PROVIDENCE RESTAURANT: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Providence Restaurant
Partners LLC. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo v. Providence
Restaurant Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01305-MWF-JPR
(C.D. Calif., Feb. 12, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PSC COMMUNITY: Ex-Workers' Bid to Intervene in 1199SEIU Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,
Petitioner v. PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents, Case No.
20-cv-3611 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order:

   -- denying the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene;
   -- denying the motions to dismiss or stay; and
   -- granting the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

The Petitioner, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, seeks to
confirm an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Section 185. The award, issued on April 17, 2020, was rendered
pursuant to collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between the
Union and each of the Respondents, a group of home care agencies,
and it potentially affects more than 100,000 current and former
home care employees represented by the Union.

Two groups of parties, former employees of respondents
Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program ("CPC")
and United Jewish Council of the East Side Human Attendant Service
("UJC") ("Proposed Intervenors") have filed motions to intervene
and dismiss or stay the petition. Non-party Gail Yan has also filed
a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

1199SEIU is a labor union, that serves as the sole and exclusive
representative for the Respondents' home health aide employees,
including for purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and
conditions of their employment. The Respondents are licensed home
care agencies. The Union is a party to a substantially similar CBA
with each of the Respondents. Each of the CBAs included a grievance
and arbitration procedure.

In 2014, the Union signed a Memorandum of Agreement with each of
the Respondents, that provided in relevant part: "Given changes in
federal and state law imposing new obligations on the Employer and
exposing Employers to significantly increased level of litigation,
it is in the interest of the Union, Employees, and the Employer to
develop an expeditious and effective alternative dispute resolution
procedure for the resolution of claims arising under such laws.
Accordingly, between the execution of this Agreement and December
1, 2014, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, the parties will
meet in good faith to negotiate such an alternative dispute
resolution procedure. If the parties are unable to agree to such a
procedure in the allotted time, the Employer may submit the dispute
to Martin F. Scheinman for final and binding arbitration."

In 2015, the Union signed a further Memorandum of Agreement ("2015
MOA") with each of the Respondents, that provided for the
resolution of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, and New York Labor Laws,
pursuant to an alternate dispute resolution process. The 2015 MOA
also required that before parties can proceed to resolve a
grievance alleging a violation of a "Covered Statute" through
arbitration, it must first be submitted for "mandatory mediation."
It also stated that the parties agree not to contest court
confirmation of an arbitration award rendered under the Article.

On January 2, 2019, the Union filed a class action grievance
against the Respondents on behalf of its home care "members
concerning violations of the CBAs regarding wage and hour claims
arising under the Covered Statutes." Pursuant to the 2015 MOA and
CBA, the Union and the Respondents proceeded to mediation before
Martin S. Scheinman, which concluded on December 24, 2019, without
an agreement having been reached. At the time the Union filed the
grievance, certain home care workers, including certain employees
who had terminated employment prior to the adoption of the 2015
MOA, had initiated putative class action lawsuits in state and
federal court to pursue claims under the "Covered Statutes"
directly against their employers. In cases involving eight former
home care workers, courts held that the plaintiffs could not be
compelled to arbitrate under the 2015 MOA. With the consent of the
Arbitrator, certain attorneys representing individual home care
employees, who were then plaintiffs in pending court cases, also
participated in the mediation.

On December 18, 2019, the Arbitrator held a telephone conference in
which the Union and certain Respondents participated. Arbitrator
Scheinman stated that he was inclined to deem the mediation
concluded and proceed to arbitration, and "the parties presented
their joint position on the importance of the Arbitrator
bifurcating the proceeding and finally deciding the gateway issues
of arbitrability and jurisdiction." The Arbitrator agreed to
establish a briefing schedule and hearing date on those issues.

On December 24, 2019, in addition to declaring the mediation
complete, Arbitrator Scheinman gave the parties leave to submit
briefs addressing two threshold issues:

   1. Are the claims encompassed by the wage and hour related
      grievances involving current and former 1199 bargaining
      unit members, including those arising under federal, state
      and local law, arbitrable?

   2. Does the Arbitrator have jurisdiction to adjudicate the
      claims asserted in the wage and hour grievances arising
      under federal, state and local law, filed by the parties to
      the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Agreement) which
      encompass all claims arising under the federal, state and
      local laws named in the Agreement, as well as any pending
      litigation or administrative actions on the identical
      claims, irrespective of whether employees' employment
      terminated prior to the effective date of the Memorandum of
      Agreement providing Arbitration Dispute Resolution for
      exclusive mediation/arbitration procedures for wage and
      hour disputes pursuant to the Agreement between the
      parties?

The Arbitrator held a hearing on January 15, 2020, and certain
attorneys representing individual home care employees that were
plaintiffs in pending court cases and who had participated in the
mediation, were given notice of the hearing and appeared. Following
the hearing and submission of briefs, the Arbitrator issued the
Award on April 17, 2020.

In relevant part, the Arbitrator determined that the wage and hour
related grievances involving current and former Union bargaining
unit members, including those under federal, state, and local law,
are arbitrable. In addition, the Arbitrator determined he had
"jurisdiction" to adjudicate the claims. However, he expressly
excluded from the Award eight employees, who were plaintiffs in
pending state cases: Alvaro Ramirez Guzman, Elida Augustina Mejia
Herrera, Leticia Panama Rivas, Boris Pustilnik, Maral Agarunova,
Epifania Hichez, Carmen Carrasco, and Seferina Acostta.

At both the oral argument held before Arbitrator Scheinman on
January 15, 2020, and in this proceeding, none of the Respondents
disputed the Arbitrator's conclusions regarding the jurisdiction
and arbitrability.

Three of the original seven Proposed Intervenors--Mei Kum Chu, Sau
King Chung, Qun Xiang Ling--are former employees of CPC, and have
been involved in state and federal court litigation against CPC.
Although the parties contest the scope and significance of these
prior actions for this petition to confirm the Award, the parties
appear to agree that the CPC-related litigation is pending, after
it had previously been stayed. The parties agree that Mei Kum Chu,
Sau King Chung, and Qun Xiang Ling were no longer members of the
union when the 2015 MOA took effect. The remaining Proposed
Intervenors--Epifania Hichez, Carmen Carrasco, Seferina Acosta, and
Dulce Herrera Palma, and an additional "new" Proposed Intervenor,
Maria Diaz--are former employees of UJC. Hichez, Carrasco, and
Acosta are named plaintiffs in pending state court litigation
against UJC.

The New York State Supreme Court denied UJC's motion to compel
arbitration, in a decision that was affirmed by the Appellate
Division, finding that the plaintiffs raised claims "outside the
CBA" and as former members of the Union, were not bound by the 2015
MOA's exclusive alternative dispute provision, citing Hichez v.
United Jewish Council of the E. Side, 117 N.Y.S.3d 214, 215 (App.
Div. 2020). Out of respect for this decision, the Arbitrator
concluded that these three plaintiffs were explicitly carved out of
the scope of the Award.

According to Union records, Proposed Intervenors Acosta, Carrasco,
and Dulce Herrera Palma were UJC employees and bargaining unit
members through 2016, and thus were both employees and Union
bargaining members when the 2015 MOA took effect. In addition,
according to the Union records, Diaz worked for various Respondents
between 2013 and October of 2020, and was a bargaining unit member
at the time the 2015 MOA took effect, when it was executed, and
when the Union filed its grievance in January 2019.

Motion to Intervene

The Proposed Intervenors--Mei Kum Chu, Sau King Chung, Qun Xiang
Ling, Epifania Hichez, Carmen Carrasco, Seferina Acosta, and Dulce
Herrera Palma-have filed a motion to intervene, and their counsel
subsequently filed a letter seeking to intervene on behalf of Maria
Diaz, a "new" intervenor who was a former employee of UJC. They
argue that they should be permitted to intervene because they wish
to pursue their claims in state court, and the Arbitrator's Award
addresses his jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims. Both the
Union and Respondents UJC and CPC have opposed these motions,
arguing that the Proposed Intervenors lack standing to challenge
the Award and do not satisfy the requirements for intervention
under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

District Judge John G. Koeltl notes that although employees "may
have standing to attack an arbitration award under section 301 of
the LMRA] upon a showing that the union breached its statutory duty
of fair representation, or upon a showing of fraud or deceit," or
that the union has "failed to act upon the award," the Proposed
Intervenors have not made such allegations, nor provided evidence
to suggest such conditions are met. Thus, the Proposed Intervenors
lack standing to challenge the Award.

The Proposed Intervenors also have failed to demonstrate that they
satisfy the requirements of Rule 24, Judge Koeltl finds. Because
each of the Proposed Intervenors have at minimum failed to
demonstrate that their interests would be impaired and are not
being adequately represented, their motions to intervene are
denied.

Judge Koeltl also opines, among other things, that the Union has
acted with diligence, and the Proposed Intervenors have provided no
evidence to suggest that the Union would not adequately represent
the Proposed Intervenors' claims against the Respondents. And, to
the degree that the Union later fails in its duty, the Proposed
Intervenors can bring an action alleging the Union has breached its
duty of fair representation.

Non-Party Gail Yan never filed a motion to intervene, and, beyond
her stated interest that she "wants" certain named plaintiffs in a
parallel suit "to continue representing" her claims against CPC,
she has not articulated any other interests that would be
cognizable under Rule 24, Judge Koeltl holds.

Therefore, the motions to intervene are denied.

Jurisdiction and Preclusion

The case is an action to confirm an arbitration award. "Section 301
of the LMRA provides federal courts with jurisdiction over
petitions brought to confirm labor arbitration awards."

Non-Party Yan has filed a "motion to dismiss the petition pursuant
to Rule 12(h)(3)," requesting the Court to find sua sponte that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Together with Non-Party Yan, the
Proposed Intervenors also argue in their motion to dismiss or stay
that the Award is not sufficiently final and ripe for judicial
review and that confirmation of the Award is barred by issue and
claim preclusion. In addition, Non-Party Yan has argued that this
Court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Judge Koeltl rules that all three arguments are without merit.
First, because it was the parties' intent for the Award to be final
regarding the two questions that were decided, and because it is
clear that the CBA allows the parties to submit any "issue or
issues in dispute" to the Arbitrator to decide, the Award is
sufficiently final to support the Court's jurisdiction.  Second,
contrary to the Proposed Intervenors' assertions, preclusion
doctrines are affirmative defenses and not jurisdictional bars.
Third, the Union was not a party in any of the state court suits
that the Proposed Intervenors have presented to the Court that they
argue barred the arbitration of claims of former union members
against their employers.

Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

The Petitioner has sought to confirm the Award, and the Respondents
have not opposed its confirmation.

In the case, the CBA required that grievances be arbitrated. The
subsequent 2015 MOA clarified that grievances relating to "Covered
Statutes" must be arbitrated. Thus, under both agreements there is
plainly an agreement to arbitrate. Under the CBA, arbitrations
occur pursuant to AAA Rules, including AAA Rule 3(a), which
delegates questions of jurisdiction and "arbitrability" to the
Arbitrator. Therefore, the Respondents and the Union (on behalf of
its employees) agreed to arbitrate and to delegate questions of
arbitrability and jurisdiction to the Arbitrator.

The Proposed Intervenors argue at length that the Arbitrator
exceeded his authority because certain Proposed Intervenors were no
longer employees at the time the 2015 MOA took effect, and
therefore they never consented to arbitrate their claims under the
Covered Statutes. In addition, the Proposed Intervenors argue that
the 2015 MOA cannot relate back to claims based on violations of
the Covered Statutes that occurred prior to the 2015 MOA.

However, Judge Koeltl opines, the Proposed Intervenors' arguments
confuse the question of consent to arbitration. The searching
review that the Proposed Intervenor encourages the Court to
undertake is not appropriate, because the parties to the
CBA--namely the Union and the Respondents--plainly agreed to
arbitrate grievances and to delegate such questions of
arbitrability to the Arbitrator.

Because the CBA and 2015 MOA evince a clear consent to arbitrate
and delegate questions of arbitrability to the Arbitrator, and
because the Arbitrator's Award is sufficient to survive the highly
deferential review appropriate for confirmation of LMRA arbitration
awards, the Award is confirmed.

Conclusion

The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties,
Proposed Intervenors, and Non-Party Yan. To the extent not
discussed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For
these reasons, the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene is
denied, the motions to dismiss by the Proposed Intervenors and
Non-Party Yan are denied, and the petition to confirm the Award is
granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. The
Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions and to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 18,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/sfj4r335 from
Leagle.com.


PUBLIC HOLDINGS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Public Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Public Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01696 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

Public Holdings, Inc. -- https://public.com/ -- designs and
develops software solutions. The Company offers social investing
application where members can own fractional shares of stocks and
exchange traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUICKRECRUIT LLC: Faces Lander Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA LANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUICKRECRUIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00301-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 19, 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 an automated text
message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (619) 602-XXXX
on or about December 21, 2020 in an attempt to promote its
services. The Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant his prior
express written consent to receive text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system, the suit adds.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and the Class Members have all suffered and will continue
to suffer harm and damages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks only damages
and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury.

Quickrecruit, LLC is a mortgage sourcing and recruiting firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com


QUICKSERVE ENTERPRISES: Faces De la Rosa Suit in Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quickserve
Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned as MARIA ISABEL DE LA ROSA
vs. QUICKSERVE ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. BCV-21-100317 (Calif.
Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 11, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.

A case management conference will be held on Aug. 16, 2021.

QuikServe owns and operates fast food restaurants.[BN]


REDCLIFFE MEDICAL: Faces Lazo Suit Over Leaf Masks Marketing Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA LAZO, BRUCE GOLDMAN, R. CHRISTOPHER DEBOER, BRYON MINER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons
v. REDCLIFFE MEDICAL DEVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-10336-SJM-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Feb. 15, 2021) is a class action complaint against
Redcliffe arising from its fraudulent marketing and advertising
which misrepresented the quality and characteristics of its Leaf
masks.

The Plaintiffs contend that Redcliffe sought to capitalize on the
human suffering caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Redcliffe
advertised and sold millions of dollars of its Leaf line of
facemasks to unsuspecting consumers. Redcliffe advertises the Leaf
masks as: (1) N95, N99, N100 rated transparent, self-cleaning,
air-quality sensing reusable masks, (2) FDA approved, and (3) made
in the USA. None of these things are true, the Plaintiffs allege.

Redcliffe's representations specifically meant to induce consumers
to purchase their masks to prevent the contraction and spread of
COVID-19. However, in reality, these masks fail to stop the spread
of COVID-19 -- risking the lives of all purchasers who rely on the
masks' effectiveness, says the complaint.

Redcliffe is located in Southfield, Missouri and is part of the
Medical Equipment & Supply Wholesalers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  eeh@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq.
          HAMMOUD DAKHLALLAH &
          ASSOCIATES PLLC
          6050 Greenfield, Ste 201
          Dearborn, MI 48126
          Telephone: (313) 551-3038
          E-mail: kd@hdalawgroup.com


RENEE GROUP: Soto-Aguilera Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SOTO-AGUILERA and REMBERTO GUIROLA RAMOS, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly-situated who consent to
representation v. SHELITHA RENEE ROBERTSON, JACQUELYN WHITE, and
THE RENEE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00619-WMR (N.D. Ga., Feb.
11, 2021) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), for violations of wage and overtime laws, and
retaliation.

From approximately May 2016 until January 2021, the Plaintiff
Remberto Guirola Ramos was employed by the Defendants as a laborer
installing water and sewer lines, digging ditches, excavating,
clearing land, laying concrete and asphalt, and removing and
installing fencing. The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim as a
collective action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
current or former similarly-situated laborers employed by the
Defendants.

A similarly-situated laborer means all persons working for the
Defendants, employed or previously employed, in a position of
laborer or otherwise installing water and sewer lines, digging
ditches, excavating, clearing land, laying concrete and asphalt,
and removing and installing fencing, who were misclassified as
independent contractors and/or worked hours in excess of 40 hours
per week, were not paid overtime wages, and who worked for the
Defendants at any time between February 9, 2018 to the present.

Renee Group is a construction company with experience in the water
& sewer utility industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq.
          THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1325 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 1506
          Suwanee, GA 30024
          Telephone: (678) 629-3246
          Facsimile: (678) 629-3247
          E-mail: kpr@reddylaw.net

REP PROCESSING: Conditional Status of Day Rate Inspectors Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REP
PROCESSING, LLC d/b/a RIMROCK ENERGY PARTNERS, Case No.
1:19-cv-02910-PAB-NYW (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order granting conditional certification of and authorizing
notice be sent to:

   "All current and former inspectors, staffed through Kestrel
   Field Services, Inc. who working for or on behalf of REP
   Processing, LLC d/b/a Rimrock Energy Partners and who were
   paid according to its day rate pay plan in the past three
   years (the "Day Rate Inspectors").

Mr. Robertson and the Day Rate Inspectors were staffed to Rimrock
through a third-party payroll and staffing company, Kestrel Field
Services, Inc. Rimrock has admitted that the intent of this
staffing relationship is to work around the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) by using workers like Robertson for specific projects.
Rimrock has admitted that Rimrock, not Kestrel, was responsible for
selecting, hiring and onboarding Robertson and the Day Rate
Inspectors. Rimrock set the day rates paid to each category of
inspector that Kestrel supplied.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the Day Rate Inspectors worked as
inspectors throughout the limitations period. Rimrock required them
to work well in excess of 40 hours per week. Nevertheless, Rimrock
pays a day rate with no weekly guarantee of days or hours worked
and improper and inconsistent overtime pay, he adds.

Rimrock is a company focused on the acquisition, development, and
management of midstream energy assets across multiple commodities
(crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids).

A copy of the Plaintiff's amended expedited motion for conditional
certification dated Feb. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3raq0dC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

               - and -

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

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moodys Sue for Stock Market Interference
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Moody and Julie Moody, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Citadel
Securities LLC and Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-00861, (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2021) seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, detrimental reliance, intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage and in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

Citadel is in the financial services industry and partners with
Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on its platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in American Airlines, AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Blackberry Ltd, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
Castor Maritime, Inc., Express, Inc., Koss Corporation, Naked Brand
Group, Nokia, Sundial Growers, Inc., Tootsie Roll Industries and
Trivago N.V. stocks began to rise, causing their stock prices to
increase. Until January 28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to
take positions in these securities, both buying and selling. Upon
information and belief, many Robinhood customers purchased these
stocks in reliance on the continued availability of the Robinhood
platform, allowing the customers to buy and sell when most
advantageous to do so. However, on January 28, 2021, after the rise
in GME gained widespread media coverage, Robinhood barred its
customers from buying these stocks. Robinhood has announced it will
allow limited transactions of these securities starting on January
29, 2021. This action artificially deflated the price of the
effected stocks, harming all investors who held the stock, to the
benefit of those holding short positions. Robinhood's and Citadel's
interference in free trade left customers and retail investors with
only two choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling
price, or hold, and risk losing their entire investment.

Plaintiffs used the Robinhood app to trade securities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
      Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
      Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
      ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
      32 Ann Street
      Charleston, SC 29403
      Tel: (843) 614-8888
      Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
             roy@akimlawfirm.com
             blake@akimlawfirm.com


ROBINHOOD GROUP: Kelley Sues Over Stock Market Interference
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kelley and Zackary Kelley, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Robinhood Financial, LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC, TD
Ameritrade, Inc. and E*Trade Financial Corp., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00093, (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2021) seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract, breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty
and for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Sherman Act.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based and aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

TD Ameritrade and E*Trade are brokerage firms and partners with
Robinhood to effectuate the trades made on its platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in GameStop Corp., AMC
Entertainment, Nokia and Express, Inc. stocks began to rise,
causing their stock prices to increase. Until January 28, 2021,
Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these securities,
both buying and selling. Upon information and belief, many
Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance on the
continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing the
customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so. However,
on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media
coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying these stocks.
Robinhood has announced it will allow limited transactions of these
securities starting on January 29, 2021. This action artificially
deflated the price of the effected stocks, harming all investors
who held the stock, to the benefit of those holding short
positions. Robinhood's, TD Ameritrade's and E*Trade's interference
in free trade left customers and retail investors with only two
choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or
hold, and risk losing their entire investment.

Kevin Kelley and Zackary Kelley used the Robinhood app to trade
securities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Will Crowder, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
      Tel: (501) 374-1058
      Fax: (501) 374-2222
      Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
             willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00939, (S.D. N.Y., February 3, 2021), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Robinhood Markets is a financial services company that owns and
operates the website, www.robinhood.com, that allows the ability to
browse investment management services for purchase, view a help
center, and obtain contact information. Sanchez is legally blind
and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL DUTCH: Nigerian Communities Can Sue Over Oil Spills
---------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Godfrey, writing for City A.M., reports that class action
lawsuits are becoming increasingly popular in the UK, and a
combination of the coronavirus, Brexit and previous
claimant-favourable outcomes will mean UK companies see more action
against them in the coming years.

Britain is part of something of a third wave of class action
lawsuit popularity.

The practice of collective claims started in the United States,
where it is still rife, then moved to Australia, where it became so
popular the Australian government is looking at ways to regulate
the sector. Class actions are now growing in popularity in
Britain.

According to Alan Watts, a partner at global law firm Herbert Smith
Freehills (HFS), class action lawsuits first gained popularity in
the UK after the financial crisis. The crisis encouraged the
creation of claimant law firms, he said, which spend their time
looking for cases to bring to court, opposed to cases to defend.

"When everyone was seeking to take action against the banks, your
traditional firms would be conflicted, because if they were acting
for the bank, they couldn't then sue them. So the claimant firms
had a natural in post-crisis, as they didn't have the conflicts,
and so they started building cases," he said.

Then the litigation funders moved in, said Watts, spotting a market
"ripe for exploitation". Class actions have since grown in their
abundance, with major firms like Amazon, Mastercard and Facebook
each dealing with groups actions in the last year.

In the UK litigation funding is where a third party with no prior
connection to the litigation agrees to finance all or part of the
legal costs of a claim, in return for a fee payable from the
proceeds recovered by the funded litigant.

Britain's problem
HSF partner Chris Bushell said mass-tort claims could compound an
already growing market, generating more action in the sector as
early as the next 12 months.

"If there's an English holding company you can sue them here in
relation to a horrible event that took place in another
jurisdiction," he said. "Vedanta and Shell have said that in
principle you can do that, so you can see a world where there might
be a number of similar claims that are issued."

In January 2020, a Dutch court ruled Shell must pay damages to four
Nigerian farmers for two oil spills back in 2008. The farmers had
complained the oil spill made their villages uninhabitable due to
the pollution.

The court found that the Nigerian subsidiary of Shell was liable
for the oil spills, and although Shell argued the leaks occurred as
a result of sabotage, and therefore was not fault, the court found
in favour of the farmers, and the oil giant faces a yet to be
determined bill.

The Dutch ruling paved the way for Britain's Supreme Court to rule
that Royal Dutch Shell can be sued in London's High Court. The
Supreme Court said around 50,000 people in two Nigerian communities
could bring a lawsuit against Shell and its Nigerian division Shell
Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria over the oil spills.

Before that, in 2015, a group of nearly 2,000 Zambian villagers
field a lawsuit against Vedanta Resources in a UK court over water
pollution caused by its subsidiary's copper mining operations.

The following year an English High Court judge ruled that a lawsuit
against Vedanta Resources could proceed in Britain. The ruling was
challenged and appealed, but ultimately the Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal and allowed the villagers to pursue their
claim in the UK.

The rulings could mean parent companies headquartered in the UK,
with subsidiaries - even third party subsidiaries - around the
world, could be liable when something goes wrong on another
continent.

Bushell said claimants liked the certainty and confidence that the
British legal system brings, adding: "Take the example of the Shell
case, bringing litigation in Nigeria is quite a risky and
unpredictable thing to do, but bringing a case in England means you
have confidence in the system.

"If you're a litigation funder, you're going to want to bring
proceedings in a jurisdiction where you think it's going to be
dealt with properly, rather than there being a risk of
corruption."

Covid claims
Class actions represent neither a David and Goliath tale, nor,
thanks to protections embedded in the UK's legal system, do they
mean companies face endless spurious claims.

The reality in Britain is more measured: "You've potentially got
access to justice for people who ordinarily wouldn't have had it,
and you'd hope that in terms of making the world a better place,
the larger institutions would take heed of that," said PCB
Litigation partner Natalie Todd, who is also a member of the London
Solicitors Litigation Association.

On the other hand, class actions are more 'cold hard business' than
'power to the people', said HFS's Watts.

"[The area] probably needs regulating . . . The involvement of the
funders means on a case that probably should succeed, the people
who are bringing the case are actually not going to get the kind of
compensation they deserve, because the funders are going to take a
large slice of anything that's recovered, and that's why they're
there - it's their business."

The pandemic and Brexit may also give rise to more class action
claims. PCB's Todd said Brexit had created logistical problems that
were shared by many companies trying to get goods in and out of the
UK, which could see companies banding together with a collective
claim.

Bushell said he found difficult to imagine what a Brexit claim
might look like, but with coronavirus, he could see people taking
action against employers who made them uncomfortable during the
crisis, or potentially exposed them unnecessarily to the virus.

The wheels are already in motion on at least one
coronavirus-related class action lawsuit. Former Arcadia employees
have vowed to take legal action against the retail empire and its
owner Philip Green.

Law firm Simpson Millar has been contacted by tens of ex-Arcadia
employees, and is in the early stages of an investigation to secure
what is known as a 'protective award' on their behalf, for the
company's failure to properly consult staff about mass
redundancies.

Ahead of class action lawsuits becoming more popular in the coming
years, HFS's Watts said UK companies should be "mindful" of the
risk of group actions.

"I think it's one of those risks that they need to be mindful of,
and they need to be more mindful depending upon where they
operate," he said. "Businesses make promises, and they need to be
making sure they're keeping those promises - and that's not a bad
thing.

"They just need to be mindful. Everyone, for example, is mindful of
data security. Before, businesses were worried they might be fined
by the Information Commissioner's Office, and now it could be
because someone brings a claim against them."

Read more: Mastercard loses £14bn class action ruling in UK
Supreme Court for overcharging 46m Brits

But business can breathe a small sigh of relief -- it is unlikely
class action lawsuits in the UK will become as popular is they are
in the US.

Boies Schiller Flexner managing partner Natasha Harrison explained:
"I don't foresee that we will shift wholesale to the US way of
doing things without a meaningful change to process.

"That's because the US style of litigation is what is called "opt
out", so a class is certified, and everyone is deemed to be
included in it. But in the UK you have a positive "opt in" system
which operates as a natural check and balance on turning into a
complete US style of litigation." [GN]


SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Durham, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. Sachs Electric Company, a Missouri corporation; McCarthy
Building Companies, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No.
5:18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on July 8, 2021 for an order:

   1. certifying the following classes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
      Rule 23 (a) and (b)(3):

      -- Class 1. Unpaid Wages Class (Security Time)

         "All non-exempt employees of or worked for Sachs
         Electric Company who worked on the construction of the
         California Flats Solar Project at any time within the
         period from July 25, 2014 through the date of class
         certification who were not paid for all time waiting in
         line to go through and going through the mandatory exit
         security process;"

      -- Class 2. Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Travel Time)

         "All non-exempt persons who were employees of or worked
         for Sachs Electric Company on the construction of the
         California Flats Solar Project at any time within the
         period from July 25, 2014 through the date of class
         certification who were not paid for all time traveling
         from the badging-in location at the security gate to
         when they began to be paid and from when they stopped
         being paid to when they arrived back at badging-out
         location at the security gate;"

      -- Class 3. Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel
         Time)

         "All non-exempt persons who were employees of or worked
         for Sachs Electric Company on the construction of the
         California Flats Solar Project at any time within the
         period from July 25, 2014 through the date of class
         certification who were not paid for all time traveling
         from the badging-in location at the security gate to
         when they began to be paid and from when they stopped
         being paid to when they arrived back at badging-out
         location 26 at the security gate;"

      -- Class 4. Termination Pay Class

         "All member of Class 1, 2, or 3 whose employment with
         Sachs Electric Company terminated within the period
         beginning July 25, 2015 to the date of class
         certification"

      -- Class 5. Wage Statement Class

         "All member of Class 1, 2, or 3 whose received wage
         statements from Sachs Electric Company during the
         period beginning July 25, 2017 to the date of class
         certification.

   2. Finding that the Plaintiff William Durham is an adequate
      representative and certifying him as the Class
      representative;

   3. Finding that the Plaintiff's counsel and their respective
      firms, Peter R. Dion-Kindem of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C.  
      and Lonnie C. Blanchard III of The Blanchard Law Group,  
      APC, are adequate class counsel and certifying them as  
      class counsel.

Sachs Electric is a national electrical contracting,
communications, instrumentation, and engineering company serving
the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37XdC95
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          5211 East Washington Blvd. No. 2262
          Commerce, CA 90040
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

SALT CREEK: Garrett Seeks to Recover Inspectors' Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
WINFREY GARRETT, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SALT CREEK MIDSTREAM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00011 (W.D. Tex., February 19, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately
September 2019 until December 2020 as a Welding Inspector.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant
did not pay him overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek
despite working 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was
only paid a flat daily rate for each day he worked regardless of
the total hours he worked in a workweek, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Day Rate
Inspectors, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to their
unpaid compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary and appropriate.

Salt Creek Midstream, LLC is a midstream oil and gas company that
provides services to its clients to assist with the gathering,
transmission, treating, processing, compression, and storage of
natural gas and crude oil. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Infantino Seeks FLSA Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY INFANTINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. SEALAND
CONTRACTORS CORP. and DANIEL BREE, individually, Case No.
6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and granting
      Plaintiffs leave to send notice to putative members;

   2. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of the Court's
      Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing
      the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home
      and mobile telephone numbers, all known email addresses,
      and dates of employment for:

      "all potential collective action members who worked for
      the Defendants in New York at any point from October 1,
      2017 to the present"; and

   3. permitting the Plaintiffs to send the proposed FLSA
      collective action notice to the putative collective
      members.

Sealand is a heavy highway and bridge contractor.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pZfLHnat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin R. Marino, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 939-7228
          Facsimile: (212) 531-6129

SECRET AARDVARK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Monegro Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECRET AARDVARK TRADING CO., LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01516-JPC (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2021) brings
this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.

The Plaintiff claims that during his visit to the Defendant's
Website, www.secretaardvark.com, on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in February 2021, he has encountered multiple access
barriers which denied him a shopping experience similar to that of
a sighted individual. The Defendant's Website lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred him form
being able to determine what specific products were offered for
sale, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because it failed to comply with the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him and
other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the
Website.

Secret Aardvark Trading Co., LLC is a hot sauces and marinades
company that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces Arpitkumar TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Arpitkumar v. Sequium
Asset Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00647-WMR (N.D. Ga., Feb.
12, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II.

Sequium Asset is a debt collection agency located in Marietta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Specialty
Food, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Southwest Specialty
Food, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01687-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

Southwest Specialty Food Inc. -- https://www.specialtyfood.com/ --
manufactures over 200 unique gourmet specialty items in Goodyear
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOVEREIGN OFFSHORE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sovereign Offshore
Services LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sovereign Offshore
Services LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01660 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021).

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

Sovereign Offshore Services, LLC, doing business as Banyan Hill
Publishing -- https://banyanhill.com/ -- operates as an asset
protection and investment organization. The Company publishes
financial information and market insights, as well as offers advice
on global investment strategies, establishment and operation of
offshore bank accounts, asset protection trusts, and foreign
residency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Can Compel Arbitration in Sheppard Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACEE SHEPPARD, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, LLC;
UPS MAIL INNOVATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 Through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05443-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Defendants' Motions to
Compel Arbitration for Plaintiff's Individual Claims One through
Five against Staffmark and UPSMI.

Defendant Staffmark is a staffing agency, which places workers at
temporary worksites around the United States, including California.
It made an offer of employment to Plaintiff Sheppard on Feb. 7,
2019.  The offer was contingent on the Plaintiff's completion of
Staffmark's conditional job offer ("CJO") packet, which included
the arbitration agreement.

The Arbitration Agreement was presented to the Plaintiff during the
electronic onboarding process.  The Plaintiff was allowed to
complete this process at her own pace.  To finish the onboarding
process, the Plaintiff had to create a personal password and review
and execute an E-Signature Acknowledgment Statement, which stated
that her e-signature had the same legal binding effect as if it
were a handwritten signature.

The Plaintiff accessed and electronically signed the Arbitration
Agreement during the onboarding process.  She completed the CJO
packet, including signing the Arbitration Agreement, by February 7.
On February 8, the Plaintiff went on-site to Staffmark to complete
the hiring process.  At that time, the Plaintiff was asked whether
she had any questions regarding the documents in the CJO packet,
including the Arbitration Agreement.  The Plaintiff said that she
did not.

In late February 2019, the Plaintiff was placed by Staffmark on a
temporary work assignment at UPSMI, a company which provides
domestic and international high-volume mailing services.  Her job
at UPSMI was a sorter, and her duties included removing mail from
the conveyer belt, hand sorting the mail based upon zip code, and
then placing the mail in the appropriate mail bag.  Although the
Plaintiff was staffed at other work locations while employed by
Staffmark, all of the Plaintiff's claims in the litigation arise
from her employment while she was assigned at UPSMI.

On March 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Staffmark and UPSMI in the Superior Court of California, with five
class action claims.  On June 1, 2020, she filed her First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") to add a representative cause of action under the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: 1) Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; 2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; 3)
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; 4) Failure to
Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; 5) Violation of
Business and Professions Code SectionSection 17200 ("Unfair
Practices"); and 6) Civil Penalties Under PAGA.

Staffmark argues that the Plaintiff's first five claims are
directly related to, and arise out of, her employment relationship
with Staffmark, and thus are subject to arbitration under the
Arbitration Agreement.  Staffmark's counsel has attempted to
correspond with the Plaintiff's counsel regarding arbitration.  The
Plaintiff's counsel has maintained that the Arbitration Agreement
is unenforceable and has refused to submit the claims to
arbitration.  Staffmark accordingly brings the action to compel
arbitration.

Motions to Compel Arbitration

First, Judge Freeman must determine whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate.  She finds that Staffmark has provided sufficient
evidence that the Plaintiff knowingly digitally signed the
arbitration agreement.  The Plaintiff does not contest the fact
that she willingly and knowingly signed the Arbitration Agreement.
Second, the Judge must determine whether the scope of the
Arbitration Agreement encompasses the employment claims at issue.
She finds that the Plaintiff's Claims One through Five fall clearly
under the Agreement's coverage.  The Plaintiff does not challenge
that the Agreement covers these Claims.  Rather, the Plaintiff
argues she is exempt from the provisions of the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA") under Section 1 as a transportation worker.  For these
reasons, Judge Freeman finds that an arbitration agreement exists
between Staffmark and the Plaintiff, and it encompasses the
employment issues in dispute in the Plaintiff's Claims One through
Five.

The Judge now considers whether the Plaintiff qualifies as a
transportation worker under Section 1 of the FAA.  The Plaintiff
argues that transportation workers, including postal workers such
as herself, are exempt from the provisions of the FAA under Section
1.  Staffmark argues that the Section 1 transportation worker
exemption does not apply because the Plaintiff's duties at UPSMI do
not qualify her as a transportation worker under current case law.
It also argues that the Arbitration Agreement should be enforced as
to UPSMI such that the Plaintiff must also be ordered to arbitrate
her Claims One through Five against UPSMI.

Judge Freeman agrees with Staffmark that the Plaintiff does not
qualify as a transportation worker under Section 1 such that she is
exempt from the FAA.  First, she holds that the fact that the
Plaintiff may have been working for an employer in the
transportation industry does not determine her eligibility for the
FAA Section 1 exemption given her lack of connection to the actual
delivery drivers.  Second, she finds that the Plaintiff's claims
against Staffmark are all based on her placement at UPSMI.  The
Plaintiff relies on the same set of facts in her FAC to support her
allegations against both Staffmark and UPSMI.

Hence, the Plaintiff's claims against UPSMI are so "intimately
founded in and intertwined with" her employment relationship with
Staffmark that they should also be governed by the Arbitration
Agreement.

Motion to Stay

First, Staffmark requests that the Court stays the entire action
until the completion of arbitration.  Judge Freeman in her
discretion instead dismisses the Plaintiff's individual and class
action Claims One through Five.  She finds that the Plaintiff's
class claims should be dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff and
dismissed without prejudice as to the putative class member.

Since she has dismissed the Plaintiff's arbitrable claims, and the
state law PAGA claim is all that remains of her lawsuit, in the
interest of judicial efficiency and fairness, the Judge declines to
extend supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA claim and instead
remands the PAGA claim to state court where it was originally
filed.  In lights of these factors, Judge Freeman also declines
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining PAGA claim under 28
U.S.C Section 1367(c)(3) and remands the PAGA claim to state court
where it was originally filed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted the Defendants'
Motions to Compel Arbitration for Plaintiff's individual Claims One
through Five against Staffmark and UPSMI, and those claims are
dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiff's class claims are
dismissed with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and dismissed without
prejudice as to the putative class members.  The PAGA claim is
remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The Clerk will
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mp7veb4 from Leagle.com.


SUGAR CREEK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Cordell Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SARA CORDELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUGAR CREEK PACKING CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00755-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 22,
2021) challenges the Defendant's unlawful policies and practices
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Overtime and
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
worker for approximately two years until late 2020 or early 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated workers
regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek. However, the
Defendant failed to pay their lawfully earned overtime compensation
at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA and
Ohio law. Allegeldy, the Defendant refused to compensate them for
the pre-shift compensable work they performed which took up to
approximately 15 minutes per shift. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to make, keep, and preserve records of all hours worked by their
employees, including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective and class
action seeking all available relief under the FLSA and Ohio laws.

Sugar Creek Packing Co. manufactures food products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 824-5770
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: 330-470-4428
          Fax: 330-754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Faces Velasquez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR VELASQUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive; Case No. 1:21-cv-00194-AWI-EPG (E.D. Calif., Feb. 15,
2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages,
failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to provide required meal
and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in California as a
non-exempt employee.

The Defendant Sun-Maid Growers of California is a California
corporation operating a raisin and dried fruit processing
plant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


SUNMARK CREDIT: Faces DADM Kidz Personal Injury Suit in N.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunmark Credit Union.
The case is captioned as DADM KIDZ CUTS II, LLC v. Sunmark Credit
Union, Case No. 1:21-cv-00178-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

The nature of the suit states Banks and Banking allegedly causing
Personal Injury. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Glenn
T. Suddaby.

Sunmark is a full-service, community chartered credit union serving
the New York through Financial services, education and
empowerment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces Scott Suit in Florida Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synchrony Financial.
The case is captioned as ELIZABETH SCOTT v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL,
Case No. 16-2021-CA-000916-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir., Duval Cty., Feb. 12,
2021).

Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Ste. 1950
          Miami, FL 33131-3298
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          Facsimile: (786) 351-8709
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Budde Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Budde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE
INCORPORATED; BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; CORTEVA INCORPORATED; BASF
CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; CHS INCORPORATED; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS,
INC.; GROWMARK, INCORPORATED; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INCORPORATED;
TENKOZ INC.; and FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-2095 (D. Kan., Feb. 19, 2021) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a scheme to defraud in which they deprived farmers of a
free and open market and artificially increased the price of Crop
Inputs, such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides,
herbicides, and insecticides, by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy
to boycott electronic platforms, like Farmers Business Network,
which sought to bring price transparency, increased information
about Crop Inputs, and increased competition to the market. From
this scheme to defraud, the Defendants have caused millions of
dollars of damages in supra-competitive prices, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Defendants dominate all levels of the Crop Input market.
Through a coordinated enterprise in which they all participated,
either directly or indirectly, Defendants have established a
secretive supply-chain process using authorized licenses,
commissions, rebates, and incentives to keep Crop Input prices
inflated at supra-competitive levels and deny farmers access to
relevant market information. This opaque Crop Input market prevents
farmers from comparison shopping, making better-informed purchasing
decisions, and discovering deceptive seed relabeling practices, the
suit contends.

Syngenta Corporation provides crop protection products. The Company
offers seed care products, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides,
seed treatments, plant activators, growth regulator, and
rodenticides. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com

               -and-

          Isaac Diel, Esq.
          Greg Bentz, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: idiel@midwest-law.com
                  gbentz@midwest-law.com


TATE & LYLE: Technicians Seek Overtime for Pre-shift Work
---------------------------------------------------------
Shadrick McCroskey and William Powers, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tate & Lyle
Ingredients Americas LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00634, (N.D.
Ill., February 3, 2021), seeks an award of unpaid wages and
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tate & Lyle Ingredients produces and supplies ingredients such as
corn syrup, food starch, ethanol, animal feed, stabilizers,
thickeners, adhesives, and gums for food, beverage and other
industries.

McCroskey and Powers worked for Tate & Lyle as Process Technicians
at its Loudon, Tennessee manufacturing plant. Both claim to have
rendered pre-shift work but were not compensated for the time doing
so.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, 17th Floor
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Phone: (248) 355-0300
      Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
             kstoops@sommerspc.com
             rjohnston@sommerspc.com


TAURUS GROUP: Harman Sues Over Pistol's Defective Slide
-------------------------------------------------------
Rita Harman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.
and Taurus Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-20451, (S.D.
Fla., February 2, 2021), alleges violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, strict
liability, breach of express warranties, breach of implied
warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent
inducement, suppression, negligent failure to disclose, failure to
warn, concealment, misrepresentation; and seeks damages and
declaratory relief.

Taurus Manufacturing and Taurus Holdings conducts its business in
Florida. Taurus Holdings is the one hundred percent stockholder of
Taurus Manufacturing and both were in the business of
manufacturing, selling, and distributing firearms.

Harman owns a Model PT 738 TCP Pistol which was designed,
manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, warranted, distributed,
and sold by Taurus. She claims that her husband, Chris Harman, was
firing said pistol at the local firing range when the pistol's
slide broke in half, sending fragments of the slide into his eye
and face. He suffered facial bone fractures and a detached retina
requiring a cornea transplant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Weintraub, Esq.
     Nicole L. Ballante, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
     360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Tel: (727) 894-6745
     Email: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com
            nballante@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     David L. Selby, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
     3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
     Birmingham, AL 35244
     Tel.: (205) 988-9253
     Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     John W. Barrett, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: (304) 345-6555
     Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     Matthew G. Garmon, Esq.
     Todd Wheeles, Esq.
     MORRIS HAYNES
     3500 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 100
     Birmingham, AL 35243
     Tel: (205) 672-4744
     Email: mgarmon@mhhlaw.net


TEK COLLECT: Taluy Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek Collect
Incorporated. The case is styled as Marie Taluy, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Tek Collect
Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-01656-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25,
2021).

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

TekCollect Inc. -- http://www.tekcollect.com/-- provides
comprehensive accounts receivable management, collections, and
customer retention solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Avenue, Apt. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (877) 827-3395
          Fax: (877) 827-3394
          Email: benkap232@aol.com


THE KROGER: Faces Kibler Suit Over Failure to Pay Supervisors' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY KIBLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation;
DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY MARKET, a Kansas
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00509-KMT
(D. Colo., February 22, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Overtime and
Minimum Pay Standards Order by failing to pay to Supervisors'
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a pick-up
Supervisor at one of its King Soopers locations in Colorado from in
or around May 2020 to in or around September 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified
the Plaintiff and many other Supervisors as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite they virtually always
work more than 40 hours per workweek and routinely work more than
55 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay them for all the
hours they worked, including overtime premiums as required by the
FLSA. Moreover, the Defendants failed to track and record the time
their employees spent working, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all employees who were employed
by the Defendants in Colorado at any time in the last 3 years, and
who were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked, or at
an appropriate rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek or 12 in a workday. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from
the Defendants all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, Defendants' share of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment
insurance, pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
permitted by law, any other required employment taxes, attorneys'
fees, costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

The Kroger Company owns and operates over 100 King Soopers and City
Market grocery stores. Dillon Companies, LLC is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Kroger. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEWIS | KUHN | SWAN PC
          620 North Tejon St., Suite 101
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Tel: (719) 694-3000
          Fax: (866) 515-8628
          E-mail: plewis@lks.law
                  aswan@lks.law


TORAY ADVANCED: Rodriguez-Lopez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORAY ADVANCED COMPOSITES, INC.
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV376477
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., February 25, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
nonexempt employee, from approximately June 2020 to approximately
August 2020.

Toray Advanced Composites, Inc. is a supplier to the aerospace
industry, with its principal place of business located in
Fairfield, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265—1021

TOYOTA MOTOR: Hendricks Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BONNIE HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00263, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on
February 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00161-ALM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment
by manufacturing and selling vehicles with defective hybrid braking
systems.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the
United States, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
         MINNILLO & JENKINS Co., LPA
         2712 Observatory Avenue
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 723-1600
         Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
         E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

                  - and –

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

TRADE IDEAS: Faces Monegro Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADE IDEAS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01518 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA and the
regulations implementing the ADA. The Plaintiff cannot use a
computer without the assistance of screen-reading software.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited
the Defendant's Website, www.tradeideas.com, on multiple occasions,
the last occurring in February 2021, in an attempt to make a
purchase. Allegedly, the Defendant's Website lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff
from being able to determine what specific products were offered
for sale.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because it failed to comply with the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him and
other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the
Website.

Trade Ideas LLC is a stock trading company that owns and operates
the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Chuenga M. Hakeem v. Transdev
Services Inc. et al., Case No. RG20083377, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Feb. 11, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.3:21-cv-01077-JSC to the
proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Transdev provides passenger transportation services. The Company
operates and manages transportation networks such as bus, commuter
rail, and light rail in cities on a contract basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney Marisa Miller, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Nassir Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  cmiller@lelawfirm.com
                  jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com

               - and-

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
          Jing Tong, Esq.
          GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
          4014 Long Beach Boulevard, Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (213) 452-0510
          Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
          E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
                  jtong@gleasonfavarote.com

TRICIDA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that
purchasers of Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA) securities between
September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until March 8, 2021 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Tricida class action lawsuit, Pardi v. Tricida,
Inc., No. 21-cv-00076 (N.D. Cal.), which is assigned to Judge Lucy
H. Koh.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Tricida securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Tricida class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Tricida class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Tricida class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Tricida class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Tricida class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the Tricida class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal
of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Tricida class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 8,
2021.

Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a
non-absorbed, orally-administered polymer designed as a potential
treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic kidney
disease ("CKD"). Tricida has completed a Phase 3, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial of veverimer in patients with CKD and
metabolic acidosis. On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it
had submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program
for approval of veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis
in patients with CKD.

The Tricida class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially
deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA
would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result,
Tricida's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that,
on July 14, 2020, Tricida received a notification from the FDA,
stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of Tricida's NDA
for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments
at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he notification does not
specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA." On this news,
Tricida's stock price fell more than 40%.

Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that Tricida "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." On this
news, Tricida's stock price fell an additional 47% - further
damaging investors.

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

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


TRISTAR BECHNUT: Ghauri Seeks Store Clerks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BILAL AHMAD GHAURI, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TRISTAR BECHNUT, INC., TRISTAR HOMESTEAD, INC.,
TRI-STAR CHANNEL VIEW, INC., TRI-STAR KATY, INC., E.N.T., INC.,
MEHDI DHUKKA, SHEZAD KAPADIA, and SUMAIYA KAPADIA, Defendants, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00563 (S.D. Tex., February 22, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful policy and practice of not paying
their employees' overtime pay in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a store clerk at
their business establishment during November 2019 and November
2020.

Although the Plaintiff worked seven days a week and in excess of an
average of 60 hours a week, the Defendants refused to pay him
overtime wages he earned during any workweek of his employment at
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. Additionally, the
Defendants failed to provide contemporaneous, complete and accurate
records of the number of hours and wages of their employees, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of
the Defendants seeking for an amount of back-pay equaling the total
unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs, along
with post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law.

The Corporate Defendants jointly operate a handful of gasoline
stations and convenience stores. The Individual Defendants are the
owners, directors, and officers of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Syed N. Izfar, Esq.
          11111 Katy Freeway, #1010
          Houston, TX 77079
          Tel: (713) 467-0786
          Fax: (713) 467-2424
          E-mail: syedizfar@sbcglobal.net


TURBO DRILL: Kennedy Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Turbo Drill Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00349, (S.D. Tex., February 2, 2021),
seeks to recover back pay, employee benefits and attorney's fees
under the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN
Act).

Nicholas Kennedy is a former employee of Turbo Drill Industries who
was terminated as a result of a plant closing or mass layoff
ordered by the company on or about July 13, 2020. He claims that
employees were not provided with advance written notice of the
plant closing or mass layoff as required by the Worker Adjustment
Retraining and Notification Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Centre
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1063
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      Email: me@law.com
             curt@mooreandassociates.net


TYSON FOODS: Guo Slams Share Drop from COVID-Related Shutdowns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mingxue Guo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Noel White, Dean Banks
and Stewart Glendinning, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00552, (E.D.
N.Y., February 2, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tyson is a producer of processed chicken, beef, pork and
protein-based products. Tyson shares trade on the New York Stock
Exchange market under the ticker symbol "TSN."

Tyson allegedly failed to disclose that it did not have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities from
COVID-19 and as a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the
coronavirus within the facilities thus causing a negative impact to
its production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities
resulting in financial harm related to its lowered production.

On this news, the price of Tyson shares fell $1.78 per share, or
2.5%, to close at $68.25 per share on December 15, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors, including Guo.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10116
      Phone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


UBER SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Pay, Perks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan McLeod, writing for TechCentral, reports that a group of
human rights lawyers has launched a class-action lawsuit against
Uber South Africa, seeking to support the company's thousands of
local drivers.

Johannesburg-based Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys, assisted by London
law firm Leigh Day, said on Feb. 23 that they are preparing the
class-action suit, which will be filed in the labour court in
Johannesburg against Uber BV in the Netherlands and Uber South
Africa on behalf of the drivers.

"The claim will be based on the drivers' entitlement to rights as
employees under South African legislation and will seek
compensation for unpaid overtime and holiday pay," the lawyers said
in a statement. Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys and Leigh Day achieved
the first two settlements in the silicosis litigation on behalf of
gold miners in South Africa.

"The Uber claim follows a decision by the UK supreme court on
Friday, 19 February that Uber drivers should be legally classified
as workers rather than independent contractors, and as such are
entitled to similar benefits," the statement said. Leigh Day
represented the UK Uber drivers in the case in which the lower
courts, including the English court of appeal, also ruled in favour
of the drivers.

They added that South African legislation relating to employment
status and rights -- the Labour Relations Act and the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act -- is very similar to UK employment
law. Furthermore, Uber operates a similar system in South Africa,
with drivers using an app, which the UK supreme court concluded
resulted in drivers' work being "tightly defined and controlled" by
Uber.

'They work for Uber'
"In the UK case, the key issue was whether drivers contract with
passengers using Uber as an agent, or alternatively that drivers
are working for Uber. The conclusion of the supreme court was that
they work for Uber. Even though Uber's lawyers had drafted
agreements giving the impression that Uber were merely agents, the
court ruled that the true position was that under employment
legislation, Uber has control over the way in which drivers deliver
their services."

They said that Uber drivers in South Africa tend to be full time on
the Uber platform and their work for Uber is equivalent to
full-time employment, and not just a way of earning supplementary
income.

"This, along with the fact that the Competition Commission found
that after deductions, some drivers earn less than the minimum
wage, means that Uber drivers in South Africa work incredibly long
hours just to make ends meet. The supreme court recognised similar
difficulties faced by drivers in the UK case by stating that in
practice, the only way in which drivers could increase their
earnings was by working longer hours while constantly meeting
Uber's measures of performance."

Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys said: "Uber's argument
that it is just an app does not hold water when its behaviour is
that of an employer. The current model exploits drivers: They are
effectively employees but do not benefit from the associated
protections. We are issuing a call to workers to stand up for their
rights and join the class action against Uber."

In response to the news of the planned lawsuit, Uber South Africa
told TechCentral via e-mail that the "vast majority of drivers who
use the Uber app say they want to work independently".

"We've already made significant changes to our app to ensure we
support this, including through partner injury protection, new
safety features, and access to quality and affordable private
healthcare cover for drivers and their families, voluntarily," a
company spokeswoman said.

"We continue to do as much as possible to enhance the earnings
potential of drivers, and leverage innovative offerings like fuel
rewards, vehicle maintenance and other special offers to help
them.

"At a time when we need more jobs, not fewer, we believe Uber and
other platforms can be a bridge to a sustainable economic recovery.
Uber has already produced thousands of sustainable economic
opportunities. This is testament to the appeal of the Uber business
model, which provides drivers with an independent status while
allowing them to develop and expand their businesses following
their needs and time schedules as well as their business skills and
plans, and pursue any economic activities of their choice."

Uber did not respond to a question about how it intends dealing
legally with the planned class-action lawsuit. [GN]


UCLA HEALTH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a UCLA
HEALTH, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01095-SK (N.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

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

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition 1 of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

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

The Defendant offers the Website to the public. The Website offers
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services which the Defendant offers in connection with its physical
locations. The goods and services offered by Defendant's Website
include a health library which provides content for subjects such
as tests and procedures, drug interaction checker, the brain and
nervous system, cancer, children's health, heart disease, nutrition
and wellness, pregnancy and newborns, orthopedics, and women's
health; a video library which provides content for subjects such as
cancer, the cardiovascular system, chiropractic care, cosmetic
surgery, gastrointestinal care, general healthcare, neurological
care, obstetrics, gynecology, ears, nose, and throat; hospital
locations; medical office locations; and clinic locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNILEVER UNITED: Arroyo Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IRIS ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., and
CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a/ UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No.
2:21-cv-00302, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01113 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
contract/common law warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud,
and unjust enrichment by failing to disclose to the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated consumers about the risks and dangers
of using TRESemme Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and TRESemme
Keratin Smooth Color Shampoo.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
is a manufacturer of personal care products, with its principal
place of business in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
         SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
         Land Title Building
         100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1910
         Philadelphia, PA 19110
         Telephone: (267) 328-5245
         Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
         E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Harper T. Segui, Esq.
         Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 harper@whitfieldbryson.com
                 caroline@whitfieldbryson.com

                 - and –

         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         747 Chestnut Ridge Road
         Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
         Telephone: (845) 356-257
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                 ggraifman@kgglaw.com

UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Independent Plaintiffs Cleveland Square, LLC, et al. filed an
appeal from the Federal Circuit's Opinion and Order dated August
12, 2020, and Judgment dated August 13, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, ET AL., FOR
THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No.
1:09-cv-00103-CFL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The origins of the dispute underlying this case concern land in the
state of Washington that was converted into a recreational train
pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails System Act
Amendments of 1983. The Plaintiffs filed suit over a decade ago,
alleging that the conversion constituted a taking of their property
without just compensation. The court certified an initial class of
over 500 members, which was subsequently split into six subclasses.
In 2012, the court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment,
finding "the government liable to certain class members within
Subclass Two and Categories A through D of Subclass Four" while
also granting "the government summary judgment as to class
claimants in Subclass Four, Category E."

The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class
regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same
grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court
heal a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle,
Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On
January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and
entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement
approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of
whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs
beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement
itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its
approval of the settlement agreement from any determination
regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement.

On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed
this court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but
declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees
and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not
previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate
issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or
groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of
motions practice in which the government sought to compel the
production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the
government individually responded to each of the fee motions on
June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART,
Husband and Wife, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs; CLEVELAND SQUARE, LLC,
RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN CHAMBERS, DENNIS
J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o David and Debra Deblois,
STAR L. EVANS, MICHAEL B. JACOBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B.
LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI
ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M.
SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA
H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB,
PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1681, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, February 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Cleveland Square, LLC; RC TC Meridian Ridge
LLC; TWOSONS LLC; Gretchen Chambers, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Guy Roger Chambers; Dennis J.
Crispin, as Trustee of that Certain Declaration of Trust dated
September 17, 1980; DeBlois Properties LLC; Star L. Evans; Michael
B. and Molly A. Jacobsen; Frances Jane Lee; Susan B. Long; Claudia
Mansfield, individually, and as Power of Attorney for C.A.
Mansfield; Frederick P. and Susan L. Miller; Leslie Milstein; PBI
Enterprises LLC; Michael G. and Elana Russell; James M. and Kelly
J. Sather; James E. and Patricia Strang; Alison L. Webb; and D.
Michael and Julia H. Young are represented by:

          Mary Crego Peterson, Esq.
          HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-1745
          Facsimile: (206) 623-7789
          E-mail: mary.peterson@hcmp.com

UNITED STATES: E.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Dismiss Doe FERSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and JANE
DOE 1, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 20-1947
(E.D. Pa.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum:

   -- denying the Government's Motion to Dismiss; and

   -- ruling that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously
      is granted without prejudice to the right of the parties to
      seek modification of the accompanying order at a later
      stage of the proceedings.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1, claim, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, that their employer, the United
States, violated the Federal Employees' Retirement Systems Act of
1986 ("FERSA"), 5 U.S.C. Sections 8351 and 8401, et seq., by
failing to adequately compensate them for lost earnings during the
federal government shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 25,
2019. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that when they received
backpay on January 31, 2019, they were not compensated for the
Government's failure to make timely contributions to the Thrift
Savings Plan ("TSP")--a defined contribution plan created by FERSA,
which appreciated in value during the Shutdown.

Congress passed FERSA in an effort to offer federal employees a
savings and tax benefit similar to what many private sector
employers offered their employees under 401(k) plans. Specifically,
FERSA created the Thrift Savings Plan ('TSP'), a defined
contribution plan for federal employees. Since its creation over
thirty years ago, the TSP has become the largest retirement plan in
the country, managing more than $500 billion in retirement assets.
The assets of the TSP are held in trust in individual employee
accounts within the Thrift Savings Fund.

Eligible federal employees are automatically entitled to receive a
contribution to their TSP accounts by their employing federal
agency equal to 1% of their salary. Federal employees may also make
elective contributions to their TSP accounts which are deducted
from their paychecks. For all elective deductions up to 5% of the
employee's salary, the United States "matches" 50% to 100% of the
contribution ("matching contributions"). Under the FERSA, Congress
required that employing agencies (i.e., the United States) make all
TSP contributions for the benefit of its employees no later than 12
days after the end of each pay period. "Pay period" refers to the
bi-weekly compensation schedule for federal employees.

The Plaintiffs are Investigative Specialists for the Federal Bureau
of Investigations ("FBI") who worked without paychecks or TSP
contributions during the Shutdown from December 22, 2018, to
January 25, 2019. During the 34-day Shutdown the value of TSP
investment funds increased considerably, across the board. In
particular, the most popular TSP investment funds increased over
10% in the short period of time. Upon funding of the federal
agencies, the Plaintiffs and all TSP participants were entitled to
receive their backpay and be made whole.

The Plaintiffs allege that this backpay should have included their
salary plus lost TSP earnings as a result of not receiving their
contributions in accordance with Section 8432(c) of FERSA. However,
when they received their backpay on January 31, 2019, the
Plaintiffs and other Class members were not compensated for the
United States' failure to make timely TSP contributions. They
estimate that the Class suffered millions in lost earnings as a
result of the United States' untimely TSP contributions in
violation of Section 8432(c) of the FERSA.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert one claim: violation of 5
U.S.C. Section 8432(c) based on the Government's failure to make
TSP contributions for the December 23, 2018, through January 5,
2019 pay period within 12 days of the end of the period--by January
17, 2019. The Plaintiffs seek an award for lost earnings, including
lost earnings for future gains not realized, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

The Government filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 21, 2020. The
Plaintiffs responded on October 5, 2020. The Government replied on
October 22, 2020.

On November 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed
Anonymously. The Government responded on December 8, 2020. The
Plaintiffs replied on January 13, 2021.

Motion to Proceed Anonymously

The Plaintiffs work covertly as Investigative Specialists and are
not permitted to publicly affiliate with the FBI. They filed under
seal a Motion to Proceed Anonymously and attached declarations in
which they disclosed their identities to the Court and the
Government. In response, the Government states that it does not
oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion," but requests that the Court impose
certain limitations and caveats in granting the Motion.
Specifically, the Government requests that (1) the Court grants the
Motion without prejudice to any party's right to later seek
modification; (2) discovery is conducted using the Plaintiffs' real
names; and (3) any potential trial is conducted using the
Plaintiffs' real names.

District Judge Jan E. DuBois opines that five of the six factors
that counsel in favor of anonymity support the Plaintiffs' Motion.
As an initial matter, factors one, two and three--the extent to
which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential, the
bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and
the substantiality of these bases, and the magnitude of the public
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigant's
identity--clearly support anonymity. Thus, the Court concludes that
factors one, two, three and six counsel in favor of the Plaintiffs'
Motion.

Factor four--whether, because of the purely legal nature of the
issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public
interest in knowing the litigant's identities--also supports
anonymity. Thus, the Plaintiffs' identities are not essential, or
even particularly relevant, to the resolution of the issues
presented in this case.

The Government argues, however, that the disclosure of the
Plaintiffs' identities will be critical for purposes of class
certification, as putative class members must assess whether the
representatives adequately represent them and whether they wish to
participate in the action.

The Court agrees that the fact-sensitive questions of adequacy and
typicality, for example, may require the Plaintiffs to disclose
more information about their identities as putative class members.
However, it need not address the issue at this stage of the
litigation. The parties may seek modification of the accompanying
order if necessary in connection with class certification. Thus,
the Court determines that the issue of class certification does not
affect the predominantly legal nature of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Factor four, therefore, also supports anonymity.

The Government argues that, of the three factors that counsel
against anonymity, the second--the public interest in the subject
matter of the litigation--weighs against anonymity. The Court
determines that the other two factors are not applicable to the
case and, thus, evaluates only the public interest factor.

The Government contends that the public interest in the
litigation's subject matter is "heightened because the defendant is
the federal government and the source of alleged damages is the
public fisc." In their Reply, however, the Plaintiffs point out
that this public interest is not outweighed by the national
security interests at stake. They also cite a number of other
employment suits initiated by FBI employees, who were allowed to
proceed anonymously for similar reasons.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the public interest in
the nature of this case does not overcome the competing public
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the Plaintiffs'
identities, or any of the other factors, which counsel in favor of
anonymity. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Proceed Anonymously, subject to conditions.

The Government proposes three limitations to any order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously.

First, the Government requests that any order granting the Motion
be without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek
modification of the order at a later stage of the proceedings,
which would amount to a conditional grant of anonymity. The
Plaintiffs do not oppose this condition. Accordingly, the Motion is
granted without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek
modification of the order at a later stage of the proceedings.

Second, the Government requests that any non-public discovery be
conducted using the Plaintiffs' real names. The Plaintiffs state
that they are willing to participate in discovery using their real
names so long as their identities remain anonymous to the public.
In view of this agreement, the Court grants the Motion on condition
that the Plaintiffs' real names may be used, as necessary, in
non-public discovery. The parties will negotiate any implementation
of this condition in good faith.
Third, the Government argues that any potential trial should be
conducted using the Plaintiffs' real names on the ground that there
is a strong presumption against confidentiality in court
proceedings. In response, the Plaintiffs state that any ruling
governing trial procedures and the disclosure of their identities
at trial would be premature at this juncture. The Court agrees with
the Plaintiffs on this issue. In light of the Court's decision to
grant the Motion without prejudice to the right of the parties to
seek modification of the order at a later stage of the proceedings,
the Court declines to rule on the Government's request with respect
to trial procedures at this point in the litigation. In the event
that the case proceeds to trial and the Government deems public
disclosure of the Plaintiffs' identities necessary, the Government
may seek modification of the accompanying order.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously is
granted without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek
modification of the order at a later stage of the proceedings.

Motion to Dismiss

The Government moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and
failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided by FERSA
regulations. Specifically, the Government argues that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction because FERSA does not waive
sovereign immunity to permit the specific claim that the Plaintiffs
purport to bring against the United States.  Additionally, the
Government contends that the Plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable
claim under FERSA.

In its Memorandum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
properly alleged subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that
Sections 8432(c)(1)(A) and 8432(c)(2)(A) unambiguously provide
employees benefits--automatic and matching contributions no later
than 12 days after the end of the pay period--which are recoverable
under the express Section 8477(e)(3)(C)(i) sovereign immunity
waiver.

Given the focus of Sections 8432(c)(1)(A) and 8432(c)(2)(A) and the
rights-creating language in both provisions, the Court determines
that the Plaintiffs have properly alleged the existence of a
personal right to automatic and matching contributions within 12
days of the end of a pay period.

The Court has already resolved the issue of personal rights in
favor of the Plaintiffs, and it resolves the private remedies
question in the same way. At this stage in the litigation, the
Court declines to separate the 12-day requirement of Sections
8432(c)(1)(A) and 8432(c)(2)(A) from the substantive rights created
by those provisions in order to effectuate the Government's
interpretation. The Court, thus, concludes that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that Section 8477(e)(3)(C)(i) provides a
private remedy to enforce the personal rights provided by Sections
8432(c)(1)(A) and 8432(c)(2)(A) in their entirety.

Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, the Plaintiffs' claim that
their remedy is provided under Section 8477(e)(3)(C)(i), not
Section 8432a or its regulations, is sufficient to survive the
Government's Motion to Dismiss.

The Government further argues there is an inconsistency between the
Plaintiffs' claim--that they were entitled to backpay in the full
amount of their owed salary, plus TSP earnings that would have
accrued had the Government made contributions no later than 12 days
after the end of the pay period--and GEFTA's direction that
agencies distribute such backpay at the earliest date possible.

The Court finds no such inconsistency. By asserting that whether
FERSA obligates the government to make TSP contributions differs
significantly from their timing, the Government repeats arguments
previously made in its Motion and rejected in this Memorandum.  

Finally, the Government contends that the Court must dismiss the
Complaint because it fails to allege that the Plaintiffs exhausted
their mandatory administrative remedies before filing suit. Judge
DuBois holds that this argument is easily rejected on the ground
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their lost
earnings were not caused by agency "error."

In response, the Plaintiffs repeat their allegation that their lost
earnings did not result from agency error and, therefore, the
exhaustion requirement provided by Section 1605.16(d)(4) does not
apply.

The Court determines that the Section 1605.16 procedures apply only
to the correction of agency errors, and that the Plaintiffs have
properly alleged that they were not bound by the exhaustion
requirement. Accordingly, that part of the Government's Motion
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is denied.

For these reasons, the Government's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
The Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously is granted without
prejudice to the right of the parties to seek modification of the
order at a later stage of the proceedings. An appropriate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 18, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/n527jp8p from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Haggart Brings Appeal to C.A.F.C.
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DANIEL HAGGART, et al. filed an appeal from the Federal
Circuit's Opinion and Order dated August 12, 2020, and Judgment
dated August 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled DANIEL
HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, ET AL., FOR THEMSELVES AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:09-cv-00103-CFL,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The origins of the dispute underlying this case concern land in the
state of Washington that was converted into a recreational train
pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails System Act
Amendments of 1983. The Plaintiffs filed suit over a decade ago,
alleging that the conversion constituted a taking of their property
without just compensation. The court certified an initial class of
over 500 members, which was subsequently split into six subclasses.
In 2012, the court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment,
finding "the government liable to certain class members within
Subclass Two and Categories A through D of Subclass Four" while
also granting "the government summary judgment as to class
claimants in Subclass Four, Category E."

The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class
regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same
grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court
heal a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle,
Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On
January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and
entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement
approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of
whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs
beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement
itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its
approval of the settlement agreement from any determination
regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement.

On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed
this court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but
declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees
and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not
previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate
issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or
groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of
motions practice in which the government sought to compel the
production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the
government individually responded to each of the fee motions on
June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART,
Husband and Wife, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs; CLEVELAND SQUARE, LLC,
RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN CHAMBERS, DENNIS
J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o David and Debra Deblois,
STAR L. EVANS, MICHAEL B. JACOBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B.
LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI
ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M.
SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA
H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB,
PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1684, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, February 23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 9, 2021;

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 9, 2021;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on March 25, 2021; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on April 26, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL HAGGART and KATHY HAGGART, Husband and
Wife, for themselves and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons; WESTPOINT PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O FARAMARZ
GHODDOUSSI; WILLIAM AMES are represented by:

          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          E-mail: Stewart@swm.legal

               - and -

          Richard S. Sanders, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          800 Boylston Street
          Prudential Tower, 46th Floor
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (253) 779-4000  

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represnted by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Department of Justice
          PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

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

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

Mr. Vazquez Perez is seeking a review of the Court's Opinion and
Order dated September 30, 2019, denying his motion for preliminary
injunctive or declaratory relief, and Court's Judgment dated
November 30, 2020, stating that he has satisfied the requirements
of Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
thus certification of a class is appropriate. The Court granted
Vazquez Perez's unopposed class certification motion and certified
the Rule 23(b)(2) class comprised of all individuals who have been,
or will be, arrested by ICE's New York Field Office and detained;
under Section 1226 of Title 8 of the United States Code for removal
proceedings before an Immigration Judge and who have not been
provided an initial hearing before an Immigration Judge. The Order
further stated that Vazquez Perez's motion for summary judgment was
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The appellate case is captioned as Vazquez Perez v. Decker, Case
No. 21-319, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, dated February 11, 2021.[BN]

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

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

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

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

VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Melcone Alleges Misleading Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA MELCONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, INC., and
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00948-MKB-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., February 22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt which arises out of a transaction
involving money, property, insurance, or services primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.

According to the complaint, Defendant LVNV Funding purchased the
Plaintiff's alleged debt from the creditor, and hired Defendant
Valentine & Kebartas to collect it. In their efforts to collect the
alleged debt, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff by sending a
letter dated June 23, 2020. Purportedly, the letter provided the
Plaintiff four options to settle the alleged debt for less than the
Claimed Amount. However, the phrase "we are not obligated to renew
this offer" has midled the Plaintiff because it adequately conveys
that there is a renewal possibility, but also that it is not
assured.

The Defendant have violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by way of using
a false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in its
attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt.

Valentine & Kebartas, Inc. and LVNV Funding, LLC are debt
collectors. LVNV Funding purchases consumer debts which are in
default and collecting on same. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Tel: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 282-7878
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


WALMART INC: Underpays Retail Associates, Perez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00120-HFS (W.D. Mo., February 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees for the time Walmart required them to spend on
its behalf to comply with the company's policies and allow the
company to continue to operate during the COVID pandemic.

The Plaintiff worked as a retail associate at the Walmart store in
Marshall, Saline County, Missouri from January 2020 through
November 2020.

Walmart Inc., formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is an
American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, with its principal place of business located at
702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an operator of retail stores, with its
principal place of business located at 702 SW 8th Street,
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
         Todd C. Werts, Esq.
         Anthony J. Meyer, Esq.
         LEAR WERTS LLP
         103 Ripley Street
         Columbia, MO 65201
         Telephone: (573) 875-1991
         Facsimile: (573) 279-0024
         E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                 werts@learwerts.com
                 meyer@learwerts.com

WARNER MUSIC: Stevens Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Stevens, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Warner Music Group Corp., Does 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11805, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb.
25, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01659-UA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- https://www.wmg.com/ -- is an American
multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate
headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Robert James Dart, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC
          205 West Randolph Street Suite 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (312) 641-5504
          Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          Michael Burshteyn, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 10019
          Phone: (415) 268-7000
          Email: tcheung@mofo.com
                 mburshteyn@mofo.com


WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Judge Refuses to Certify Harassment Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a B.C. judge
has declined to certify a class-action lawsuit alleging that
WestJet failed to implement effective policies to protect female
fight attendants from workplace harassment.

Mandalena Lewis, the representative plaintiff in the case, argued
that female flight attendants are a particularly vulnerable class
of employee given the power imbalance with pilots, who are mostly
men.

Lewis, who was employed as a flight attendant at WestJet between
2008 and 2016, said she had observed and experienced a range of
conduct, largely from pilots directed toward female flight
attendants, that had the effect of humiliating, offending,
degrading or intimidating women.

She said that the airline cultivated a "frat boy" culture where
flight attendants were routinely expected to tolerate sexually
inappropriate behaviour. She herself was sexually assaulted by a
pilot during a layover in Maui in January 2010, she said.

The airline alleges it had cause to terminate her employment in
2016 as a result of her disciplinary history and acts of
insubordination. In addition to the class-action lawsuit, she has
filed a wrongful-dismissal suit.

In any class-action, a judge is required to consider a number of
criteria before deciding whether to certify the case.

In her ruling in the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Karen Horsman
concluded that the plaintiff had met the criteria in all but one
category -- whether a class-action suit was the preferable
procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the issues in
the case.

The judge noted that Lewis had amended her lawsuit in a novel and
complex way, alleging a systemic breach of contract by WestJet that
did not depend on proof of harm by any individual class member.

Lewis alleged that WestJet made contractual commitments to
establish policies to protect against harassment, but failed to
follow through on those promises.

She sought a remedy of a payment of profits, calculated as the cost
savings to WestJet in failing to develop and implement its
anti-harassment policies and practices.

Lewis claimed that a class-action lawsuit was the preferable and
only realistic procedure for the adjudication of the claim.

But WestJet, which claimed that none of the criteria for a
class-action suit had been established, argued that there were
alternative forums available, including the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal (CHRT).

The plaintiff argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue
a systemic remedy that would address WestJet's alleged past
failures to live up to its promises, but the judge said it was not
evident to her that that was the case.

"It seems to me that it would be open to the plaintiff, and
potential class members, to seek a systemic remedy from the CHRT
that redressed such an entrenched past pattern of discrimination,"
said the judge. "I accept that the remedy may not precisely equate
to contractual damages in the form of disgorgement of costs
savings. However, I do not understand the jurisprudence on
preferable procedures to require that sort of equivalence."

The judge concluded that there were other reasonable means for
class members to achieve justice that are more practical and
efficient than a class-action proceedings.

In addition to the CHRT, class members currently employed by
WestJet can seek remedies through collective bargaining, including
potentially for retroactive grievances, she said.

In an email, Karey Brooks, a lawyer for Lewis, said she was seeking
instructions from her client on whether to appeal the ruling.

Brooks noted that the court found Lewis had met all but one of the
certification criteria and emphasized that her client's position
was that the human rights tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant a
remedy. [GN]


WHOLE FOODS: Southern District of New York Dismisses Berkley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, JOSE BERKLEY,
JAMES CAPERS, Plaintiffs v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 7278-LTS-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), with prejudice
as to the named Plaintiffs and without prejudice as to all the
other Plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without
prejudice to restoration of the action if settlement is not
achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order.

The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled.

The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3uyr7us9 from Leagle.com.


WORLD TRIATHLON: Court Tosses Class Action Over Canceled Race
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roman T. Galas, Esq., of Ansa Assuncao LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that as previewed early in the pandemic, many
athletes hoping to race their usual spring marathons or summer
triathlons in 2020 were disappointed to see most races canceled or
postponed due to Covid-19 and resulting local restrictions; just
one full IRONMAN race went forth (IRONMAN Florida), and six 2021
IRONMAN races have already been postponed. As further explored in a
mid-pandemic article, most athletes, bound by legal waivers they
were required to sign waiving most rights to sue the race -- and
provisions specifying that no refunds would be provided in the
event of any race cancellation -- accepted offers from their race
directors (who were themselves significantly hampered by the
pandemic) of automatic deferral to a re-scheduled date, to the same
race in 2021 or 2022, or to a different race.

Class Action vs. World Triathlon Corporation ("WTC") & Competitor
Group, Inc. ("CGI")

One disappointed racer, Mikaela Ellenwood, ignored those provisions
to pursue a class action suit against WTC and CGI, the respective
owners of the Ironman and Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series race
brands. In her complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, No. 8:20-cv-01182-TPB-AEP, she sought
class certification for all persons in the U.S. "who registered for
and purchased access to an IRONMAN or Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series
event scheduled to take place in 2020 which was postponed or
cancelled, and who were not provided a refund," claiming WTC and
CGI had "not delivered the events for which" she and the
class-members paid, and that the deferral options provided to them
were "not equivalent to what" they "bargained for."

As predicted, instead of an answer, WTC and CGI moved to dismiss
the case, arguing that the Covid-19 pandemic "created unsafe
conditions" beyond their control (noting that it in fact "may have
been illegal for" them to even conduct races in the face of "local
and state shut-down orders"), and that, under such conditions, they
were within their "rights to postpone or cancel events without a
refund." They also argued that Ellenwood contractually "waived her
right to sue and agreed to release" them from liability. Rather
than oppose, Ellenwood filed an amended complaint addressing
certain technical defects and, pertinently, acknowledging the
existence of the signed contracts. WTC and CGI once again moved to
dismiss; this time, Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the unilateral
cancellation ("for any reason"), waiver, and no-refund contractual
provisions were so "egregious" that they made the contracts
"illusory," "unconscionable," and "unenforceable."

Court Dismisses the Case

After converting the motion to a summary judgment motion, accepting
supplemental briefs, and oral argument, Judge Tom Barber granted
WTC and CGI's motion. He first found against Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, mincing no words in upholding the no-refund
provisions:

This is a very simple case. "No refunds" means exactly what it says
-- no refunds. . . . The "no refund" provisions at issue here are
valid and enforceable and the failure to provide refunds in the
factual scenario alleged here does not constitute a breach of the
parties' agreements.

Noting the practical realities of holding race events, Judge Barber
rejected Plaintiffs' efforts "to invalidate the very agreements
upon which they base their breach of contract claims,"
specifically, their claims that the contracts were "illusory" due
to lack of "mutuality," and "unconscionable":

Plaintiffs had to pay money and Defendants had to facilitate a
race, assuming they could do so in the absence of events beyond
their control. Defendants were not free to cancel the races and
keep the entrants' money just because they felt like it. Rather,
the contracts included a series of contingencies beyond Defendants'
control that could result in cancellation. . . . Separate and apart
from something like a pandemic, a wide variety of contingencies
completely outside the Defendants' control could make it impossible
to hold a race. Inclement weather is just one obvious example. In
this context, a "no refund" provision for contingencies outside of
Defendants' control does not render the contract illusory.

In the context of outdoor sporting events, where there are always
contingencies far outside the contracting parties' control, a "no
refund" provision is fair and consistent with common sense. If it
were deemed unconscionable for the host of an outdoor sporting
event to include a "no refund" provision in its contracts, it is
unlikely any rational economic actor would ever agree to host an
outdoor sporting event due to the many weather-related
contingencies that can and do occur.

Judge Barber in turn disposed of Plaintiffs' remaining claims.
Given the existence of "a valid, binding, and enforceable
contract," he held, Florida law did not permit an "equitable"
unjust enrichment claim "concerning the same subject matter." The
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim, he
held, was "simply a recasting of their breach of contract claim";
he then reiterated that the contracts here were "valid and
enforceable," and that Defendants' refusal to give refunds did not
breach those contracts, given that the contracts "specifically
permit Defendants to withhold refunds." Further, Plaintiffs made no
allegations of any "unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive conduct,"
only alleging "that Defendants' refusal to provide refunds --
something that is permitted by the parties' contracts --
constitutes a FDUTPA violation." Those allegations, the Court held,
failed "as a matter of law" to state "a FDUTPA violation." With
that, Judge Barber granted summary judgment in WTC and CGI's
favor.

Looking Ahead

Under federal appellate rules, the Plaintiffs had 30 days to appeal
Judge Barber's January 7, 2021 ruling. They did not do so. WTC and
CGI did, however, subsequently indicate that the parties had
"agreed in principle to a post-judgment resolution of the case." It
is not presently clear what that resolution may entail. We will
continue to monitor any final developments.

The Key Takeaways

The ruling here shows that courts will indeed enforce the terms of
the waivers athletes sign when registering for a race. Athletes
should therefore be clear-eyed about the reality that they are
unlikely to receive refunds of their registration fees (that race
directors have no choice but to spend long before races go forth).
They can take at least take solace, however, in the knowledge that
enforcement of those terms increases the chance that the race
directors will still be around to organize their favorite races in
2021 and beyond. [GN]


XILINX INC: Stanisci Balks at Proposed Merger With Advanced Micro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULES STANISCI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XILINX, INC., DENNIS SEGERS, VICTOR
PENG, RAMAN CHITKARA, SAAR GILLAI, RONALD S. JANKOV, MARY LOUISE
KRAKAUER, THOMAS H. LEE, JON A. OLSON, and ELIZABETH VANDERSLICE,
case No. 5:21-cv-01108 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 13, 2021) is a
stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff against Xilinx
and members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and and for
breaching their fiduciary duty of candor, arising in connection
with the proposed merger between the Company and Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (AMD).

On October 26, 2020, Xilinx entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, pursuant to which Thrones Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly owned subsidiary of AMD, will merge with and into Xilinx,
with Xilinx continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a
wholly owned subsidiary of AMD (the "Proposed Transaction" or
"merger").

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each issued and
outstanding share of Xilinx common stock (other than treasury
shares and shares held by AMD or Merger Sub) will be converted into
the right to receive 1.7234 shares of AMD common stock (the
"Exchange Ratio" or "Merger Consideration"), with cash (without
interest and less any applicable withholding taxes) being paid in
lieu of any fractional shares of AMD common stock that Xilinx
stockholders would otherwise be entitled to receive.

According to the complaint, on December 4, 2020, in order to
convince Xilinx's public common stockholders to vote in favor of
the merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the
"Registration Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The Registration Statement contains material
omissions and misleading statements concerning: (i) the financial
projections for AMD and Xilinx, (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisors, BofA Securities,
Inc. ("BofA") and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; and (iii) regarding the
Financial Advisors' compensation.

The shareholder vote will be scheduled in the coming weeks, as the
Proposed Transaction is expected to by the end of calendar year
2021 (the "Shareholder Vote"). It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Registration Statement
is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the Shareholder
Vote so they can properly determine whether to vote for or against
the Proposed Transaction, the suit says.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9, and
Delaware State law. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless
and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to
Xilinx's public common stockholders sufficiently in advance of the
upcoming Shareholder Vote or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
misconduct.

The Plaintiff was the owner of Xilinx common stock.

Xilinx is the inventor of the field-programmable gate array
("FPGA", a flexible general-purpose chip used in a wide range of
equipment and computing systems) and Adaptive systems on a chip
("SoCs"), designed to deliver the most dynamic processor technology
in the industry. The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the company.

AMD designs and markets an array of microprocessors for numerous
computing applications, including Central Processing Units ("CPUs")
and Graphics Processing Units ("GPUs") tailored to personal
computers ("PCs"), game consoles, and data center environments. The
majority of the AMD's revenue stems from its Computing and Graphics
("C&G") segment (representing approximately 70% of AMD's top-line),
marked by its flagship Ryzen CPUs and Radeon GPUs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

ZARBEE'S INC: Faces Babb Suit over Mislabeled Baby Cough Syrups
---------------------------------------------------------------
AKIELA BABB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. Case No.
7:21-cv-01493 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its cough syrups for children to contain natural
ingredients.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells drug-free cough syrups for
children, such as "Nighttime Cough Syrup + Mucus" under the
Zarbee's Naturals brand ("Product").

The Defendant's Website and marketing give consumers the impression
the Product's ingredients are natural and that its active, those
that cause it to have an effect, ingredients are natural. Though
the Product's ingredients include Dark Honey, English Ivy Leaf
Extract and Grapefruit Seed Extract, it contains non-natural,
artificial and synthetic ingredients including melatonin, vitamin
C, as ascorbic acid, citric acid and zinc, as zinc gluconate, the
suit says.

Had the Plaintiff and the proposed class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it. As a result of the alleged false and misleading
representations, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than no less than $6.99 for 4 OZ, excluding
tax, compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions.

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



                            *********

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 ***