/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210305.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 41

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Armstrong Claims
3M COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Langley Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Ploen Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
ACCELLION INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Roman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN CARPET: Klapuh FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
ANDERS GROUP: Swain Sues Over Health Care Staff's Unpaid Wages
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES: Stoyas Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Wage Statements

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect EDD Accounts, Smith Suit Claims
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Handwerk Alleges Price Rigging of Crop Inputs
BEAD SALE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Motherway Files Suit in N.D. New York

BELCARRA INC: Wicklow Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BLUEBIRD BIO: Leung Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
BLUEBIRD BIO: Leung Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
BRENA CORPORATION: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Room's Access Features
CLOVER HEALTH: Faces Tremblay Suit Over Drop in Share Price

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Cornelius Files TCPA Suit in Kansas
CRUNCH LLC: Bid to Compel Production of Class Info in Eacret Denied
DEL TACO RESTAURANTS: Shank Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DELUDE CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Drilling Workers, Syrocki Alleges
FACTORY DIRECT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

FAST FLASH: Williams-Hopkins Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Pietrzyk Says
GBUTTER LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jordan or Strike Class Claims Denied
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hackler Suit Over Defective Vehicle Engines
HAIN CELESTIAL: Lopez Sues Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Eye Care Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Giguere Suit Says
LAWSUIT AUTHORITY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: LLANY Facing Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit
LINDEN FOOD: Alvarez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

M.S. AEROSPACE: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MAMA'S GREEK: Salvador Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT INT'L: Settlement Class Wins Conditional Certification
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 2738: Gill et al.'s Talcum Powder Products Suit Moved to N.J.

NANTKWEST INC: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Weiss Alleges
NATIONS ROOF: Tapia Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
NEW YORK, NY: Matias Suit Seeks School Safety Agents' Unpaid OT
NFP RETIREMENT: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
NGN CAPITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California

OAKRIDGE CORPORATION: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on $3.1MM Settlement Set for April 22
OM DEVA: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Alleges
OPKO HEALTH: Avraham Class Action Underway
OPKO HEALTH: Settlement in Florida Suit Awaits Final Approval

OPKO HEALTH: Sharon Suit in Tel Aviv Ongoing
PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Buchanan Settlement Approved With Modifications
PENTEGRA DEFINED: Court Appoints Schlichter as Class Counsel
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: W.D. Washington Dismisses Flarity Class Suit
PLUM PBC: Gulkarov Files Suit Over Baby Food Safety

PPL CORP: Request for Discretionary Review in Cane Run Suit Pending
PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Remains Stayed
PREMIER MEDICAL: ARcare Inc. Files TCPA Suit in South Carolina
PROBUILD COMPANY: Court Vacates Deal Approval Hearing in SengVong
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Graney Slams Share Price Drop

RUBYLIN INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SIMPLY STORAGE: Arbitration Order in Maffucci Class Suit Reversed
SM ENERGY: Chieftain Royalty Suit Moved to Oklahoma State Court
T.S. DUDLEY: $24K Class Settlement in Penska Suit Wins Approval
TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON: Corbitt ERISA Suit Goes to E.D. Pennsylvania

UNITED PARCEL: Boyle Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
UNITED STATES: McCreary v. BOP Recommitted to Magistrate Judge
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Feinman Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ Sup. Ct.
WELLPET LLC: Loduca Sues Over Dog Foods' Daily Feeding Labels
WESTERN RANGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Castillo Class Suit

WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ Sup. Ct.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Faces 2,075 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Faces PI Claims at Feb. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $23MM Pending Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 1,300 PI Claims at Dec. 31


                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Armstrong Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMICALS INC.;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; and BASF CORPORATION, individually and as
successor in interest to Ciba Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00593-RMG (D.S.C., February 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq.
         Joshua C. Cohan, Esq.
         SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market St, 52nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 575-3887
         Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
         E-mail: lcohan@smbb.com
                 jcohan@smbb.com

3M COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GREENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00600-RMG
(D.S.C., March 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

Archroma Management LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals
company headquartered near Basel, Switzerland.

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

BASF Corporation is a chemical company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Edward Blizzard, Esq.
         Anna Greenberg, Esq.
         BLIZZARD LAW, PLLC
         5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 410
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 844-3750
         Facsimile: (713) 844-3755
         E-mail: Eblizzard@blizzardlaw.com
                 Agreenberg@blizzardlaw.com

3M COMPANY: Langley Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LANGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00592-RMG
(D.S.C., February 26, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Ploen Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PLOEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00594-RMG
(D.S.C., February 28, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants allegedly failed to
warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit adds.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

ACCELLION INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELLION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-01272 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2021) is an action arising
out of the Defendant's failure to secure sensitive information
stored on its Accellion FTA (File Transfer Appliance) product.

According to the complaint, on December 2020, the Defendant
detected a breach of its electronic information systems that
compromised millions of people's most sensitive information (the
"Data Breach"). Exposed personally identifiable information ("PII")
includes names, social security numbers, driver's license or state
identification numbers, birth dates, bank account numbers, bank
routing numbers, places of employment, and personal health and
insurance information, the suit says.

While the Defendant blames its own customers for the breach,
claiming that they should have upgraded to one of its newer
products, the Plaintiff and the Class already faced with
difficulties presented by the financial impact of the COVID-19
crisis, now must deal with the fallout of unauthorized access to
their PII. The Plaintiff and the Class have already experienced
instances of identity theft, including alleged fraudulent charges
made in her name.

Accellion, Inc. provides secure collaboration and managed file
transfer solutions. The Company offers productivity, enterprise
content, file sharing and synchronization and storage, replacement,
and backups and recovery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Roman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
LLC. The case is styled as Damaris Roman and Jonnie Corina III, on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
BCV-21-100433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 26, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Amazon Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- offers many of
the Web service platforms that Amazon offers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5824
          Phone: (310) 982-2984
          Fax: (818) 963-5954
          Email: jeremy@mossbollinger.com


AMERICAN CARPET: Klapuh FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALMEDIN KLAPUH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CARPET SOUTH INC. d/b/a ACS
FLOORING, and JOSEPH SANTAGATA, Case No. 2184CV00180, was removed
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on February 26, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-10328-ADB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts General Law by failing to
pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

American Carpet South Inc., doing business as ACS Flooring, is a
residential and commercial installation services company based in
Passaic, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         James D. Smeallie, Esq.
         Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
         Zachary D. Reisch, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
         10 St. James Ave., 11th Floor
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 523-2700
         E-mail: jd.smeallie@hklaw.com
                 michael.maroney@hklaw.com
                 zachary.reisch@hklaw.com

ANDERS GROUP: Swain Sues Over Health Care Staff's Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SWAIN on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ANDERS GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:21-at-00106 (E.D. Calif., Feb. 16, 2021) is a California-wide
class action and nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action against Anders for failing to include the value of per diem
payments in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime and
failing to pay all wages owing at time of discharge.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ numerous
non-exempt hourly health care professionals, including nurses,
therapists and technicians, on travel assignments at health care
providers throughout the United States (Travelers). Travelers sign
assignment contracts with Defendants that require them to work a
minimum number of hours per week. As part of Travelers'
compensation, in addition to an hourly wage, the Defendants provide
weekly per diem pay, labeled as meal and lodging per diems. The
Travelers' per diem pay is earned each week based on, and in
proportion to, satisfaction of the weekly hours requirements. If
Travelers fail to satisfy their required weekly hours, the weekly
per diem will be prorated based on the hours worked. The weekly per
diem pay is thus not based upon the actual housing and meal and
incidental expenses incurred but instead is based upon, and varies
with, the number of weekly hours actually worked by Travelers.
Notwithstanding that the amount of the weekly per diem pay is based
on hours worked, Anders does not include the value of this
remuneration in Travelers' regular rates of pay for purposes of
calculating overtime wages, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who from October 2020 to
February 2021 was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee of
Anders in Fresno, California.

Defendant Anders is a Texas company that, at all relevant times,
has been engaged in the business of health care staffing throughout
California and the rest of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          1414 Fair Oaks Ave., Unit 2B
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES: Stoyas Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK STOYAS and NEW
ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, and AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Case No.
2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on August 2, 2021 for an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
      Counsel.

New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund provides
retirement income. The Company offers contributions, pension
credit, special service pensions, and benefit accrual. New England
Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund serves customers in
the State of Massachusetts.

Toshiba Corporation is a Japanese multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Minato, Tokyo.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Y86Tx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Herman, Esq.
          Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
          John H. George, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dennish@rgrdlaw.com
                  willowr@rgrdlaw.com
                 jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com

BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Workers Seek Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Guzman, Manuel Dejesus Vasquez, Lina Mora, Karla Ramos and
Santos M. Vigil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., Choice Long
Island, Inc., Steven Klein and Harold Robbins, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00658, (E.D. N.Y., February 5, 2021), seeks redress for
overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor laws.  The complaint also asserts wage statement violations
under the prompt payment provisions of New York labor laws.

Choice is a staffing agency in Hauppauge, New York, and provides
personnel for Bactolac Pharmaceutical where Plaintiffs worked as
manual laborers.

Bactolac is a dietary supplement manufacturer with manufacturing
facilities in Oser Avenue and Willets Path in Hauppauge, New York.


Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime pay and wage statements.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven J. Moser, Esq.
      MOSER LAW FIRM P.C.
      5 East Main Street
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (516) 671-1150
      Email: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect EDD Accounts, Smith Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE SMITH and ALAN KARAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01466 (N.D. Cal.,
March 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligent performance of contract, negligent failure to
warn, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of
the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The case arises from Bank of America's failure to safeguard
unemployment insurance and other benefits issued by the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) from fraud, failure to
detect the fraud as it was happening, and failure to resolve the
issues caused by these failures. The Defendant also negligently
failed to warn EDD cardholders about the risks associated with its
EDD cards and accounts. Bank of America's unlawful conduct has
resulted in significant harm to recipients of EDD benefits,
depriving them of their financial lifeline in the midst of a
pandemic and full-blown economic crisis, the suit says.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking company located in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
         Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
         Brian Danitz, Esq.
         Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 amurphy@cpmlegal.com
                 bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
                 akirtley@cpmlegal.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B. CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00475 (D. Minn.,
Feb. 22, 2021) is an action arising from an unlawful agreement
among the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of
seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides,
and insecticides ("Crop Inputs") used by farmers.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs
prices inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of
their conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market
information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow
comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and
information about seed relabeling practices that would enable
farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or
identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a
higher price.

Beginning early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales platforms
launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to
view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs,
increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms,
including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became
successful with farmers.

Viewing this success, the Defendants allegedly conspired and
coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms
because of the threat they posed to the Defendants' market position
and price control. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants' have
maintained supracompetitive prices for Crop Inputs by denying
farmers access to accurate pricing information and have injured
farmers by forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that
drastically outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com

               -and-

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Handwerk Alleges Price Rigging of Crop Inputs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Handwerk, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bayer Cropscience LP, Bayer
Cropscience, Inc., Corteva, Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF
Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar
Solutions, Inc., Federated Cooperatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien AG
Solutions Inc., Growmark Inc., Growmark FS, LLC, Simplot AB Retail
Sub, Inc. and Tenkoz, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00351, (D.
Minn., February 5, 2021), is a class action that arises from an
unlawful agreement between Defendants (manufacturers, wholesalers,
and retailers of Crop Inputs) to artificially increase and fix the
prices of seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides,
herbicides and insecticides used by farmers.

Bayer CropScience, Corteva Syngenta Corporation and BASF are
manufacturers of crop input while Cargill, Winfield, Univar
Solutions, CHS, Nutrien AG Solutions, Growmark, Simplot AB Retail,
Tenkoz and Federated Co-Operatives are its wholesalers and
retailers.

Handwerk alleges that Defendants' distribution process keeps crop
input prices in inflated anti-competitive levels; and denied
farmers access to relevant market information, including
transparent pricing terms that would allow competition and
better-informed purchasing decisions and information about seed
relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know if they are
buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a
new brand name and sold for a higher price. Defendants allegedly
conspired and coordinated to boycott online Crop Inputs sales
platforms because of the threat they posed to their market position
and price control. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
      Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
             dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
             mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

             - and -

      Anne T. Regan, Esq.
      Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
      HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
      8050 West 78th Street
      Edina, MN 55439
      Telephone: (952) 941-4005
      Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
      Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
             nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Karin B. Swope, Esq.
      Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
      James G.B. Dallal, Esq.
      Reid W. Gaa, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             azapala@cpmlegal.com
             kswope@cpmlegal.com
             ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
             jdallal@cpmlegal.com
             rgaa@cpmlegal.com

             - and -

      Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
      Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
      Frank T. Davis, Esq.
      Josh B. Ewing, Esq.
      FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
      20 First Plaza, Suite 700
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 305-1263
      Email: jg@fbdlaw.com
             vwj@fbdlaw.com
             ftd@fbdlaw.com


BEAD SALE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bead Sale, LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Bead Sale, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01052-PKC-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021).

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

Bead Sale, LLC -- http://www.beadsale.com/-- is a direct importer
of Mardi Gras beads, decorations, masks, dolls, and other party
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Motherway Files Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Motherway, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00229-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 26, 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:

          James R. Peluso, Jr., Esq.
          DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
          75 Columbia Street
          Albany, NY 12210
          Phone: (518) 463-7784
          Fax: (518) 463-4039
          Email: jpeluso@dblawny.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE, RICHMAN LAW FIRM
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reeserichman.com


BELCARRA INC: Wicklow Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WICKLOW, and all others similarly situated v. BELCARRA,
INC., BELCARRA - II, INC., THOMAS J. KEANEY, individually, and
TRINIDAD KEANEY, individually, Case No. 0:21-cv-60370-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 16, 2021) alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully
deprived the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of federal
minimum and overtime wages during the course of their employment.

This is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act  to
recover all unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees.

The Plaintiff was a resident of the Southern District of Florida.

The Defendants operate a restaurant company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

BLUEBIRD BIO: Leung Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PETER LEUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLUEBIRD BIO, INC., NICK LESCHLY, and
CHIP BAIRD, Case No. 1:21-cv-00777, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on February 26,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-10335-DJC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
filing materially false and misleading statements about Bluebird
Bio's business, operations, and compliance policies in order to
attract investors to acquire bluebird securities between May 11,
2020 and November 4, 2020 at artificially inflated prices.

Bluebird Bio Inc. is a biotechnology company with principal
executive offices located at 60 Binney Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. [BN]

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

                  - and –

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

BLUEBIRD BIO: Leung Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Peter Leung, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, and all others
similarly situated v. Bluebird Bio, Inc., Nick Leschly, Chip Baird,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00777, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 26, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-10335-DJC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the
Securities Exchange Act.

Bluebird bio, Inc., based in Cambridge, Massachusetts --
https://www.bluebirdbio.com/ -- is a biotechnology company that
develops gene therapies for severe genetic disorders and
cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Alexander Hood, Esq.
          James Michael LoPiano, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Email: ahood@pomlaw.com
                 jlopiano@pomlaw.com
                 jalieberman@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Deborah Sager Birnbach, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Luz, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 570-1764
          Fax: (617) 523-1231
          Email: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com
                 jluz@goodwinprocter.com


BRENA CORPORATION: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Room's Access Features
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRENA CORPORATION and DOES 1-10, Defendant,
Case No. 21NWCV00114 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the SureStay Hotel by
Best Western South Gate on its reservation Website at
https://www.bestwestern.com/en_US/book/hotels-in-south-gate/surestay-hotel-by-best-western-south-gate/propertyCode.52013.html
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system allegedly lacks sufficient information needed by
disabled travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel
room would work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to
engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any confidence
or knowledge about whether the room will actually work for him due
to his disability, the suit adds.

Brena Corporation is an owner and operator of the SureStay Hotel by
Best Western South Gate located at 4920 Firestone Blvd., South
Gate, California. [BN]

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

CLOVER HEALTH: Faces Tremblay Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEAN-NICOLAS TREMBLAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP.
f/k/a SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP. III; VIVEK
GARIPALLI; ANDREW TOY; CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA; STEVEN TRIEU; IAN
OSBORNE; JACQUELINE D. RESES; and JAMES RYANS, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 22, 2021) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities
between October 6, 2020 and February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Clover had
performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Clover prior to the
Business Combination, or else ignored and failed to disclose
multiple red flags concerning Legacy Clover's business and
operations; (ii) since before the Business Combination, Legacy
Clover and Clover have been under active investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") for multiple issues ranging from
kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals;
(iii) Legacy Clover's and Clover's sales were, and are, driven in
large part by an undisclosed related party deal, misleading
marketing targeting the elderly, and other illicit practices; (iv)
the Defendants overstated the capabilities of the Company's
technology; and (v) as a result,  the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued a
report on Clover entitled "Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs'
Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business Facing an Active,
Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." Citing "more than a dozen
interviews with former employees, competitors, and industry
experts, dozens of calls to doctor's offices, and a review of
thousands of pages of government reports, insurance filings,
regulatory filings, and company marketing materials," Hindenburg
claimed that "Clover Health and its Wall Street celebrity promoter,
Chamath Palihapitiya, misled investors about critical aspects of
Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC go-public
transaction last month."

On this news, Clover's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 12.33%,
to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a
loss of $700 million in market capitalization. Moreover, shares
traded as low as $11.86 per share intraday on February 4, 2021.
Additionally, Clover warrants fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5.04%, to
close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021, the suit says.

Clover Health Investment, Corp. provides insurance services. The
Company offers hospital, medical, and private insurance services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Cornelius Files TCPA Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cox Communications,
Inc. The case is styled as Dan Cornelius, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02108-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., Feb. 26, 2021).

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

Cox Communications -- https://www.cox.com/aboutus/ -- is an
American company that provides digital cable television,
telecommunications and Home Automation services in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Martin Eslinger, Esq.
          THE ESLINGER LAW FIRM, LLC
          2517 Jefferson Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 259-5226
          Email: jason@eslingerlawfirm.com


CRUNCH LLC: Bid to Compel Production of Class Info in Eacret Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DYLAN EACRET, et al., Plaintiffs v. CRUNCH, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04374-JST (RMI) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Eureka Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
request to compel the Defendant to immediately tender the class
members' contact information to the administrator for sending of
Belair-West notices, and stayed the prior discovery order to that
effect until after the resolution of the Defendant's motion to stay
the case.

On Jan. 29, 2021, in contravention of the relevant provision of
Judge Illman's General Standing Order, the Plaintiffs unilaterally
filed a discovery dispute letter brief rather than filing a request
for a telephone conference.  In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to
adhere to the strictures of that General Standing Order, the Court
ordered the parties to meet and confer forthwith, and then to
jointly file a conforming letter brief.

Thereafter, on Feb. 5, 2021, the parties jointly filed their letter
brief, through which the Plaintiffs now seek to compel the
Defendant to immediately send contact information for putative
class members to a third party administrator such that appropriate
notices can be mailed to those class members pursuant to
Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th
554, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 (2007).

The Defendant opposes on grounds that all of the class action and
representative action claims in the lawsuit have been settled in a
related case (Fox, et al. v. Crunch, LLC, et al., Sacramento
Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00276101) (settlement was
preliminarily approved on Jan. 28, 2021), and that allowing
discovery to continue in the case would not only be duplicative,
unnecessary, and burdensome, but it would cause widespread
confusion among a single group of class members who would be
receiving notices of a class action settlement in Fox while
receiving conflicting Belaiare-West notices in the case.

Further, it points out that the Plaintiffs have been granted leave
to intervene in the Fox case; and, in light of the settlement in
Fox, which the Plaintiffs admit would operate to dispose of the
claims and parties in the case as well, the Defendant has filed a
motion to stay these proceedings, which is currently pending before
Judge Tigar.

Judge Illman finds that the Defendant established that the
prejudice and harm associated with rushing out the Belaire-West
notices in the case now (in addition to the unnecessary and
burdensome facet of doing so) would be the wholesale confusion that
would result from the putative class members receiving dueling
notices that tend to contradict one another--that is, the notices
of class action settlement that they will receive forthwith in Fox
would tend to be contradicted by the Belaire-West notices from the
case.

As a result, at the hearing, the Judge indicated that the better
course of action would be for the Court to stay its prior discovery
order approving the Belaire-West notice process until after Judge
Tigar's resolution of the currently pending motion to stay the
proceedings in the case.

Having made such a suggestion, the Court then sought input from the
Plaintiffs' counsel as to what might be the harm or prejudice to
the Plaintiffs if discovery was paused pending resolution of the
motion to stay.  The Plaintiffs' counsel candidly responded that
within that span of time the case may come to an end if the
settlement in Fox were to become the subject of a final approval.

While Judge Illman appreciates the Plaintiffs' counsel's
frustration that even though the case was filed earlier, he finds
that Fox seems to have proceeded towards resolution more quickly;
nevertheless, be that as it may, the counsel's desire to rush the
case forward in an effort to secure attorneys' fees, is hardly a
suitable justification for the confusion that would assuredly flow
from the putative class members receiving a notice of class action
settlement in Fox at or near the same time as receiving
Belaire-West notices in the case informing them of a "new" class
action case covering the same claims and the same class and giving
them the choice of opting out.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' request for the Court
to compel the Defendant to send the list of contact information for
putative class members to the Belaire-West notice administrator
within two days. F or the reasons he discussed, the Judge stayed
the pertinent portion of the prior discovery order to that effect
until after the resolution of the Defendant's motion to stay the
proceedings in the case currently pending before Judge Tigar.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3vxh2azr from Leagle.com.


DEL TACO RESTAURANTS: Shank Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DEL TACO RESTAURANTS,
INC. et al. The case is styled as Robert Shank, on behalf of the
general public and all others similarly situated v. DEL TACO
RESTAURANTS, INC., DEL TACO LLC, Case No. BCV-21-100426 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 26, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Del Taco Restaurants Inc. -- https://deltaco.com/ -- is an American
fast food restaurant chain which specializes in American-style
Mexican cuisine as well as American foods such as burgers, fries,
and shakes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN POLINER, LLP
          155 North Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
          Phone: 714.620.1125
          Fax: 714.701.0155
          Email: Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


DELUDE CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Drilling Workers, Syrocki Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SYROCKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELUDE CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JONATHAN
CHOPP, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-10474-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
March 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly employee,
digging by hand, operating drill machines, locating drill heads,
and making connections on pipes, from approximately May 21, 2018,
until September 17, 2020.

DeLude Construction, Inc. is a drilling contractor located in China
Twp., St. Clair County, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Amy Marino, Esq.
         MARINO LAW PLLC
         27495 Franklin Road #106
         Southfield, MI 48034
         Telephone: (248) 797-9944
         Facsimile: (313) 281-2206
         E-mail: amy@marinopllc.com

                - and –

         Brian Delekta, Esq.
         DELEKTA & DELEKTA P.C.
         80880 Main St. Box 595
         Memphis, MI 48041
         Telephone: (810) 392-3834
         E-mail: brian@delektalaw.com

FACTORY DIRECT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Factory Direct Craft
Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Factory Direct Craft Supply, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01054 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021).

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

Factory Direct Craft -- https://factorydirectcraft.com/ --
specializes in providing customers with decor, basic craft
supplies, and so much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


FAST FLASH: Williams-Hopkins Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, an individual, o/b/o herself and all
others similarly situated v. FAST FLASH MARKETING, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, doing business as DOLLARCONNECT.COM,
DOLLAR CONNECT, LLC, a Florida limited liability Company, doing
business as DOLLARCONNECT.COM, and JOHN DOES 1-100, unknown
individuals or business entities, Case No. 2:21-cv-02719 (D.N.J.,
Feb. 16, 2021) contends that the Defendants promote and market its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Pew Research Center has reported 69% of cellular users who use
text messaging receive unwanted text message spam with 25% of them
on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff is one such person who regularly
received text message spam.

Allegedly, the Defendants have sent out thousands of unlawful text
messages in violation of the TCPA. By effectuating these
unauthorized text message calls (also known as "SMS Messages"), the
Defendants have caused consumers actual harm, not only because
consumers were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily
accompanies mobile spam, but also because consumers frequently have
to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such
spam and such messages diminish cellular battery life, waste data
storage capacity, and are an intrusion upon seclusion, the
Plaintiff contends.

In order to redress these injuries, the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and the proposed classes of similarly situated individuals,
brings this suit under the TCPA, which specifically prohibits
unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendants to cease
all unlawful text messages and an award of statutory damages to the
class members, together with costs and reasonable attorney's
fees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Pietrzyk Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINE PIETRZYK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flo Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01141 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 16, 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:

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Christine S. Yun Sauer, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Steinberg, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          46 Shattuck Square, Suite 22
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: asheanin@robinskaplan.com
                  cyunsauer@robinskaplan.com
                  klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
                  jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com


GBUTTER LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jordan or Strike Class Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GBUTTER LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and GSWEAT LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24397-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and/or to Strike Class Allegations.

On Oct. 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a consumer fraud class action
lawsuit against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff amended his
Complaint on June 29, 2020.

On Aug. 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to strike under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f), and ultimately dismiss, the Plaintiff's
class allegations on the basis that the allegations do not comport
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
pertaining to class certification.

Upon review of the Complaint, Judge Gayles finds that the
Plaintiff's class allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss.  The arguments regarding class certification are more
properly raised at the class certification stage.  At this stage in
the proceedings, he holds that the Plaintiff has not had the
benefit of discovery and not yet filed a motion to certify the
class.

Because an evidentiary record has not yet been developed, Judge
Gayles cannot determine whether class certification is appropriate
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Therefore, the issue is
whether striking the Plaintiff's class allegations is appropriate
under Rule 12(f).  Pursuant to Rule 12(f), a court may strike from
the pleadings any matter that is "redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous."  The Defendants have not established
that the Plaintiff's class allegations are "redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous."

Accordingly, Judge Gayles denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and/or to Strike Class Allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uwwpwv6r from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hackler Suit Over Defective Vehicle Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SETH HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., Feb. 22, 2021) is a class action
by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased or leased one or more
model year 2011-2014 GM vehicles, manufactured on or after February
10, 2011, fitted with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8
Vortec 5300 LC9 engines (the "Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
disclose the truth about the defects in its vehicles. In 2006, for
its model year 2007 vehicles, General Motors Corporation ("Old GM")
introduced its redesigned Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine and
installed it in many of its most popular vehicles, as listed above.
Unfortunately, the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an
abnormally and improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds
industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This excessive
oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity
levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage, the
suit says.

Allegedly, the Oil Consumption Defect can damage critical engine
components and cause drivability problems, such as lack of power
from misfire, spark plug fouling, excessive engine noise, abnormal
vibration or shaking, piston cracking, head cracking, and,
ultimately, engine seizure. These issues place the Plaintiff the
Class at an increased risk of injury or death.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin R. Keen, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
          METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          2839 Paces Ferry Rd SE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 751-1162
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Ben.keen@beasleyallen.com

               -and-

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
          METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
                  Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com

               -and-

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Lopez Sues Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
LUMARIE LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01045-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., February 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act, breaches of express warranty and implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
misleading representations of its baby foods under the Earth's Best
Organic brand. The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers,
including the Plaintiff, that the products contain high level of
toxic heavy metals. Had the Plaintiff and the Class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have
paid less for it, the suit adds.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food
products, with a principal place of business in Lake Success, New
York, Nassau County. [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

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Eye Care Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff THE EYE CARE CENTER OF NEW JERSEY PA filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled THE EYE CARE CENTER
OF NEW JERSEY, PA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP and
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2-20-cv-05743, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' denial of its  obligation to pay
Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business income losses
and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put
in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19
among the population.

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

The action also brings a claim against Defendants for their breach
of their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial
property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human to human and surface to human spread of the COVID-19
outbreak.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated
February 8, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as The Eye Care Center of New
Jersey PA v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Case No. 21-1315, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, February 24,
2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant THE EYE CARE CENTER OF NEW JERSEY PA, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000  
          E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com  

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com  

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO. is represented by:

          James L. Brochin, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          1114 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 378-7503
          E-mail: jbrochin@steptoe.com   

               - and -

          Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
          Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 295-6513
          E-mail: ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com
                  alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com

HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action suits pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of our executive
officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.

Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

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

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.

HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Giguere Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Giguere, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Homeworks Energy, Inc., Martijn Fleuren and
Max Veggeberg, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-30015, (D. Mass., February
5, 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 and
the Massachusetts Wage Act.

HomeWorks is in the business of providing home energy assessments
and installation services to customers throughout Massachusetts and
New York. Giguere works for Defendant HomeWorks Energy, Inc., as a
Crew Lead and, previously, as a Tech I.

HomeWorks allegedly employs disincentive deductions to punish
employees for undesired events or for other performance issues that
the employer wishes to penalize. It also calculates overtime
without factoring in "incentive payments" into the hourly overtime
rate.

As Crew Lead, Giguere is assigned to work approximately 45 to 55
hours per week. But HomeWorks' compensation plan did not pay
overtime on the incentive payments based on hours worked in excess
of forty per week, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
      HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
      One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
      Springfield, MA 01144
      Tel: (413) 785-1400
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      E-Mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com


LAWSUIT AUTHORITY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lawsuit Authority
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Lawsuit
Authority LLC, Kwok Daniel LTD. LLP, Does 1 through 10, inclusive
and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-00275-PLD (W.D. Pa., Feb. 26,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Lawsuit Authority -- https://www.lawsuitauthority.com/ -- helps
individuals who have been injured or harmed by defective products
get the help they need to get the compensation they deserve.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend a complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, remains pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL), filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827,
is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all
such policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  

In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated litigation styled, In re:
Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

"Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Company's subsidiary, The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York ("LLANY"), continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous
defense of the class action suit styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life
and Annuity Company of New York and Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company.

Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.  

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case.  

On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.  

Lincoln said, "The court has not yet set a trial date, and we
continue to vigorously defend this action."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that First
Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP") continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific
Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff’s policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.  

Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: LLANY Facing Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is defending a putative
class action suit initiated by Andrew Nitkewicz.

Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed
on August 24, 2020.  

Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.  

Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on
behalf of the various classes and sub-class.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINDEN FOOD: Alvarez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HUMBERTO VELASQUEZ ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. LINDEN FOOD CORP. d/b/a FOOD FARM
SUPERMARKET, RONNIE SHIEKH, CHATA DOE and JOSE DOE, Case No.
2:21-cv-00836 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021) seeks to recover minimum
and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the
hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, Defendants allegedly
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for hours worked over 40.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. He was employed as a
butcher and a deli worker.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a supermarket located
at 241-11 Linden Blvd., Elmont, NY 11003 under the name "Food Farm
Supermarket".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES,
          45 Broadway, Suite 430
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-Mail: sclark@tpglaws.com

M.S. AEROSPACE: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.S. AEROSPACE, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV07993 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 1, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to provide the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees with meal periods, failure to provide them with rest
periods, failure to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or
rest periods, failure to properly record their meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay them proper minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and
failure to pay them all of their final wages following separation
of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from approximately from February 2020 through March of
2020.

M.S. Aerospace, Inc. is a specialty fastener supplier based in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Shaun Setareh, Esq.
         David Keledjian, Esq.
         SETAREH LAW GROUP
         9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 888-7771
         Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
         E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 david@setarehlaw.com

MAMA'S GREEK: Salvador Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Salvador and other similarly situated individuals v. Mama's
Greek Cuisine Inc., and Georgia Memisakis, individually, Case No.
8:21-cv-00367-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2021) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to him worked more than 40 hours
during one or more weeks on or after January 2021, without being
properly compensated.

Defendants Mama's Greek Cuisine and Georgia Memisakis employed
Plaintiff Joel Salvador as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly
employee during two periods. The Plaintiff had duties as a
dishwasher, prep cook, and cleaning employee.

Defendant Mama's Greek Cuisine is a Greek restaurant located at 735
Dodecanesee Blvd., Suite 40-41, Tarpon Springs, Florida where
Plaintiff worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MARRIOTT INT'L: Settlement Class Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYRIL MARTIN; JENNIFER
MARTIN; RUSSELL BAIRD; CYNDY BAIRD; MICHAEL ARCHIBALD; SHELLEY
ARCHIBALD; STEVE OLSON; JULIE OLSON; ROBERT HAZELTON; and ALICIA
HAZELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS;
and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No. 1:18-cv-00494-JAO-RT (D. Haw.),
the Hon. Judge Jill A. Otake entered an order:

   1. preliminarily approving class action settlement agreement;

   2. approving form of notice;

   3. establishing objection deadline;

   4. directing dissemination of notice; and

   5. setting final fairness hearing re: settlement between
      plaintiffs and defendants;

   For settlement purposes only, the Court conditionally
   certifies the following Settlement Class:

   "All United States and Canada residents (1) who booked and
   paid for a stay (2) at one or more of the following Hotels:
   The Royal Hawaiian, a Luxury Collection Resort; The Moana
   Surfrider, a Westin Resort & Spa, Waikiki Beach; Sheraton
   Waikiki; Sheraton Princess Kaiulani or Sheraton Maui Resort &
   Spa, (3) for a stay that took place on one or more dates
   between October 8, 2018 through and including November
   27, 2018.

   a. Subclasses.

     The Settlement Class is further divided into Subclass 1 and
     Subclass 2 based on the segments and/or booking channel
     through which the Settlement Class Members booked their
     stay.

     -- Subclass 1:

        "All Settlement Class Members who booked their stay
        directly with Marriott or a Hotel and booking channels
        other than through a Wholesaler, Online Travel Agent, or
        Group Booking."

        This Subclass 1 is further categorized by the Hotel at
        which the Settlement Class Member stayed:

        -- Subclass 1(a): Sheraton Princess Kaiulani

        -- Subclass 1(b): All Other Hotels

     -- Subclass 2:

        "All Settlement Class Members who booked their stay
        through a Wholesaler, Online Travel Agent, or Group
        Booking."

        This Subclass 2 is further categorized by the Hotel at
        which the Settlement Class Member stayed:

        -- Subclass 2(a): Sheraton Princess Kaiulani

        -- Subclass 2(b): All Other Hotels

   b. Exclusions from Settlement Class.

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all persons
      who have already received full refunds for their Hotel
      stay prior to the Effective Date of the Agreement, (2) all
      airline crews, (3) all persons who validly opt out of the
      settlement in a timely manner; (4) governmental entities;
      (5) counsel of record for the Parties (and their
      respective law firms); (6) Defendants and any of their
      parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, independent service
      providers and all of their respective employees, officers,
      and directors; (7) the presiding judge in the Lawsuit or
      judicial officer presiding over the matter, and all of
      their immediate families and judicial staff; and (8) all
      persons who entered into a release with any Defendant
      prior to the Effective Date of the Agreement.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZZCybx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON LAW GROUP
          Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811
          Facsimile: (808) 694-3090
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com
                  morgan@bsds.com

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAXIM HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as Michelle Brown, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. a
Maryland corporation, Case No. BCV-21-100434 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Feb. 26, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Maxim Healthcare -- https://www.maximhealthcare.com/ -- provides
healthcare staffing for nurses, allied professionals & others and
provides home healthcare services available for adult & pediatric
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: 415-421-7100 x315
          Fax: 415-421-7105
          Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


MDL 2738: Gill et al.'s Talcum Powder Products Suit Moved to N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers a product liability litigation
over Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder to the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge
Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The original complaint Gill, et al. V. Johnson and Johnson, et al.,
C.A. No. 2:20-08561 (C.D. Cal.) alleges that Johnson & Johnson's
talcum powder products cause ovarian cancer following perineal
application.

In support of their motion to vacate, Plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Gill is lacking, and that their
pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before
transfer. The panel has held that such jurisdictional objections
generally do not present an impediment to transfer and that
Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee
court.

The panel states that said action involves common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738 and that transfer will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ebY0Tc.


NANTKWEST INC: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Weiss Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Weiss v. NANTKWEST, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, BARRY J.
SIMON, JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., FREDERICK W. DRISCOLL, MICHAEL D.
BLASZYK, and CHERYL L. COHEN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00280-BEN-KSC (Feb.
16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against the Defendants for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which NantKwest will merge with ImmunityBio, Inc.
through NantKwest's wholly owned subsidiary Nectarine Merger Sub,
Inc. (Merger Sub).

On December 21, 2020, NantKwest and ImmunityBio issued a joint
press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated December 21, 2020 (the "Merger Agreement")
to merge NantKwest with ImmunityBio. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the stockholders of ImmunityBio will receive 0.8190 of a
share of NantKwest common stock for each share of ImmunityBio
common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). Upon the
closing of the merger, ImmunityBio stockholders are expected to own
approximately 72% of the 17 combined company's stock, while
NantKwest stockholders are expected to own approximately 28% 18 of
the combined company's stock.

On February 2, 2021, NantKwest filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that NantKwest stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information concerning the Company's and ImmunityBio's
financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by one of the special committee of the Board's ("Special
Committee") financial advisors, Barclays Capital Inc. The
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the suit says.

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

The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous stockholder of
NantKwest.

Defendant NantKwest is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego,
California 92121. The Company is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on harnessing the power of the innate immune system
to treat cancer and infectious diseases. NantKwest's common stock
trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol
"NK." The Individual Defendants are directors of ther company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONS ROOF: Tapia Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIGNO QUITUISACA TAPIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. NATIONS ROOF EAST, LLC (D/B/A NATIONS ROOF
EAST LLC), NATIONS ROOF OF NEW YORK, LLC (D/B/A NATIONS ROOF EAST
LLC), PATRICIA DONOHUE, MICHAEL JOHANNES, SAL DOE, JOSE DOE, ANDY
DOE, MATA DOE seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiff Quituisaca was employed as a roof worker at construction
sites located mostly in Manhattan and the Bronx. He worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay him wages
on a timely basis, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond him to all other similarly situated employees, he
adds.

Nations Roof provides roofing solutions. The Company offers roof
restoration, deck remediations, coatings, masonry restorations,
metal roofings, caulking, installation, and sealant services.[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

NEW YORK, NY: Matias Suit Seeks School Safety Agents' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN MATIAS, KEVIN GERALD, TRACY CHISM, RAMON CABRERA, LISA
ADAMS, FEDDIA ALEXANDRE, RONECE ALLEYNE, BELINDA ALLEYNE-NORVILLE,
BARBARA ALLICOTT, SUSAN ALOE-SANSEVERINO, MICHAEL AMEZOUITA,
LEOPOLDO APONTE, ALFREDO AVILA, EVELYN BABB, DANA BAILEY, WILLIAM
BALES, SIMONNE BANKS, SAMANTHA BANNISTERN, JOAQUIN BAPTISTE, ANGELO
BARRETO, SHAWN BARROW, QUINN BEAUFORD, CYNTHIA BEDELL, SOPHIA BELL,
RICARDO BELLEVUE, CHERYL BENTICK, MARIO BERAS, PORFIDIO BERAS,
CLIFTON BETHEA, KEVIN BLY, ONILDA BOYKIN, WANDA BRADFORD, CYNTHIA
BRIGGS, GWENDOLYN BROUGHTON, ALFRED L. BROWN, ALFRED T. BROWN,
DAMARIS BROWN, JAMES BROWN, LEON BROWN, MADELINE BROWN, STACY
BROWN, TRAVICE BROWN, VANESSA BROWN, RAQUELL BRUNSON, KEITH BUNYEN,
ROSALYN BURNS, LATISHA CALIXTE, DJIKIBA CAMARA, JANET CAMPOS, JUSTO
CANCEL, JOHN CANNON, RAVEN CANNON, MACK CARTER, ALFRED CASEY, WENDY
CASTILLO, JOAH CASTRO, PATRICIA CATALDO, JOSEPH CAVALIERI,
ANTOINETTE CHARLES, BERNICE CHRISTOPHER, YVONNE CLARK, HOPE
COFIELD-BROOKS, JAMES COLEMAN, URSULA COLEMAN, LATISHA COLLINS,
VALERIE COOK, CARL COOPER, MARVIN COOPER, TAMRA CORNWELL, NATALIE
COTTMAN, ANNIE CRAIG, ANN CROWDER, DOUGLAS CRUZ, YEZENIA CRUZ,
SHARON CUMBERBATCH, ANTHONY DANIELS, ERROLL DAVIDSON, DARRYL DEAN,
CHINENE DELAINE, WIENER DENIZARD, SABRINA DENSON, MICHAEL DEXTER,
GUISEPPE DIGIOIA, CHRISTINA DIODONAL, JACQUELINE DIXON, KEIA DOS
REIS, RONNIE DOSWELL, RUDOLPH DOUGLAS, CRYSTAL DREW-CUTLER, TRISHA
DUNLAY, ALEXANDRIA DUNLOP, ELIX EDWARDS, SUEHALY ESPEJO, BRENETTE
ESPIN, NANCY ESTEVES, CALVIN EVANS, MERTON EVANS, LASHARTA FASKEY,
RUFUS FELDER, CLARA FERDINAND, NINETTE FERRELL, JONES ELDICA
FERRIS, MARIA FICALORA, GISELLE FIGUEROA, WINSTON FLETCHER, ANA
FLORES, JACQUELINE FLORES, MARIA FLORES, ALICE FOGLE, WILBERT
FORDE, CHERRLYN FOSTER, DENNIS FOSTER, NAOMI FRANCIS, MARIA FRANCO,
TAMICHA FREEMAN, DORSEY FUTRELL, LUIS GARCIA, SHAKEYA GARRETT,
EDWIN GELIGA, JOYCE GERRINGER, RUBY GETTER, DONNA GIERUM, SHERYL
GITTENS, DAVID GONZALEZ, KENDRA GONZALEZ, YVETTE GOODEN, ANTHONY
GREEN, SHERINA GREEN, CHARLES GREENE, AVIS GREEN-SCALES, TRENICE
GRIER, RHONDEAN GRIPPER, ANTHONY GUSTUS, DEBRA HAMILTON, ADRIANE
HARRIS, AYESHIA HAWKINS, DAHAN HAWKINS, TRACY HAYES, BERTHA
HAYNESWORTH, KAREN HEMMINGS-WEEKS, FRANK HERNANDEZ, RUBY HEWITT,
DENARD HINES, LATISHA HOCKADAY, DONALD HOLDER, ENGLISH HOOKS,
PATRICIA HOUSE, LAURA HOWARD, SANDRA HOWARD, JEWELL HUDSON,
STEPHANIE HUDSON, MAXENE HUMPHREY, JENIFFER IFILL, EDGAR IRIZARRY,
CORNELIUS JACKSON, RICHARD JACKSON, LYONEL JANVIER, LLOYD JARRETT,
PAULEMON JEAN JR., SHARON JEFFERSON, ANEAST JENKINS, SHEILA
JENKINS, ARNOLD JOHNSON, LATOYA JOHNSON, CAROLYN JOHNSON-ETIENNE,
ALVIN JONES, DESNIK JONES, DONNA JONES, FINNA JONES, RICHARD JONES,
NAJWA JOSEPH, RICHARD JUAN, TYRONE JUNIOUS, SR TYRONE LANDRUM,
SHARON LAYNE, ANNETTE LEARY, FREDWARD LEE, REBECCA LEMON-NEWTON,
WENDY LOCKAMY, KURTINA LUNDY, RAVITA LYNCH, ILLSE MALLISON, ARLENE
MARSH, BARBARA MATTOCKS, NELSON MATUTE, LISA MCALLISTER, LORRAINE
MCCLAIN, ADELLE MCCLEAN, JAMES MCCULLOUGH, NICOLA MCFARLANE,
MICHELLE MCGRIFF, DENISE MCINTOSH, JAMES MCRAE, JENIFFER MEYER,
DARRYL MILES, LISA MILES, DIANA MILLER, MILDRED MILLNER, TANYA
MILLS, THOMAS MITCHELL, GINA MONTEFUSCO, KANGELA MOORE, ANTHONY
MORALES, MONICA MORALES, LUZ MORALES-MCGOVERN, GINA MORENO,
SHATASIA MORRIS, BEVERLY MOSLEY, STARLETTE MOSS, RAYMOND MOTA,
RICHARD MUNIZ, CHARLES MUSSA, STEPHEN NEMLEY, TERESE NEMLEY, TABENA
NESBY, VERONICA NESMITH, DEOLA OLUFOWOBI-AGOSA, SANDRA ORTIZ,
PAMELA OUTLAW, DENISE PABON, JORGE PALMA, JOYCE PALMER, ANTHONY
PARTLOW, PAULETTE PEARCE, MIGDALIA PEREZ, FAY PETERKIN, EDWARD
PETERSON, YVONIA PETIGNY, ARLENE PICKERING, MARILYN POLITE-PARRISH,
KATINA POWELL, KIM PRICHER, RONALD QUIJANO, LINDA QUINTYNE, YOLANDA
QUIRINDONGO, SOFIA RAMIREZ, DARYL RAPHAEL, SHAQUANNA RASIN, NARDA
REYES, GREGORY RICHARDSON, TONYA RICHARDSON-DEFLORIMONTE, BEATRIZ
RIVERA, FAITH RIVERA, JOSE RIVERA, JUSTINO RIVERA, MANUEL RIVERA,
SHARESE ROBERTSON, JACQUELINE ROBINSON DANIEL, CANDIDA RODRIGUEZ,
KENYA RODRIGUEZ, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, WILMA RODRIGUEZ,
JOSEPH ROSA, STEPHANIE ROSS, EVARISTO RUIZ, MARIO SAMPSON, NADINE
SAMPSON-MASSEY, ANN SANCHEZ, JOSE SANTANA, SHANTE SAXON-DIAMOND,
DESEAN SCOBIE, TASHA SCOTT, GROVER SHAMBURGER, ERICA SHAW,
WILLIEDEAN SHERROD, DEREK SHORT, ADAM SIMPSON, TERRENCE SKINNER,
DANITA SMITH, DENISE SORIANO, LAWRENCE SOSIS, DOREEN SPENCER,
REGINALD SPENCER, TAWANA SPIGNOR, KYM SPRUELL, EMMA SPRUILL,
TYKECIA SPRULL, TRACY STACKHOUSE, NICOLE STAMPS, NATASHA STEED,
TANYA STOKES, MONICA SUBER, SHARESE SWAIN, LISA THOMPSON, SHELLEY
THOMPSON, KIM TILSON, TAFT TRAMBLE, PRESSIE TYNER, MOI UNDERWOOD,
VICTORIA VARGAS, NILDA VASQUEZ, LUCRETIA VEREEN, SHARON VICK, LAURA
WALKER-JONES, SANDRA WARD-HAMPTON, JOHNIE WASHINGTON, MORRIS
WATSON, NATHAN WHITE, ERIC WILLIAMS, FATIMA WILLIAMS, PATRICK
WILLIAMS, DENNIS WILSON, DESERIE WILSON, TROY WILSON, GEORGE
WINDELL, HAROLD WISE, JAY WOLFSON, TONY WONG, YOLANDA WOODALL,
SABRINA WOODS, ILLSE WRIGHT, LINDA WRIGHT, RAMY YASSA, SONYA
YEARWOOD-NILES, JACQUELINE YIP, YVETTE YOUNG-BULLEN, RAUL ZAPATA,
THOMAS ZAPATA, and RALPH ZENON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and the
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01736
(S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as School Safety Agents
Level 3 in New York, New York.

City of New York is a public agency with its principal place of
business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York.

The New York City Police Department is an administrative division
of the City of New York, with its principal office located at One
Police Plaza, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Hope Pordy, Esq.
         Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
         SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
         1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 765-2100
         E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
                 esprotzer@spivaklipton.com

               - and –

         Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
         Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
         Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
         Chelsea M. Williams, Esq.
         MCGILLIVARY STEELE & ELKIN LLP
         1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 833-8855
         E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                 djn@mselaborlaw.com
                 hdl@mselaborlaw.com
                 cmw@mselaborlaw.com

NFP RETIREMENT: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LAUDERDALE, JOSHUA CARRELL, TING SHENG WANG, LEONARD
DICKHAUT, ROBERT CROW, AUBIN NTELA, and RODNEY AARON RIGGINS,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the Wood 401(k) Plan (fka the Wood Group
401(k) Plan) v. NFP RETIREMENT, INC., FLEXPATH STRATEGIES, LLC,
WOOD GROUP U.S. HOLDINGS, INC, WOOD GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
(NKA WOOD GROUP USA, INC.), THE COMMITTEE OF THE WOOD 401(K) PLAN,
and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case No. 8:21-cv-00301 (C.D. Calif., Feb. 16,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of the
Plan against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

As Plan fiduciaries, Defendants are obligated to act for the
exclusive benefit of Plan participants and beneficiaries and to
ensure that Plan expenses are reasonable and Plan investments are
prudent. These duties are the "highest known to the law", and must
be discharged with "an eye single to the interests of the
participants and beneficiaries." Instead of acting in the exclusive
best interest of participants, the Wood Defendants and NFP caused
the Plan to invest in NFP's collective investment trusts managed by
its affiliate flexPATH Strategies, which benefitted the NFP
Defendants at the expense of Plan participants''retirement savings,
the Plaintiffs contend.

Wood Defendants and NFP also allegedly failed to use their Plan's
bargaining power to obtain reasonable investment management fees,
which caused unreasonable expenses to be charged to the Plan.

As of December 31, 2013, the Plan had $261.7 million in assets and
4,997 participants with account balances. Effective December 31,
2015, the Wood Group Mustang 401(k) Plan, the Wood Group PSN, Inc.
401(k) Plan, and the Elkhorn Holdings, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan
merged into the Plan, which increased the Plan's size to $836.6
million in assets and 10,881 participants with account balances.
The Plan continued to dramatically grow in size over the years. By
December 31, 2019, the Plan had $2.4 billion in assets and 18,013
participants with account balances.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Wood Group and Amec Foster
Wheeler.

Wood Group is a domestic corporation incorporated in Nevada. The
company is a wholly owned subsidiary of John Wood Group PLC, a
multinational company that provides project, engineering and
technical services to energy and industrial markets with
headquarters in Aberdeen, Scotland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com

NGN CAPITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NGN Capital LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Sarah Young, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NGN Capital LLC doing business
as: Matti D, a Delaware limited liability company; Does 1 to 10,
inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00352-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 26,
2021).

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

NGN Capital LLC -- https://www.ngncapital.com/ -- operates as a
venture capital firm. The Company invests in healthcare and
biotechnology segments including drug products, medical devices,
and other healthcare segments.[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


OAKRIDGE CORPORATION: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oakridge
Corporation. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. The Oakridge Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-01053 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021).

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

Oakridge Corporation -- https://oakridgehobbies.com/ -- is located
in Lemont, Illinois and is part of the Toy & Game Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on $3.1MM Settlement Set for April 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-AHG

This Document Relates To:

              ALL ACTIONS.

CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF
OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("OBALON") BETWEEN OCTOBER 6, 2016 AND
MAY 11, 2018, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on April 22, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, 221 West Broadway, Courtroom 4A, San Diego, California
92101, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount
of $3,150,000.00, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the
Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its
representation of the Class in this Litigation should be approved.
The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing or hold it via
videoconference or teleconference without further notice to the
Class Members.

IF YOU PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF OBALON BETWEEN OCTOBER 6, 2016
AND MAY 11, 2018, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to In re Obalon Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.,
P.O. Box 173031, Milwaukee, WI 53217, or on the internet at
www.ObalonSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no
later than April 22, 2021) or if submitted electronically no later
than April 22, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than April 1, 2021, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above.  All Class
Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class in response to the Notice will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement
of Class Action Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the
fee and expense application must be mailed to each of the following
recipients, such that it is received no later than April 1, 2021:

         CLERK OF THE COURT
         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
         SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
         333 West Broadway, Suite 420
         San Diego, CA  92101

         Lead Counsel:
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         RACHEL L. JENSEN
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA  92101

         Counsel for Defendants:
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         COLLEEN SMITH
         12670 High Bluff Drive
         San Diego, CA  92130

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

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: FEBRUARY 1, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


OM DEVA: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OM DEVA SAI LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendant,
Case No. 21NWCV00115 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Rodeway Inn South
Gate on its reservation Website at
https://www.choicehotels.com/california/south-gate/rodeway-inn-hotels/cad49
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Om Deva Sai LLC is an owner and operator of the Rodeway Inn South
Gate located at 8911 Atlantic Ave., South Gate, California. [BN]

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

OPKO HEALTH: Avraham Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the
putative class action suit initiated by Dalia Avraham have been
asked to submit dates for a hearing on a motion to dismiss.

On or about September 16, 2018, Dalia Avraham filed an Application
for Approval of a Class Action in the Tel Aviv Israel District
Court against the Company and Dr. Phillip Frost.

This application was filed by a purported stockholder, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders. The Avraham Claim alleges a negligent and/or
deliberate act related to the trade of the Company's shares on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) which was intended to or which in
fact caused damage to the Company's investors based on the
Company's decision to delist from TASE in April 2018 and its
subsequent decision to continue to be listed on TASE.

The Avraham Claim seeks to declare the action to be a class action
and an estimated NIS 20 million (approximately USD $6.1 million) in
damages.

The parties have been asked to submit dates for a hearing on a
motion to dismiss.

OPKO said, "We believe that this action is without merit and the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself."

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OPKO HEALTH: Settlement in Florida Suit Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
class action suit headed by The Amitim Funds, awaits final
approval.

On September 7, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed
a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against a number of
individuals and entities, including the Company and its CEO and
Chairman, Dr. Phillip Frost.

The SEC alleged, among other things, that the Company (i) aided and
abetted an illegal "pump and dump" scheme perpetrated by a number
of the Defendants, and (ii) failed to file required Schedules 13D
or 13G with the SEC.

The Company and Dr. Frost entered into settlement agreements with
the SEC that resolved the SEC Complaint against each of them. The
settlement agreements were approved by the court in January 2019.

Pursuant to the settlement, and without admitting or denying any of
the allegations of the SEC Complaint, the Company is enjoined from
violating Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and paid a $100,000
penalty. Liability under Section 13(d) can be established without
any showing of wrongful intent or negligence.

Following the SEC's announcement of the SEC Complaint, the company
was named in several class action lawsuits, more than a dozen
derivative suits, and other litigation relating to the allegations
in the SEC Complaint among other matters.

On June 26, 2020, The Amitim Funds, the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuits, filed a Stipulation of Settlement in the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of itself and the remainder of the
class, which provides for the settlement of and release of the
class action claims against the Company and Dr. Frost for $16.5
million.

On September 4, 2020, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
was entered and a settlement hearing was held on December 15, 2020.


The settlement remains subject to certain terms and conditions
including court approval.

OPKO said, "Our insurance carriers have agreed to provide coverage
for a significant portion of the currently contemplated settlement
amounts in connection with the class action lawsuits."

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OPKO HEALTH: Sharon Suit in Tel Aviv Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Idan Sharon.

On or about September 13, 2018, Idan Sharon filed an Application
for Approval of a Class Action in the Tel Aviv Israel District
Court against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers, and certain members of its Board of Directors.


This application was filed by a purported stockholder, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders, claiming that in connection with the facts and
circumstances underlying the allegations in the Securities and
Exchange Commission Complaint, the Company engaged in fraudulent
conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact
or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading.

The Sharon Claim seeks both to declare the action a class action
and monetary damages.

The Court closed this case pending resolution of the U.S.-based
class actions relating to the allegations in the SEC Complaint.

The Court has ordered plaintiff's counsel to update the court with
respect to whether there has been a ruling in the U.S. class action
matter by February 17, 2021.

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Buchanan Settlement Approved With Modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BUCHANAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING
CORP., and THE PAY-O-MATIC CORP., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-885
(FB) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted Magistrate Judge
Steven Gold's report and recommendation recommending approval of a
proposed settlement, with certain modifications.

Prior to his retirement, Magistrate Judge Gold issued his report
and recommendation ("R&R") recommending approval of a proposed
settlement, with certain modifications, in the putative class
action.  The R&R advised that "any objections to the
recommendations made in this Report must be made on or before
October 22," and warned that "failure to file timely objections may
waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order."  The R&R was
electronically served on all parties as soon as it was entered.  To
date, no objections have been filed.

Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to
object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R
without de novo review.  The Court will, however, excuse the
failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the
magistrate judge may have committed plain error.

Judge Block finds no error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face
of the R&R.  He agrees with Magistrate Judge Gold's assessment that
the main settlement was fair and reasonable, but that the addendum
was not.  He further agrees that the proposed class notice was
deficient because it failed to advise the class members of their
right to appear through their own counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Block adopted the R&R.  He will enter an order
approving distribution of class notice upon submission of a
proposed notice that corrects the deficiency identified in the
R&R.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ytdp7uc from Leagle.com.

ANN SEELIG -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC,
in New York City, for the Plaintiff.

JONATHAN M. KOZAK -- Jonathan.Kozak@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C., in White Plains, New York, for the Defendants.


PENTEGRA DEFINED: Court Appoints Schlichter as Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IMRAN KHAN, et al., v.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al.,
Case No. 7:20-cv-07561-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M.
Halpern entered an order:

   1. granting the Schlichter Firm's motion to be appointed as
      interim class counsel and

   2. denying the Capozzi Firm's cross-motion to be appointed
      interim class counsel or co-counsel; and

   3. appointing Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP as interim
      class counsel under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(g)
      (2) and (3).

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes
that the Schlichter Firm is the more appropriate choice to serve as
interim lead class counsel, in light of the number of attorneys
dedicated to 401k excessive fee litigation who are committed to
work on this matter, and the fact that the Schlichter Firm handled
the precatory work in connection with the anticipated motion to
dismiss by the Defendants, Judge Halpern says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sFFlTs at no extra charge.[CC]

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: W.D. Washington Dismisses Flarity Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE PATRICK FLARITY, a marital community, Plaintiff v.
KENNETH ROBERTS; ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY; PIERCE COUNTY, a
municipal corporation; Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-6247-RJB (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted Defendants Pierce
County and Kenneth Roberts' FRCP 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss.

Both the case and a related matter also pending before the Court,
Case No. 3:20-cv-6083-RBJ, arise out of the Plaintiff's belief that
Pierce County incorrectly assessed his property, which caused his
taxes to increase.  The matter, however, specifically relates to
his hearing before the Pierce County Board of Equalization ("BOE")
to contest his assessment, which he believes was "unfair."

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings the action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 and claims that Pierce County and BOE Chairman
Kenneth Roberts violated his right to due process and equal
protection.  He alleges that he had a hearing before a BOE panel to
contest the appraisal of his land, and Defendant Roberts issued the
order denying his petition.

The Plaintiff claims that Pierce County has a pattern or practice
of unconstitutional practices but does not specify what those
practices were.  The only alleged factual support for the
Plaintiff's pattern or practice claim is that "research indicates
that near 100% of residential petitioners appearing before the BOE
with Defendant Roberts as chairperson suffered the same humiliating
defeat even though no representative appeared to argue for the
county.

According to the Plaintiff, he appealed his BOE decision to the
Washington State Board of Tax Appeals, which was denied, and filed
a claim for damages with the Pierce County Risk Management, which
was also denied.  Neither the Plaintiff, nor the Defendants allege
that the Plaintiff brought his claim before a state court.

The Plaintiff intends for his claims to be brought as a class
action.

In the pending motion, Defendants Pierce County and Roberts move to
dismiss based on quasi-judicial immunity, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, and under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6).  A third
defendant, Argonaut Insurance, is not a party to the motion.  
Judge Bryan holds that the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on
quasi-judicial immunity should be granted as to Defendant Roberts,
and he should be dismissed from the matter with prejudice.  He
finds that Defendant Roberts is absolutely immune from suit because
his role was functionally equivalent to that of a judge.  The
Plaintiff acknowledges that he went to the BOE to present an appeal
and to argue his case.  Defendant Roberts, as with all BOE members,
appears to have been appointed to do just that: listen to both
sides and render an independent decision.  Regardless of whether
Defendant Roberts acted correctly, or even improperly, he was
acting as a quasi-judicial officer and has absolute immunity from
suit.

The Plaintiff does not appear to have appealed the BOE's decision
to state court.  Therefore, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is
inapplicable because there was never a final judgment from a state
court.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine should be denied.

Judge Bryan then finds that the Plaintiff makes only generalized
statements about his BOE hearing being "unfair."  The Plaintiff
does not point to a specific policy or practice at issue.  His
conclusory statements that Pierce County had a pattern or practice
of unconstitutional practices are insufficient to raise his right
to relief above the speculative level.  Hence, the Judge holds that
the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) should be
granted, and Defendant Pierce County should be dismissed without
prejudice.

Finally, it is well established that the privilege to represent
oneself pro se provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 1654 is personal to
the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.
Specifically, Section 1654 does not permit a pro se party to bring
a class action or any claim on behalf of others in a representative
capacity.  Hence, the case is not a class action.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Bryan granted the Defendants
Pierce County and Kenneth Roberts' motion to dismiss with prejudice
as to Kenneth Roberts and without prejudice as to Pierce County.
He directed the Clerk to send uncertified copies of the Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2dx2r3tc from Leagle.com.


PLUM PBC: Gulkarov Files Suit Over Baby Food Safety
---------------------------------------------------
Ludmila Gulkarov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Plum, PBC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00913 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2021), seeks both injunctive
and monetary relief, including requiring full disclosure of all
substances contained in its baby food product in its marketing,
advertising, and labeling, and as well as restoring monies to the
members of the proposed class.

Plum, PBC formulates, develops, manufactures, labels, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells baby foods under the "Plum Organics"
brand throughout the United States.

On February 4, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives'
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on
Oversight and Reform, published a report detailing its findings
that Heavy Metals -- including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury
-- were present in "significant levels" in numerous commercial baby
food products. Plum was one of the baby food manufacturers from
whom the Subcommittee requested internal documents and test
results. However, Plum refused to cooperate with the Subcommittee's
investigation, and refused to produce its testing standards and
specific test results.

Gulkarov brings this class action complaint against Plum, PBC for
its negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy
metals in its baby food. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph DePalma, Esq.
     Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
             scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
     C. William Frick, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
            kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            rapeterson@locklaw.com


PPL CORP: Request for Discretionary Review in Cane Run Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
Cane Run Environmental Claims class action suit filed a petition
for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and common
law claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence.

In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and
all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common
law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court
dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim
against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims
dismissing the case in its entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence, and trespass tort claims.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.

On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals. On December 11, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the lower court's denial of class certification.


In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary
review with the Kentucky Supreme Court.

PPL, LG&E and KU Energy LLC (LKE) and Louisville Gas and Electric
Company (LG&E) cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PPL Corporation et al., remains stayed.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the
sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors. Plaintiff
asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both
actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees;
civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly
fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive
damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief.


In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division (MT Federal Court).

In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case.

In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion
to remand the case back to state court. Although, the PPL
defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant
an appeal of the remand decision, in November 2019, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in December 2019,
Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud
County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a plaintiff.

In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of the Delaware Action. The
Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motion to
dismiss.

On September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants'
alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings.

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

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PREMIER MEDICAL: ARcare Inc. Files TCPA Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Medical Inc.
The case is styled as ARcare Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Premier Medical Inc. doing business
as: Premier Medical Laboratory Services, Case No. 6:21-cv-00589-JD
(D.S.C., Feb. 26, 2021).

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

Premier -- https://premedinc.com/ -- is an advanced diagnostics lab
that specializes in the following areas: General and Routine
Chemistry's, Advanced Cardiovascular Testing, Allergen–Specific
IgE Blood Testing, Women's Health, Pharmacogenomics, Patient RX
Monitoring, Molecular, Wellness Panel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane William Rogers, Esq.
          William Douglas Smith, Esq.
          JOHNSON SMITH HIBBARD AND WILDMAN
          PO Drawer 5587
          Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587
          Phone: (864) 582-8121
          Fax: (864) 585-5328
          Email: srogers@jshwlaw.com
                 dsmith@jshwlaw.com


PROBUILD COMPANY: Court Vacates Deal Approval Hearing in SengVong
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OTINA SENGVONG, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19cv2231-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California vacated the previously scheduled hearing on the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement.

Plaintiff Sengvong's unopposed motion for preliminary approval is
currently set for hearing on March 8, 2021.  Upon due
consideration, Judge Anello finds the matter suitable for
determination without oral argument.  Accordingly, no appearances
are required and the defense counsel's motion to appear at the
hearing telephonically is moot.  The Judge will issue a written
ruling as soon as practicable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/545rhxtu from Leagle.com.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Graney Slams Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Graney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Jose
E. Cil, Matthew Dunnigan, Joshua Kobza and Alexandre Macedo,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-20508, (S.D. Fla., February 5, 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.

Restaurant Brands is a restaurant chain company operating Tim
Hortons, Burger King and Popeyes restaurants worldwide. Restaurant
Brands common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "QSR." The company operates under similar franchise
business models. Restaurant Brands generates revenue from franchise
revenues, consisting primarily of royalties franchise fees,
property revenues from Company-owned properties that are leased or
subleased to franchisees and sales at Company-owned restaurants.
Additionally, the Tim Hortons brand generates revenue from
manufacturing and distribution sales to franchisees and retailers.

On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced its "Winning
Together Plan" and "Tims Rewards" program for Tim Hortons customers
in Canada. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
United States. It completed two stock offerings collectively
resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to insiders.
Weeks after the offerings were completed and investors learned that
Tim Hortons's hyped growth initiatives, the company announced
disappointing financial results for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2019.

On this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined
$2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per
share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on October
28, 2019.

Graney purchased Restaurant Brands common stock at allegedly
artificially inflated prices and was damaged by the corrective
disclosure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      2222 Ponce De Leon, 3rd Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Fax: (973) 994-1744
      Email: zbower@carellabyrne.com


RUBYLIN INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RUBYLIN, INC. et al.
The case is styled as William Garcia, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. RUBYLIN,
INC. d/b/a Max's Fried Chicken, a California Corporation, MAX'S
RESTAURANT, An Unknown Business Entity, Case No. CGC21589757 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 26, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Rubylin, Inc. -- https://www.maxsrestaurantna.com/ -- is located in
South San Francisco, California and is part of the Restaurants
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021



SIMPLY STORAGE: Arbitration Order in Maffucci Class Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIN MAFFUCCI and ANTHONY MAFFUCCI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SIMPLY STORAGE BARNEGAT, LLC,
Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-4448-19 (N.J. Super. App. Div.),
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed and
remanded the Aug. 7, 2020 Law Division order compelling arbitration
and staying litigation.

Plaintiffs Erin Maffucci and Anthony Maffucci are husband and wife.
On July 9, 2018, they rented a unit from the Defendant to store
their personal property from that date until April 2019, when they
anticipated moving into their new home.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the Defendant represented that their unit was climate
controlled.  Erin Maffucci signed the agreement, which contained
the arbitration provisions at issue.

Between July 9, 2018, and December 2018, the Plaintiffs made
several trips to the unit and did not notice any issues with their
stored items.  They did not return to the unit until April 6, 2019,
after their moving company observed mold growth on their personal
property.  The Plaintiffs thereafter hired a mold remediation
specialist, who observed condensation dripping from the ceiling.
An air test revealed an elevated presence of aspergillus, a mold
known to cause respiratory infections.  Upon advice of their mold
specialist, the Plaintiffs discarded all property that had been
stored in the unit.

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a seven-count complaint against the
Defendants on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals, asserting claims under the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A.
56:12-14 to 49.1, the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-20,
and common law claims, including fraud, negligence, breach of
contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The Plaintiffs sought statutory penalties and declaratory
relief on their class action claims, and compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit on all
claims.

The Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim,
contending the parties agreed to resolve their disputes through
binding arbitration under the terms of the rental agreement.  The
parties exchanged paper discovery limited to the Plaintiffs'
pre-certified class action claims.

When settlement negotiations failed, the Defendant moved to stay
the litigation and compel arbitration.  It argued the parties
agreed to waive their rights to a jury trial and "to bring or
participate in any class action."  The Plaintiff argued the terms
of the arbitration provision were not clear because they did not
explain the term "arbitration" or "how arbitration is different
from court."

On Aug. 7, 2020, the judge issued the order compelling arbitration
and staying the litigation.  Prior to the Aug. 13, 2020 return date
to select an arbitrator, the Plaintiffs filed their appeal with the
Court and the motion judge cancelled the final hearing.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs raise four points for the Appellate
Court's consideration.  Procedurally, the Plaintiffs contend the
judge's order was not accompanied by any findings of fact or
conclusions of law, contrary to Rule 1:7-4, thereby requiring a
remand.  Substantively, they challenge the enforceability of the
arbitration clause, reprising their arguments that the provision
"does not clearly and explicitly waive the right to sue in court";
does not "refer to Plaintiffs' statutory claims"; and does not
comply with the Plain Language Law, N.J.S.A. 56:12-1 to-13.

Because the Superior Court agrees a remand is warranted, it need
not reach the Plaintiffs' substantive contentions on the appeal.
It finds that the Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the
arbitration provisions and argued their statutory disputes were not
encompassed by those provisions.  Although during colloquy at all
three hearings, the motion judge summarily stated the terms of the
arbitration provisions were clear and obligated the parties to
arbitrate their disputes, the judge made no factual or legal
findings whatsoever as to the issues the parties raised.

The Superior Court realizes the hearings focused on the selection
of an arbitrator.  However, it finds no indication in the order
granting the Defendant's motion that confirms the judge made an
independent decision based upon an analysis of the facts and
applicable law.  Under these circumstances, it has no alternative
but to vacate the Aug. 7, 2020 order, and remand the matter to the
trial court to enter a new order, together with a written or oral
statement of reasons addressing all issues raised by the parties in
conformity with Rule 1:7-4.  In remanding the matter, the Superior
Court does not suggest a preferred result, but only that the trial
court fulfill its duty to the parties to fully address the factual
and legal arguments presented in the case.

Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed and remanded.  It does not
retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4fhjvu4f from Leagle.com.

Jay B. Bohn -- jbohn@schiller.law -- argued the cause for
appellants (Schiller, Pittenger & Galvin, PC, attorneys; Kieran M.
Dowling -- kdowling@schiller.law -- of counsel and on the briefs;
Jay B. Bohn, on the briefs).

Christine D. McGuire -- cmcguire@turneromara.com -- argued the
cause for respondent (Turner O'Mara Donnelly & Petrycki, PC,
attorneys; Linton W. Turner, Jr. -- lturner@turneromara.com -- of
counsel; Christine D. McGuire, on the brief).


SM ENERGY: Chieftain Royalty Suit Moved to Oklahoma State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
SM Energy Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. SM Energy Company, Case
No. CIV-18-1225-J, has been moved to the United States District
Court, Western District of Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2011, Chieftain Royalty Company commenced a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company by filing a Petition in
the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma, in the matter
originally styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. SM Energy Company
(including predecessors, successors and affiliates), Case No.
CJ-2011-04, alleging that the Company had improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalty payments due on production from
wells located throughout Oklahoma, and asserting claims against the
Company for breach of contract, tortious breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary duty, fraud (actual and
constructive), deceit, conversion and conspiracy.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma.

SM Energy Company is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


T.S. DUDLEY: $24K Class Settlement in Penska Suit Wins Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE PENSKA, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T.S. DUDLEY LAND COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
v. AJP LAND SERVICES LLC, Third-Party Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-435-NR (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the
parties' Agreed Motion to Approve Settlement.

The case is a wage and hour putative collective and class action.
Plaintiff Penska alleges that Defendant T.S. Dudley misclassified
him and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors
and improperly paid them only a day rate without overtime.  Mr.
Penska asserts claims under the FLSA and PMWA.

Throughout the litigation, T.S. Dudley maintained that it properly
classified and compensated Mr. Penska and its other workers.  It
also brought a third-party complaint against AJP Land and a
counterclaim against Mr. Penska, alleging claims related to a
vendor agreement between T.S. Dudley and AJP Land.

The parties have settled their case on an individual basis, for a
total amount of $24,000.  Under their settlement agreement, Mr.
Penska will receive a net payment of $13,716.03 and his counsel
will receive $10,283.97 to cover attorneys' fees and costs.  In
exchange, Mr. Penska will release all wage and hour claims against
T.S. Dudley.  The settlement does not purport to release the claims
of any other T.S. Dudley employee or contractor.

The parties, as is customarily done in FLSA cases, have moved the
Court to approve their settlement.  The Court, however, recently
recognized that judicial approval of FLSA settlements may not be
required, especially where the case is not "being settled on a
classwide or collective basis."  Nevertheless, to provide the
parties comfort, Judge Ranjan considers their motion for approval
of the settlement.

Judge Ranjan notes that when reviewing an individual,
non-collective FLSA settlement, the criteria "are narrow" and can
be reduced to a simple two-part, cost-benefit analysis.  First,
what are the anticipated costs of continuing to litigate the case?
And, second, what are the plaintiff's damages weighed against his
likelihood of success?"

Based on this analysis, Judge Ranjan concludes that the
cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor of approving the parties'
proposed settlement because the costs of additional work on the
case are high, there is no guarantee that Mr. Penska would
ultimately succeed on his claims, and Mr. Penska is recovering, at
a minimum, two-thirds of his best-case scenario at trial now
without having to wait.

Upon consideration of the parties' Agreed Motion to Approve
Settlement, the Judge granted the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3uprdvud from Leagle.com.


TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON: Corbitt ERISA Suit Goes to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDRE CORBITT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY BENEFITS COMMITTEE, AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2021-00883, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
February 26, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00899 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged improper use of
subrogation with respect to benefits the Plaintiff received
pursuant to an employee welfare benefit plan under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Aetna Life Insurance Company is an insurance company in Hartford,
Connecticut.

The Rawlings Company, LLC is an insurance claims recovery solutions
provider based in La Grange, Kentucky. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Timothy T. Myers, Esq.
         John P. Elliott, Esq.
         Kyle M. Elliott, Esq.
         Thomas B. Helbig, Jr., Esq.
         ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C.
         925 Harvest Drive, Suite 300
         Blue Bell, PA 19422
         Telephone: (215) 977-1000
         Facsimile: (215) 977-1099
         E-mail: ttm@elliottgreenleaf.com
                 jpe@elliottgreenleaf.com

UNITED PARCEL: Boyle Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIM BOYLE, individually, and as representative of a
class of similarly situated persons comprising the unincorporated
labor organization, The International Brotherhood of Teamsters v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. (AIR), Case No. 21-CI-000813, was removed
from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March
1, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00135-CRS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged public nuisance,
negligence, and negligence per se based on certain workplace
cleaning protocols and communication protocols that it instituted
with the Union about COVID-19 issues.

United Parcel Service Co. (Air) is a package delivery services
provider based in Sandy Springs, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Meredith Kingsley, Esq.
         Charles H. Morgan, Esq.
         F. Nicholas Chandler, Esq.
         ALSTON & BIRD LLP
         One Atlantic Center
         1201 West Peachtree Street
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 881-7000
         Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
         E-mail: meredith.kingsley@alston.com
                 charlie.morgan@alston.com
                 nick.chandler@alston.com

                - and –

         Tony C. Coleman, Esq.
         Amir J. Nahavandi, Esq.
         DINSMORE &SHOHL LLP
         101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Telephone: (502) 540-2300
         Facsimile: 502-585-2207
         E-mail: tony.coleman@dinsmore.com
                 amir.nahavandi@dinsmore.com

UNITED STATES: McCreary v. BOP Recommitted to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSAMUEL RODRIGUEZ McCREARY, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants, Civil No.
1:17-CV-01011 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania adopted in
part and denied in part the report and recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Susan E. Schwab recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification be denied, as well as the parties' objections.

The Plaintiffs--McCreary, Richard C. Anamanya, and Joseph R.
Coppola--filed their complaint on June 9, 2017, naming as
Defendants the Federal Bureau of Prisons, its then-Director, Thomas
R. Kane, and the Warden of United States Penitentiary Lewisburg
("USP Lewisburg"), David J. Ebbert.  The Plaintiffs complain about
the treatment of prisoners housed within the Special Management
Unit ("SMU") at USP Lewisburg who are suffering from mental illness
and serious mental illness.  They have asserted that the Defendants
have violated the United States Constitution's Eighth Amendment by
acting, or by failing to act, with deliberate indifference to the
health and safety of these prisoners.

On June 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended that two
motions filed by the Defendants--a motion to dismiss (or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment), and a motion for a protective
order staying discovery--be denied.  Following this recommendation
(which was adopted, in large part, by United States District Judge
Yvette Kane), Magistrate Judge Schwab denied the Plaintiffs'
pending motion for class certification without prejudice, set
deadlines for them to file another motion for class certification
and for briefing of that motion, and established other case
management deadlines.

On Aug. 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the current motion for class
certification.  That motion was then fully briefed.

On Jan. 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Schwab issued a report and
recommendation concerning the current motion for class
certification.  In the report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Schwab opined that though the Plaintiffs' individual claims
appeared to be moot (because the named Plaintiffs were no longer
incarcerated in the SMU at USP Lewisburg), an exception to the
mootness doctrine allowed her to decide the current motion for
class certification.  Further, she recommended that the current
motion be denied because the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the
numerosity prerequisite for class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a).

Noting that the Plaintiffs were "inconsistent about how they
defined the class," Magistrate Judge Schwab defined the class as
"all current and future inmates in the SMU at USP Lewisburg with a
mental illness or serious mental illness."  Finally, she ruled
that, given her conclusion that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet
their burden regarding numerosity, she need not address other Rule
23(a) prerequisites for class certification.

On April 8, 2020, both parties objected to sections of Magistrate
Judge Schwab's report and recommendation.  Both sets of objections
have been fully briefed and are ripe for the Court's review.

First, the parties do not object to Magistrate Judge Schwab's
recommendation to define the class as "all current and future
inmates in the SMU at USP Lewisburg who have a mental illness or
serious mental illness."  Further, they do not object to Magistrate
Judge Schwab's recommendation that the case is not moot for
purposes of ruling on the motion for class certification even
though the named Plaintiffs are no longer incarcerated at USP
Lewisburg.

After giving "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions
of the report and recommendation, Judge Wilson finds that
Magistrate Judge Schwab's analysis is well-reasoned and fully
supported by the record and applicable law.  She will adopt these
portions of the report and recommendation in full.

Next, the parties' dispute regarding the class certification
prerequisite of numerosity presents a conceptual problem for the
Court.  In the parties' briefs, which were filed in April, 2020,
the parties entangle the arguments about numerosity and mootness by
debating whether the case should be mooted, as a general matter,
due to the announced closure of the SMU at USP Lewisburg.  But the
process of closing the SMU at USP Lewisburg was not yet complete in
early 2020, and this provided considerable room for debate about
the issue of mootness in the case as it relates to class
certification.

Although Judge Wilson appreciates Magistrate Judge Schwab's
thorough, reasoned recommendation on the numerosity issue, she
ultimately finds the Plaintiffs' objection to be compelling.  In
particular, she is persuaded by the Plaintiffs' argument concerning
the circumstantial showing of evidence that a plaintiff must make
to demonstrate numerosity, and their analysis of Third Circuit case
law dealing with the specific numerical threshold--or lack
thereof--that a plaintiff must meet to demonstrate numerosity.
Accordingly, she will decline to adopt Magistrate Judge Schwab's
recommendation that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
be denied due to a lack of numerosity based on the record evidence
available in January of 2020.

However, the issue of mootness remains in play with respect to
whether the court should certify the proposed class in the case.
Judge Wilson finds it necessary to assess the issue of mootness
based on the current status of the SMU at USP Lewisburg.  However,
the most recent information submitted by the parties was in April
2020, and the Judge surmises that the facts underlying this issue
may have shifted in the ten intervening months.  The information
submitted by the counsel on these and on other factual issues
relevant to the mootness analysis in April of 2020 is now stale.

Judge Wilson finds that refreshed consideration of the mootness
issue is appropriate.  Therefore, she will recommit the matter to
Magistrate Judge Schwab with an instruction to, first, permit
supplemental submissions from the parties on the current inmate
population and closure status of the SMU at USP Lewisburg, and
second, to further consider the issue of mootness as it relates to
the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b).

Finally, Judge Wilson will deny the Defendants' objection to
Magistrate Judge Schwab not examining the other Rule 23(a)
prerequisites.  She finds that they have provided no legal
authority for their argument that if a court finds that one of the
four Rule 23(a) prerequisites is not satisfied, that court must go
on to then consider the other three prerequisites and make rulings
on whether or not they are satisfied.  The Judge disagrees, noting
that to impose a requirement that a court consider all four 23(a)
prerequisites in ruling on a motion for class certification runs
counter to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which states that the
Federal Rules "should be construed, administered, and employed by
the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wilson adopted in part and denied
in part Magistrate Judge Schwab's report and recommendation, and
recommitted the case to Magistrate Judge Schwab.  An appropriate
order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4sz9sc8t from Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Feinman Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Ben Feinman filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled In
re: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION; JAMES BEN FEINMAN, Petitioner, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent, Case No. 20-1170.

Response is due on March 26, 2021.

Mr. James Ben Feinman petitions for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled In re: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION;
JAMES BEN FEINMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-16074. The Ninth
Circuit denied Mr. Feinman's petition for rehearing on September
24, 2020.

The questions presented are:

1. Is one bound by a judgment in personam in a class action
litigation in which he or she is not designated as a party, is not
a member of the class, and to which he or she has not been made a
party by service of process?

2. Does judicial action enforcing a class action settlement
purporting to release the vested statutory property rights of one
who is not a party, is not a member of the class, and who was not
served with process in the class action meet the due process
requirements of the Fifth (and Fourteenth) Amendments?

3. Can a class action settlement be applied to bar claims for
State law statutory attorney fee liens that accrue after the filing
of the initial Complaint, in violation of Lucky Brand Dungarees,
Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 206 L.Ed. 2d 893 (May 14,
2020)?

4. Can an injunction be enforced against one not named in the
injunction order, and who is not within the defined boundaries of
FRCP 65(d)(2)?

5. Can a federal district court use an earlier injunction order to
later impose an injunction on a non-party's State court litigation
when the four corners of the earlier injunction order did not
encompass the later State court litigation?

6. Can the "impermissible collateral attack doctrine" be used to
affect claim preclusion against one not named as a party in a class
action suit, who is not a member of the class, and who was not
served with process?

7. Can a State court be enjoined by a federal district court from
litigating a claim without the district court articulating the
basis of the injunction under one of the specific exceptions to the
Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
government's suit arose from the car manufacturer's installation in
some of its cars of "defeat devices" -- surreptitious pieces of
software that allowed VW to cheat on emissions tests.  Six months
after filing suit, the parties reached a final proposed consent
decree, and the government filed it with the court.

The consent decree established a program by which VW would buy
back, permit the termination of leases of, or perform modifications
on the emissions systems of all affected vehicles.5 VW would also
pay $2.7 billion into a "mitigation trust" to offset the increased
NOx emissions caused by the affected vehicles, and pay another $2
billion to support public awareness of zeroemissions vehicles. For
the buyback-lease termination-modification program, the consent
decree set a participation target of 85% of the affected vehicles;
for each percentage point below 85%, VW had to pay additional funds
into the mitigation trust.

The terms of the class action settlement largely overlapped with
the terms of the consent decree between VW and the government and
also with a separate consent order filed by the Federal Trade
Commission. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 50.7(b), notice of the
partial consent decree appeared in the Federal Register on July 6,
2016, and a 30-day public comment period ensued. See Notice of
Lodging of Proposed Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act,
81 Fed. Reg. 44,051 (July 6, 2016).

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that a
settlement reached between Class Members and VW extinguished
Feinman's vested property rights. It thereby disregarded
long-established, fundamental due process principles. The Ninth
Circuit's holdings will not go unnoticed. They will establish a new
precedent for untold yet predictable future deprivations of vested
property rights in class action cases, Mr. Feinman said.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner James Ben Feinman is represented
by:

          Norman A. Thomas, Esq.
          NORMAN A. THOMAS, PLLC
          1015 East Main Street Lower Level
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 303-9538
          E-mail: norman@normanthomaslaw.com

WELLPET LLC: Loduca Sues Over Dog Foods' Daily Feeding Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
RITA SCHMIDT LODUCA, DONNA FREEMAN, and LYNN WESLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WELLPET LLC, BERWIND CORPORATION, and CLEARLAKE CAPITAL GROUP,
L.P., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00954-JCJ (E.D. Pa., March 1,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
misleading representations and omissions in the daily feeding
directions contained in the labels of their canine pet food
products. The Defendants misrepresent the appropriate daily feeding
amounts for dogs, and omit that these daily feeding directions are
only appropriate for the highest demand activity level and breed.
As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiffs and other purchasers were misled as to the appropriate
daily feeding requirements for individual canine pets, which caused
the canines to eat excess and unhealthy amounts of food and the
purchasers to use more of Defendants' dog food products per day
than was otherwise necessary, the suit says.

WellPet LLC is a pet food company headquartered in Tewksbury,
Massachusetts.

Berwind Corporation is a private investment management company
located at 3000 Centre Square West, 1500 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. is an investment firm located in
Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
         Gabriel C. Magee, Esq.
         Joshua M. Neuman, Esq.
         POGUST MILLROOD, LLC
         161 Washington Street, Suite 940
         Conshohocken, PA 19428
         Telephone: (610) 941-4204
         E-mail: tmillrood@pogustmillrood.com
                 gmagee@pogustmillrood.com
                 jneuman@pogustmillrood.com

WESTERN RANGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Castillo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Western Range Association, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-CLB (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

The Defendant moves for dismissal claiming that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d) ("CAFA") because the Plaintiff and the class
members are not citizens of Nevada but citizens of Peru.

Judge Jones notes that under CAFA, federal courts have original
diversity jurisdiction over class actions where the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, where the putative class
size exceeds 100 persons, and where there is minimal diversity.
Minimal diversity, he says, is satisfied by any of the following:
"(A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State
different from any defendant; (B) any member of a class of
plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign
state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (C) any member
of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant
is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state."

Even if these requirements are satisfied, a court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under paragraph 4 if, among other things,
"two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens
of the State in which the action was originally filed."

On appeal, Judge Jones finds that the circuit has already held that
all but the minimal diversity requirement was satisfied in the case
because, at that time, minimal diversity was not at issue.

The Defendant now argues that minimal diversity is not satisfied in
the case because the Plaintiffs are citizens of Peru and not
citizens of a State.  It claims that it is a requirement for
minimal diversity that "two-thirds of the Plaintiffs be citizens of
the state in which they are bringing suit."

Judge Jones finds it a frivolous contention that appears to be
based on the mistaken belief that minimal diversity is only
satisfied under Section 1332(d)(2)(A) and that the exception to
jurisdiction under Section 1332(d)(4)(B) is a requirement.
However, he holds, that minimal diversity can be found where any
plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state and any defendant is a
citizen of a State, Section 1332(d)(2)(B), and paragraph 4 does not
show requirements for jurisdiction under Section 1332(d) but ways
in which it is lost, Section 1332(d)(4)(B).  The Defendant's
contentions therefore are without merit.  Accordingly, he denied
the Defendant's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yf3a5yfk from Leagle.com.


WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Albert Haynes III, et al., filed with the
Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the matter styled WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES III, ET AL., Petitioners
v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Respondent, Case No.
20-1169.

Response is due on March 26, 2021.

The question presented is: Did the Second Circuit err in ruling
that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Petitioners' appeals in
three of seven consolidated cases, which were filed within 30 days
after final judgment in the last of those cases, on the ground that
the appeals were untimely under Hall, even though, more than a year
before Hall, the Second Circuit had dismissed Petitioners'
otherwise timely first attempted appeals because final judgment had
not yet been entered in all of the consolidated cases?

Mr. Haynes petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. On September 9, 2020, the Second Circuit issued
a summary order, dismissing the appeals of the sanctions orders and
the merits appeals of the dismissal of all claims in the Haynes,
McCullough, Frazier, and Singleton cases for lack of appellate
jurisdiction and affirming the judgment of the district court on
all other claims.

On September 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a petition
for rehearing/rehearing en banc, which was denied on October 15,
2020.

The lawsuit involves seven cases consolidated in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. Each of the cases
was brought against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE), by
one or more former WWE wrestlers. The Plaintiffs all alleged that
as a result of physical trauma they experienced while performing
for WWE, they suffered neurological damage resulting in diseases
such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as well as other
significant physical and mental-health impairments. All of the
cases were consolidated in the district court based on disputed
forum-selection clauses in the wrestlers' contracts with WWE. The
cases filed by William Albert Haynes III in October 2014 and by
Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew Robert Wiese in April
2015 were putative class actions in which the matter in controversy
exceeded $5 million and involved a class member who was a citizen
of a State different from any defendant, thus giving rise to
federal jurisdiction in the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A). On March 21, 2016, the district court granted
motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' actions in Haynes and McCullough
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's decision to the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners William Albert Haynes III, et
al., are represented by:

          Konstantine William Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW, P.C.
          17 Miles Road
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Faces 2,075 PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in
numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
approximately 2,075 individual claimants as of December 31, 2020,
compared to approximately 1,727 individual claimants with actions
pending on December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

3M Company states: "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. As of year-end 2020,
there has been an increase in the number of cases filed alleging
injuries from exposures to coal mine dust. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a
jury. In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two
lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the
other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving
allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to
protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a
jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed
to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded
compensatory damages of approximately $2 million and punitive
damages totaling $63 million. In August 2018, the trial court
entered judgment and the Company appealed. During March and April
2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial
majority of the coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in April 2018
in the Kentucky case. That settlement was completed in 2019, and
the appeal has been dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a
respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving
a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was
defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him
against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense
verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not
defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a
cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff has filed a notice
of appeal.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.

"As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and
two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the
Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation
and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational
pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. In October 2019,
the court granted the State’s motion to sever its unfair trade
practices claim. In January 2020, the manufacturers filed a
petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the
trial court's rulings; that petition was denied in November 2020.
No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time.
In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or
range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses
by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in
this case, and the assertions of claims against two other
manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on
the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault,
if any, a jury may allocate to each defendant if the case were
ultimately tried."

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Faces PI Claims at Feb. 2
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company sates: "Such claims result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley
Stoker Corporation (Riley) and the acquisition of Hercules in
November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers
contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other
companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a
limited industrial market.

"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained Nathan Associates Inc. (Nathan). The methodology
used by Nathan to project future asbestos costs is based largely on
recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates,
disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation
defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are
separately compared to the results of previously conducted third
party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information,
Nathan estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and
receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income (Loss).

"Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity of
the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, mortality rates, dismissal
rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of
other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential
changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any
predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Considering
these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos
reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate
within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to
develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of
long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on
national studies that predict the number of people likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases and are heavily influenced by
assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity
payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables
mentioned previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various
models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $520 million for the Ashland
asbestos-related litigation (current reserve of $325 million) and
approximately $350 million for the Hercules asbestos-related
litigation (current reserve of $224 million), depending on the
combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If
actual experience is worse than projected, relative to the number
of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with
those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, or
actuarial refinement or improvements to the assumptions used within
these models are initiated, Ashland may need to further increase
the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and
these increases could be material over time."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/306MnEL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, along with other vehicle manufacturers, have
been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a
defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted
from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states: "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Plaintiffs in
these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a
result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in
older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our
facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We
believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits
because many previously targeted companies have filed for
bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for
such claims.

"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared
to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence
confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk
of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of
asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of
our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very
difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and
punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not
specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the
dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast
majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, sometimes more
than one hundred. Many of these cases also involve multiple
plaintiffs, and often we are unable to tell from the pleadings
which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other
defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant
in the future. Our accrual for asbestos matters includes probable
losses for both asserted and unasserted claims."

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $23MM Pending Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states: "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of,
and for the periods ended, December 31, 2020 and December 31,
2019.

"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is $23
million to $45 million as of December 31, 2020, and $24 million to
$45 million as of December 31, 2019. Because no amount within the
range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we
recorded the minimum amount of $23 million and $24 million as of
December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, which is principally
recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance
Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and
excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims
(which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In
addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for
probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $5 million,
which is principally recorded in Other assets on our Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/383b0q4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Inc.,
is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related
suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states: "These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the
past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on
Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary,
Amchem Products, Inc.

"Each year, Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") performs a
review for Union Carbide based upon historical asbestos claims,
resolution and asbestos-related defense and processing costs,
through the terminal year of 2049. Union Carbide compares current
asbestos claim and resolution activity, including asbestos-related
defense and processing costs, to the results of the most recent
Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the
asbestos-related liability continues to be appropriate.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to Union Carbide,
Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific
damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.
In fact, there are no asbestos personal injury cases in which only
Union Carbide and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For
these reasons and based upon Union Carbide's litigation and
settlement experience, Union Carbide does not consider the damages
alleged against Union Carbide and Amchem to be a meaningful factor
in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability."

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 1,300 PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states: "To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of December 31, 2020, there were approximately 1,300 such
lawsuits.

"We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related
personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them
vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially
beyond our expectations, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases. We do not expect the
resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or
cash flows. At December 31, 2020, we had a $13.6 million estimated
liability for these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2NWe6pa


                            *********

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 ***