Page 1 Sign up for a 30-Day FREE TRIAL at Classactionreporter.Com

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

Monday, March 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 42

Headlines

141 N. ALVARADO: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says 33 UNION SQUARE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 3M COMPANY: City of Birmingham Alleges Environmental Contamination AARP INC: Nichols Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 9th Cir. ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Underway

ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway ABBVIE INC: Restasis Antitrust Suit Against Allergan Ongoing ALABAMA: Court Tosses Dixon's Motion for Class Certification

ALABAMA: Taylor Bid for Class Certification Junked ALPINE TOWING: Faces Vargas Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Boone Alleges AMERICAN BANKERS: March 9 Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought AMERICAN CITY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Tracy Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway APACHE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline APOLLO GLOBAL: ADT Shareholder Litigation Dismissed w/ Prejudice APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Still Pending

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Orders Remand of Fongers Suit to Illinois APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked AQUESTIVE THERA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action

ARCH INSURANCE: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by Oct. 20 ATHENEX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline AVANOS MEDICAL: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit vs KCC Concluded BAKER CREEK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food

BERRY GLOBAL: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Howard Alleges BIG PICTURE: March 22 Response Time to Class Cert. Bid Sought BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Payer Suit Removed to D.S.C. BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Lopez Says BRANDED GROUP: Stacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir. BROWNING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUFFETS LLC: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for Sept. 30 C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response OK'd C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response Sought

CARERITE CENTERS: McDonald Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Under FLSA CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Leszanczuk Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir. CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Pending CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit CERTIFIED MULTIMEDIA: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Seeks to Certify Two Classes CHESAPEAKE DETENTION: Catchings Suit Seeks Class Certification CHEVRON CORP: Faces San Francisco Herring Suit in Cal. State Court CHEWY.COM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Dog Food Products Packaging CHICAGO, IL: Taylor Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir.

CLARK & GENTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Avrahami Suit CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Class Action COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONTAINER STORE: Neal Sues for Invasion of Privacy

COPART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CORE & MAIN: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for July 2 CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

DIRECTV LLC: Federal Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in B&R Suit Pending DROPBOX INC: Settlement Reached in California IPO Related Suit E.L.F. COSMETICS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York EAN SERVICES: Swiggum FSCA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

EAN SERVICES: Swiggum Says Web Transactions Illegally Monitored EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

EHANG HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Reminds of April 19 Deadline EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Suit Claims ELECTRONIC ARTS: Dynamic Difficulty' Class-Action Suit Gets Dropped ELEMENT MATERIALS: Appeals Remand of Flores Labor Class Action ENCORE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Cline Class Suit Pending ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Favors Regency Defendants in Dieckman Suit EPIC GAMES: Set to Settle Class Action Over Fortnite Loot Boxes EPIC GAMES: Williams Sues Over Game's Manipulation of Minors ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due October 25

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Alhadeff Suit Removed to C.D. California F21 OPCO: Taylor BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FABFITFUN INC: Gaston Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses FACEBOOK INC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 8 FALONI LAW: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

FANDANGO MEDIA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FEED PROJECTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. FLAUM APPETIZING: Final Approval of Collective Settlement Sought

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Severance Benefits FRANCE: Families Join Suit After Deaths in Nursing Homes FRED MEYER: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FURMO LLC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York G4S SECURE: Snell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

GAIN CAPITAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Following FDA Report GF MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Oct. 8 GLADDEN EQUIPMENT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GODADDY INC: Settlement Objector Files Notice of Appeal

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Report Collection GOOGLE INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses Stadia Lawsuit GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Seeks to Certify Class Action GRIDDY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Price Gouging GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Reminds of June 6 Deadline

HAIN CELESTIAL: Albano Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food HAMILTON POINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims HANWHA TECHWIN: Jacobs BIPA Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois HARTFORD CASUALTY: Robert A. Levy Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal

HEALTHY HALO: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action HORSEHEAD HOLDING: June 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Austin Sues Over Race Bias in the Workplace

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com HUMBOLDT BRONCOS: Court Weighs What to Do With Different Lawsuits IMPINJ INC: Awaits Court Order to Discontinue Plymouth Suit IMPINJ INC: Consolidated Class Suit in Washington Concluded INDEPENDENCE HOLDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut INSIGHT VENTURE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due April 29

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline IRWIN NATURALS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JENNER'S POND: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by March 8 Johnson & Johnson: Loses Appeal in Australian Pelvic Mesh Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Lawsuit Heads to Appeals Court LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fagan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Premium Charges LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK: Satterley Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing LUCKY 2: FLSA Settlement Class Wins Collective Certification MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending

MAD COW: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASHABLE INC: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by June 11 MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Hearing Scheduled in March 2021 MAVEN COALITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: PI Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky MDL 2179: Oil Spill Incident Suit Transferred to E.D. La. MDL 2741: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Cal. Week Killer Product Suit MERCHANTS CREDIT: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action

METLIFE INC: Notice of Proposed Settlement Approved METLIFE INC: Parchmann Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit MH SUB I: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class Action in Jackson Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Must File Class Status Bid by March 5

MIDLAND CREDIT: Clark Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Garellek Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter MIDLAND CREDIT: Oliveros Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter MINNESOTA: Daniel Larsen Seeks to Certify Class Action MONEY METALS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conklin Alleges MOOREGROUP CORP: Porter Seeks to Certify Construction Worker Class MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Settlement Class Gets Certification

MULTIPLAN CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 26 Deadline MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline MY HOME: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by April 27 NASAU COUNTY, NY: LaPierre, et al., Seek to Certify Class NEBULA CARAVEL: Feiteira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Aristy-Vercessi NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Chavis-Myrick NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit NEWELL BRANDS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit NORTHERN BREWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR: Showalter Sues Over Unpaid Wages OCINOMLED LTD: Faces Aldape Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Morris Settlement Pending OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin August 30 OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing

OMUSUBI CORPORATION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ONTRAK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline ONTRAK INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ONTRAK INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ONTRAK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline

ORMAT TECH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ORTLAND GENERAL: Consolidated Securities Suit in Oregon Ongoing P.F. CHANG: 9th Circuit Claws Back "Krab Mix" Suit Dismissal PANINI AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PAYWARD INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PEARL LAW: Fields Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio PEPE DISPLAYS: Faces Juarez Suit Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Sinkfield FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PERSONAL TOUCH: Underpays Home Health Aides, Brown Suit Alleges PIER 1 IMPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PORRIDGE LLC: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Suit Says PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Trojan Class Suit Upheld PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending PROSHARES TRUST II: Di Scala Purported Class Suit Underway PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Pending

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Behfarin Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Facing Stone Putative Class Suit in NJ PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Appeals Dismissal of Class Action PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Crawford Suit Consolidated with Warren Suit RALPH LAUREN: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline RBC DOMINION: Banks, Insurance Firms Owe Employee Vacation Pay RBC DOMINION: Faces $800M Class Suit Over Vacation & Holiday Pay REDWOOD LOGISTICS: Kavanagh Asserts Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says

RLJ II: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Alleges ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Removed to D. Oregon ROHRER CORPORATION: Illegally Stored Fingerprints, Bryer Suit Says RUSHMORE LOAN: August 20 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought RUSHMORE LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 20

RYDER SYSTEM: Bid to Dismiss Key West Policy Suit Pending SD BULLION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Papers Related to Class Cert. Bid Due March 15 SILFEX INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lopez Suit Claims SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Powell Family Files Suit in North Dakota

SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Seeks Healthcare Providers' Unpaid Wages SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Wasa Medical & Calvo Suits Consolidated SPARTANBURG, SC: Judge Endorses Denial of Lovelace Class Cert. Bid STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing STEMILT AG: Gomez Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Accent Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission TANNER TRAINING: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Pending THERA GROUP: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Appeals Suit Ruling to 1st Cir. TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivera Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York TRUEACCORD CORP: Tukin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California

TRUSTCO BANK: Jenkins Files Suit in N.D. New York TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir. TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit as Drivers Demand Employee Rights UNCLE HEGNA: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Employees

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com UNIBARNS TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNITED STATES: Common Ground Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ S.C. UNITED STATES: Faces Medina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSAL COIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York US FERTILITY: Mullinix Suit Removed to C.D. California

USA WINE & SPIRITS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline VENUS ET FLEUR: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VERSO CORP: Living & Deceased Retirees Get Class Certification WALGREEN CO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought

WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dilworth Claims WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed WILLOWS INN: Settles $600,000 Suit Over Alleged Wage Theft ZOOM VIDEO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 25 [*] 10 Auto Insurance Companies Face Lawsuits Over Pandemic Pricing

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements

*********

141 N. ALVARADO: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says ------Orlando Garcia v. 141 N. Alvarado, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21STCV06214 (Calif. Super., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging regarding lack of information provided on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the Plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip in April of 2021 to the Los Angeles California, area. He chose the Hollywood Inn Express South located at 141 N. Alvarado St., Los Angeles, California because this hotel was at a desirable price and location. Due to the Plaintiffâ€™s condition, he is unable to, or seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate, reach objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from his chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com https://www.hollywoodinnexpresssouth.com/ seeking to book an accessible room at the location. This Website reservation system is owned and operated by the Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Hollywood Inn Express South. Plaintiff found that there was insufficient information about the accessible features in the "accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for him.

The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate that transfer. But the Hotel reservation Website does not provide any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible guestroom toilets which is a critical information for him, he adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq. Russell Handy, Esq. Amanda Seabock, Esq. Zachary Best, Esq. CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (858) 375-7385 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: [email protected]

33 UNION SQUARE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against 33 Union Square West, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. 33 Union Square West, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01835 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

33 Union Square West, Inc. -- http://www.unionsquarewines.com/ -- is located in New York and is part of the Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: [email protected]

3M COMPANY: City of Birmingham Alleges Environmental Contamination ------CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA, 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-00606-RMG (D.S.C., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, defective design, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from environmental and economic injuries, contamination and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's land, surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources, municipal and real property caused by releases of the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities, municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to fluorinated AFFF foams. As a result of the Defendants' acts or omissions, the Plaintiff has incurred, is incurring, and will continue to incur substantial economic damages related to the release of fluorinated PFAS containing AFFF, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AARP INC: Nichols Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 9th Cir. ------Plaintiffs Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JEREMY NICHOLS and LEON WILDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES INC., AARP INSURANCE PLAN, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-06616-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 1, 2020, the lawsuit is a consumer class action seeking to recoup millions of dollars on behalf of a class consisting of senior citizens and disabled individuals residing in the State of California whom the Defendants charged for illegal insurance commissions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have orchestrated an elaborate scheme where AARP, as the de facto agent of UnitedHealth, helps market, solicit and sell or renew coverage for UnitedHealth Medicare Supplement insurance and generally administers the program for UnitedHealth, in exchange for a 4.95% commission on Member Contributions. The Defendants characterize the payments as a "royalty" that UnitedHealth pays AARP in exchange for its use of AARP's intellectual property to allow AARP to avoid oversight by insurance regulators, and to allow AARP to avoid paying taxes on the income it generates through insurance sales.

The Defendants' acts are unlawful because they violate California's insurance law, and concomitantly violate the California Unfair Competition Law, according to the complaint. Because AARP is not licensed as an insurance agent, broker or consultant, it may not collect a commission for its marketing, soliciting or selling/renewing of UnitedHealth Medicare Supplement product on behalf of UnitedHealth.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Nichols, et al. v. AARP, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-15364, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Appellants Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde Mediation Questionnaire is due on March 9, 2021;

-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 31, 2021;

-- Appellants Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde opening brief is due on June 9, 2021;

-- Appellees AARP Insurance Plan, AARP Services, Inc., AARP, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company answering brief is due on July 9, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEREMY NICHOLS and LEON WILDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: [email protected]

Defendants-Appellees AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., AARP INSURANCE PLAN, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

Meryl Macklin, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 675-1981 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 211 North Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2725 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Brian D. Boyle, Esq. Samantha Goldstein, Esq. Meaghan McLaine VerGow, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5327 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Damali A. Taylor, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8928 E-mail: [email protected]

ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Underway ------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Allergan Inc. continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. and certain of its current and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations and omissions regarding Allergan's former Actavis generics unit and its alleged anticompetitive conduct with other generic drug companies.

The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of three purported class actions and one individual action that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation.

Another individual action in New Jersey state court was dismissed in September 2020.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois.

ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway ------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Forest Laboratories, LLC continues to defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent litigation settlements involving Bystolic with six generic manufacturers violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are consolidated as In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal ------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that he dismissal of the complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, has been appealed.

Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation.

In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

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

ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway ------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Forest Laboratories, LLC continues to defend from a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent litigation settlements involving Namenda XR entered into between Forest and generic companies and other conduct by Forest involving Namenda, violated state antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers of Namenda, are consolidated as In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois.

ABBVIE INC: Restasis Antitrust Suit Against Allergan Ongoing ------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Allergan Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2819.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. generally alleging that Allergan's petitioning to the U.S. Patent Office and Food and Drug Administration and other conduct by Allergan involving Restasis violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of Restasis, are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the MDL Rules as In re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2819.

ALABAMA: Court Tosses Dixon's Motion for Class Certification ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL LYNN DIXON v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00524-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron H. Thompson entered an order:

1. adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge;

2. denying the motion for class certification;

3. referring case back to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the classification process utilized by the Alabama Department of Corrections unlawfully discriminates against male prisoners in terms of eligibility for minimum-community custody status and work release.

This case is before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. There are no objections to the recommendation.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the United States.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/384Rk58 at no extra charge.[CC]

ALABAMA: Taylor Bid for Class Certification Junked ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON TAYLOR v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron H. Thompson entered an order:

1. adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge;

2. denying the motion for class certification;

3. referring case back to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com This case is before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. There are no objections to the recommendation.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the United States.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uO7Znw at no extra charge.[CC]

ALPINE TOWING: Faces Vargas Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ------The case, FERNANDO JOSE VARGAS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. ALPINE TOWING, INC., a Florida Corporation, and LARRY SARAVIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20760-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2021) arises from the Defendants' willful violations of overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt tow truck driver from on or about August 16, 2016 through on or about November 28, 2018, and again from on or about January 5, 2020 through February 16, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that he worked an average approximation of 50 hour per week. However, the Defendants allegedly failed to properly calculate his hourly wage and corresponding overtime rate, which consequently led to improper payment of his overtime wages at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA. Purportedly, the Defendants manipulated the time and pay records to make it appear as though the Plaintiff was paid at the Florida Minimum Wage rate and the corresponding overtime rate.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated tow truck drivers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint requesting for compensatory and liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Alpine Towing, Inc. provides towing services. Larry Saravia had operational control over the Corporate Defendant and is directly involved in decisions affecting employees' compensation and their hours worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (954) 361-8383 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650 Miami, FL 33161 Tel: (305) 773-6661 E-mail: [email protected]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Boone Alleges ------HEATHER BOONE and ROXANNE RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-at-00148 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant implemented an illegal policy requiring its non-exempt workers to undergo a COVID-19 screening each shift without pay. The Defendant also failed to pay for the time spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings by thousands of other workers nationwide.

Amazon.Com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., 1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: (310) 928 1277 E-mail: [email protected]

-and-

Don J. Foty, Esq. David W. Hodges, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

AMERICAN BANKERS: March 9 Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLE RASKIN v. AMERICAN BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, and AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-25094-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court a seven-day extension of time through and including March 9, 2021, within which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Defendants' response to the Motion is due on Tuesday, March 2, 2021. The Parties are engaged in ongoing mediation efforts with Magistrate Reid, which began with a settlement conference on February 17, 2021, and which will continue with a renewed settlement conference before Magistrate Reid on March 5, 2021.

In connection with focusing their time on mediation efforts in advance of the renewed settlement conference on March 5, 2021, the Defendants anticipate requiring additional time to analyze the Motion, prepare a response, and obtain affidavits as may be necessary to respond to the Motion.

The Plaintiff filed her Motion well in advance of the March 26, 2021 deadline to do so, and the next applicable deadline is the discovery cut-off on July 9, 2021. The Defendants have already served written discovery and do not interpose this motion for purposes of delay.

American Bankers operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38c4jSO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Bruce A. Mount, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802 E-mail: [email protected]

The Defendant is represented by:

Charles Throckmorton, Esq. Irma Reboso Solares, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 2 Miami Central 700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33136 Telephone: (305) 530-0050 Facsimile: (305) 530-0055 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

AMERICAN CITY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against American City Business Journals, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American City Business Journals, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01789-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

American City Business Journals (ACBJ) -- https://acbj.com/ -- is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 44 business publications across the country reaching more than 3.6 million readers each week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Tracy Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------Diana F. Tracy, David E. Bagenstose, Jason L. Richard and Stacy M. Moxley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, THE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:21-cv-00541 (D.D.C., March 2, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include the American National Red Cross, the Board of Governors of the American National Red Cross and its members during the Class Period and the Benefit Plan Administration Committee of the American National Red Cross and its members during the Class Period ("Committee") for breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The Red Cross established the American Red Cross Savings Plan for "the purpose of providing a source of retirement funds to participating employees or their beneficiaries." The Plan has been hindered in fulfilling its purpose by the fiduciary breaches of the Committee, the Red Cross and the Board. The Plan is a "defined contribution" or "individual account" plan within the meaning of ERISA.

During the Class Period (March 2, 2015 through the date of judgment) the Plan had at least 894 million dollars in assets under management. At the end of 2019 and 2018, the Plan had over 1.2 billion dollars and 1 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The Plan also had no less than 22,000 participants with account balances at any point during the Class Period. The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent. In fact, according to data studied by BrightScope, an industry analyst, the Plan fell in the category of plans with the highest total plan cost for plans above $500 million in assets

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two), says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options offered by the Plan.

The Red Cross is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place in District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Christopher M. Battista, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPER M. BATTISTA 4224 Jefferson Oaks Circle, Suite E Fairfax, VA 22033 Phone: (202) 360-1016 Fax: (703) 562-9039 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: [email protected]

AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway ------Aon plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Aon Investments USA, Inc. continues to defend a classs action related to Lowe Companies, Inc.'s 401(k) Plan.

Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc, now known as Aon Investments USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc. were sued on April 27, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of participants in the Lowe's 401(k) Plan.

Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plaintiffs contend that in 2015 Lowe's imprudently placed the Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the Plan.

The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $100 million in investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced.

The plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute.

Aon believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

Aon plc is a global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human resource consulting and outsourcing, delivering distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. The Company is headquartered in London, England.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com APACHE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline ------Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Apache Corporation ("Apache" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and docketed under 21-cv-00722, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Apache common stock from September 7, 2016 through March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action alleges that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Apache common stock during the Class Period, you have until April 26, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Apache is an independent energy company that explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids. Apache currently has exploration and production operations in three geographic areas: the U.S., Egypt, and offshore United Kingdom in the North Sea, and is developing a purported new find in offshore Suriname. Historically, the U.S. has represented nearly 60% of the Company's production and 70% of its estimated year-end proved reserves. At all relevant times, one of the Company's purported key "core growth areas" was the Permian region in West Texas and New Mexico.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations and financial health, including the viability and profitability of a purported large oil-and-gas resource play in the Permian Basin called Alpine High. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (iv) as a

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 23, 2019, before financial markets opened, Apache announced that it had begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas production at Alpine High. In response to this news, Apache's stock price fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 11% over the next four trading days, from a close of $37.09 per share on April 22, 2019, to close at $33.06 per share on April 26, 2019.

Then, on October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the Company. In response to this announcement, Apache's stock price dropped $1.16 per share, or approximately 5%, from a close of $23.23 per share on October 24, 2019, to close at $22.07 per share on October 25, 2019. Apache's stock traded as low as $20.57 per share on October 25, 2019, an intra-day drop of approximately 11.5%, prompting Bloomberg to issue a story titled "Apache Executive's Departure Sparks Worst Rout Since 2016."

A few months later, on February 26, 2020, after the close of the markets, Apache announced that it was completely de-valuing Alpine High after taking a $3 billion write down on the project. Two weeks later, on March 12, 2020, Apache announced that it had slashed its quarterly dividend by 90% (from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per share) and was significantly reducing planned capital expenditures for the rest of 2020. On this news, the price of Apache common stock fell $0.49 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of $8.25 per share on March 11, 2020, to close at $7.76 per share on March 12, 2020.

A few days later, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an article pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its "financial health isn't great." The article observed that low gas prices had "forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's production growth." The article noted that "Apache also reduced Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion."

In response to this news and other investment research downgrades, Apache's stock price fell $3.61 per share, or approximately 45%, over two trading days, from a close of $8.07 per share, March 13, 2020, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP [email protected] 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

APOLLO GLOBAL: ADT Shareholder Litigation Dismissed w/ Prejudice ------Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the state court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the ADT Inc. state action with prejudice.

Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018, alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock. The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates.

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about certain litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018, and those motions were fully briefed.

On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and directors, and AGM Inc.

The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally alleged that the registration statement was materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT's financial results, along with certain customer and business metrics.

On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint named the same Apollo-affiliated defendants as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019. On July 26, 2019, the state court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the question whether it has personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo defendants.

On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions. The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement was submitted to the state court for approval.

On January 8, 2021, the state court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the state action with prejudice. The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo defendants.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Still Pending ------Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by Zachary

On March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by subsidiaries of AGM Inc. were added as defendants in a class action filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on December 7, 2017, in the Superior Court of California.

Plaintiff alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals, a party equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo Funds. Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to comply with California wage and hour and related laws, and also has asserted claims based on various provisions of the California labor code and Californiaâ€™s unfair competition laws.

On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification order. After being served with the Complaint in July 2020, a co-defendant removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 24, 2020, and AGM Inc. filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it on September 23, 2020.

That motion remains pending.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending ------Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative stockholder derivative and class action suit initiated by Vrajeshkumar Patel, is pending.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc., all of the members of Talos's board of directors (including two Apollo partners), Riverstone Holdings, LLC, AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020.

The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and unspecified money damages.

On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion is now fully briefed and oral argument is scheduled for February 19, 2021.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Orders Remand of Fongers Suit to Illinois ------Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the District Court ordered the Clerk of Court to take the necessary steps to transfer the putative class action suit initiated by Benjamin Fongers, back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan.

Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.'s agent.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act.

The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to remand.

On January 11, 2021, the District Court ordered the Clerk of Court to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked ------Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Firefighters

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL.

On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Presidio, Inc., all of the members of Presidio's board of directors (including five directors who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and Port Merger Sub, Inc. challenging the then-pending acquisition of Presidio by BCP.

The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL.

The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger omitted material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote and denied that motion.

On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio's financial advisor in connection with the Merger).

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, that the Apollo Defendants were controlling stockholders of Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio's public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The defendants completed briefing on motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 30, 2020.

On January 29, 2021, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion and accompanying orders granting the Apollo Defendants' motion to dismiss, granting the motions to dismiss filed by the directors

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com other than Presidio's CEO, and denying motions to dismiss as to BCP, Liontree, and Presidio's CEO.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe.

AQUESTIVE THERA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline ------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., you may, no later than April 30, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.

On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters (the "Libervant NDA").

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com -- data included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval prospects;

-- as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and

-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the review cycle for the Libervant NDA was complete but the application could not be approved in its current form. Specifically, Aquestive advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that, in a study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups showed a lower drug exposure level than desired. The Company intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired exposure levels."

On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or 34.69%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 2020.

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

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

Contact:

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

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action ------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) securities between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-03751, and is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The Aquestive class action lawsuit charges Aquestive and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Aquestive securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Aquestive class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Aquestive class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Aquestive class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Aquestive class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Aquestive class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Aquestive class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Lead plaintiff motions for the Aquestive class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 30, 2021.

Aquestive is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various products to address unmet medical needs. Aquestive's most advanced proprietary product candidate is Libervant (diazepam), a buccal soluble film formulation of diazepam for the treatment of recurrent epileptic seizures. On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters (the "Libervant NDA").

The Aquestive class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (ii) the foregoing significantly decreased

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and (iv) as a result, Aquestive's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.

Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900 [email protected] [GN]

ARCH INSURANCE: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by Oct. 20 ------In the class action lawsuit IN RE: ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY SKI PASS INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-MD-02955-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered a scheduling order for initial phase of MDL 2955 as follows:

1. Motion to Stay

The Defendants' motion for a stay of this action remains pending before this court. The Plaintiffs timely responded to the motion on February 12, 2021, and the Defendants' reply is due on February 26, 2021. The court will consider the motion to stay thereafter.

2. Consolidated Master Complaint

The Plaintiffs' master consolidated class action complaint shall be filed on or before February 23, 2021. The Defendants' responses to the consolidated complaint shall be filed on or before April 23, 2021.

3. Status Conferences

It is the Court's intent to hold periodic status conferences in this MDL action. This matter is set for status conference by telephone on April 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.

4. Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties

The parties may amend all pleadings and/or add parties without seeking separate leave of Court as long as such amendments and/or additions are filed not later than May 28, 2021.

5. Discovery Closure Deadline

All fact discovery pertaining to the makeup of the putative class authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before October 1, 2021 (Closure Date).

6. Motion for Class Certification

Any motion for class certification shall be filed on or before October 20, 2021. Opposition suggestions shall be filed on or before November 19, 2021.

7. Daubert Motions

All motions to strike expert designations or to preclude expert testimony based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) shall be filed on or before April 29, 2022.

Any dispositive motion, except those under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before April 29, 2022. All motions for summary judgment shall comply with Local Rules 7.1 and 56.1.

9. Motions for Extension of Time

A motion for extension of time should be filed at least three days before the deadline established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/38cies6 at no extra charge.[CC]

ATHENEX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Western District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATNX) common stock between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Gupta v. Athenex, Inc., No. 21-cv-00337. The Athenex class action lawsuit charges Athenex and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Athenex common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Athenex class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Athenex class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Athenex class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Athenex class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Athenex class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Athenex class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Lead plaintiff motions for the Athenex class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3, 2021.

Athenex is a global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of cancer. One of Athenex's main drug candidates is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. On August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase 3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. Athenex also stated that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application ("NDA") meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and would "be preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible."

The Athenex class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequelae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate ("ORR") at week 19 conducted by blinded independent central review ("BICR"); (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR; (iv) Athenex's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve Athenex's NDA in its current form; and (vi) consequently, Athenex's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2021, Athenex issued a press release entitled "Athenex Receives FDA Complete Response Letter for Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer," which indicated that the FDA found that the NDA was "not ready for approval in its present form." According to Athenex, "[i]n the CRL, the FDA indicated its concern of safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequelae on the Oral Paclitaxel arm compared with the IV paclitaxel arm." Athenex further stated that the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of [ORR] at week 19 conducted by [BICR]. The [FDA] stated that the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR." Athenex also revealed that the FDA "recommended that Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the population in the U.S. The [FDA] determined that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity, which may involve dose optimization and / or exclusion of

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com patients deemed to be at higher risk of toxicity, are required to support potential approval of the NDA." On this news, the price of Athenex's shares fell approximately 55%, damaging investors.

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 [email protected] [GN]

AVANOS MEDICAL: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit vs KCC Concluded ------Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, In the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), has been dismissed.

In the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014. The plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in connection with the company's marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and request for injunctive relief.

The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.

On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking, among other things to have the award of punitive damages reduced. On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially reduced the punitive damages awards.

Under the Amended Judgment, the judgment against the company was $0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages.

The judgment against Kimberly-Clark was $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $2.9 million in pre-judgment interest and $19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate court vacated the judgment against the company and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company. The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and, therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

On August 6, 2020, Bahamas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, and on September 9, 2020, the appellate court denied their petition.

On October 19, 2020, the trial court ordered that the entire case against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment against Kimberly-Clark is vacated, and the class claims are decertified.

On November 11, 2020, the company, Bahamas and Kimberly-Clark amicably resolved the dispute among them on a confidential basis. Accordingly, on that same day, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients' quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.

BAKER CREEK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01823 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company -- https://www.rareseeds.com/ -- is one of America's source for pure heirloom seeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: [email protected]

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food ------HarrisMartin reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed in New York accusing Beech-Nut Nutrition Company of fraud for the company's alleged failure to warn customers that its baby food contained dangerous levels of heavy metals.

The Feb. 18 class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

In it, plaintiff Mattia Doyle asserted claims on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, contending that Beech-Nut Nutrition Company sold allegedly harmful baby food containing heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead. [GN]

BERRY GLOBAL: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Howard Alleges ------CORBIN J. HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERRY GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00038-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., February 24, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful compensation scheme that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid mold process technician from approximately 2008 until he was involuntarily terminated on or about May 8, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has created a compensation scheme through a series of computer software commands which underpays its employees by rounding their time off both ends of their work shifts. As a result of this illegal timecard rounding practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid for all hours they worked and for their overtime hours at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks for himself and for all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees all unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses.

Berry Global, Inc. produces and markets plastic packaging products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Tel: (812) 232-9691 Fax: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: [email protected]

Robi Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 318-9738 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: [email protected]

BIG PICTURE: March 22 Response Time to Class Cert. Bid Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as LULA WILLIAMS, et al., v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP (E.D. Va.), the Defendant Matt Martorello and Plaintiffs Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, Marcella P. Singh, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), jointly move for an enlargement of the deadlines to file Oppositions to the Renewed Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against Matt Martorello, Motion to Compel Information Withheld on the Basis of Attorney-Client Privilege, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents that Martorello Claims Are Covered by the Work-Product Doctrine to March 1, 2021 to accommodate competing deadlines in this and other matters.

Martorello and Plaintiffs further move for an enlargement of the deadlines to file Replies to the Motions to March 22, 2021.

Big Picture is a personal loan lender.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38e3Z69 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Amy Austin, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

The counsel for Matt Martorello, are:

Jon Hollis, Esq. J. Benjamin Rottenborn, Esq. Karen M. Stemland, Esq. Woods Rogers PLC 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1550 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 343-5020 Facsimile: (804) 343-5021 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Payer Suit Removed to D.S.C. ------The case captioned as Tuition Payer 100, Viewed Student Female 200, Viewed Student Male 300, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Bishop of Charleston, a Corporation Sole; Bishop England High School; Tortfeasors 1-10; The Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston, in his official capacity; Robert Guglielmone individually; Case No. 2021-CP-08-00256 was removed from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00613-RMG to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston -- https://charlestondiocese.org/ -- is an ecclesiastical territory or diocese of the Roman Catholic Church in the southern United States and comprises the entire state of South Carolina, with Charleston as its see city.[BN]

Anna Elizabeth Richter, Esq. Lawrence Edward Richter, Jr., Esq. RICHTER FIRM LLC 622 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 849-6000 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Brent Souther Halversen, Esq. HALVERSEN AND ASSOCIATES 1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Building G, Suite 200 Mt Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 284-5790 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Carl Lewis Solomon, Esq. SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 1866 Columbia, SC 29203 Phone: (803) 391-3120 Fax: (803) 509-5033 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq. Stephen M Slotchiver SLOTCHIVER AND SLORCHIVER, LLP 751 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 577-6531 Fax: (843) 577-0261 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

The Defendants are represented by:

Carmelo B Sammataro, Esq. TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA PO Box 1473 1901 Main Street 17th Floor

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 227-4253 Fax: (803) 400-1532 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Megan Rudd, Esq. TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA PO Box 1509 Greenville, SC 29602 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Richard S Dukes, Jr., Esq. TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA PO Box 22129 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29413-2129 Phone: (843) 576-2810 Fax: (843) 577-1646 Email: [email protected]

BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Lopez Says ------RENE LOPEZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 v. BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV06244 (Feb. 16, 2021) asserts claims against the Defendants' failure to provide all rest and meal periods; failure to separately compensate for rest and recovery periods and nonproductive time; failure to indemnify for necessary work-related expenditures; and failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; failure to provide accurate and complete written wage statements; and failure to timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable to him, the State of California, and other similarly situated aggrieved current and former employees who worked in California as hourly, non-exempt employees, including resident and community managers and persons in similar positions, at any time during the period of September 21, 2019 to the present, for civil penalties and other related relief. The Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties and related relief

BoaVida Communities owns and operates manufactured home communities in the western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

BRANDED GROUP: Stacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Branded Group, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Stacy, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Branded Group, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-100443 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 1, 2021).

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

Branded Group -- https://www.branded-group.com/ -- offers on-demand retail and restaurant maintenance, construction management, special project implementation, and focused consultant services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: [email protected]

BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir. ------Plaintiff Gorss Motels, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., an Indiana corporation, BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00330-HAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 5, 2021, Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

According to the complaint, beginning in the fall of 1988, Gorss began operating a Super 8 Motel pursuant to a series of franchise agreements, originally with Super 8 Motels, then with Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. Wyndham Hotels Group, LLC which, in turn, is owned by Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, eventually acquired Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. Defendant Brigadoon sells commercial fitness equipment, accessories, and related items to the hospitality industry. Brigadoon, as a party to a separate agreement with Wyndham, became a Wyndham approved supplier to provide its commercial fitness equipment to Wyndham affiliates, including Gorss. To this end, on April 17, 2013, Brigadoon, through its fax broadcaster, sent a facsimile transmission to Gorss' subscribed fax line advertising its products. Gorss filed this federal lawsuit seeking redress for the offense under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order dated November 4, 2019, denying its motion to reconsider denial of class certification and denying amended motion for class certification; Opinion and Order dated May 20, 2019, denying its motion for class certification; Opinion and Order dated January 26, 2021, denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and granting the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and Opinion and Order dated May 21, 2020, granting Defendants' motion for leave to file amended answer and affirmative defenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Brigadoon Fitness Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1358, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, February 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Transcript information sheet is due by March 12, 2021;

-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Gorss Motels, Inc.

-- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 7, 2021 for Gorss Motels, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: [email protected]

Defendants-Appellees BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., an Indiana corporation, and BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, are represented by:

D. Randall Brown, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 888 S. Harrison Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802-3119 Telephone: (219) 425-4674 E-mail: [email protected]

BROWNING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Browning. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Browning, Case No. 1:21-cv-01814 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Browning Arms Company -- https://www.browning.com/ -- is an American marketer of firearms and fishing gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BUFFETS LLC: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for Sept. 30 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO SARMENTO, et al., v. BUFFETS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07922-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered a case management order as follows:

1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by February 26, 2021, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c), including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 22 26(a) (1)(A)(iii);

2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be sought by April 29, 2021.

3. The motion for class certification must be filed by September 30, 2021, to be heard on a 49-day track.

4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be December 17, 2021.

5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof.

Buffets LLC is the owner of Hometown Buffet, Fire Mountain, and several other restaurant chains.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rdkU06 at no extra charge.[CC]

C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response OK'd ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of Herself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. C&D Security Management, Inc. d/b/a/ Allied Universal Security Services, and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order granting Allied's motion and formally extending and re-setting Allied's deadline to file a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion by two weeks, up to and including March 12, 2021.

Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and services; janitorial services; and staffing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3bc1iDN at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

Brian L. Saunders, Esq. Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 955-1500 Facsimile: (202) 778-2201 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of Herself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. C&D Security Management, Inc. d/b/a/ Allied Universal Security Services, and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court for an order granting its motion and formally extending and re-setting its deadline to file a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion by two weeks, up to and including March 12, 2021.

Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and services; janitorial services; and staffing.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3sQMP6b at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

CARERITE CENTERS: McDonald Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Under FLSA

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com ------MICHELLE MCDONALD, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. CARERITE CENTERS, LLC, A New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00126 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 16, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated licensed practical nurses and certified nursing assistants as a class.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff Michelle McDonald was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid licensed practical nurse.

CareRite is a hospital and health care company that provides rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Leszanczuk Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir. ------Plaintiff Sylvia Leszanczuk filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortgage Services, Case No. 1:19-cv-03038, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Plaintiff Sylvia Leszanczuk brings suit on behalf of two putative classes against Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fairness Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 25, 2020. The dismissal of the amended complaint was with prejudice and a final judgment was entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

Ms. Leszanczuk seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February 3, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortgage Services, Case No. 21-1367, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, March 1, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Transcript information sheet is due by March 15, 2021; and

-- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 12, 2021 for Sylvia Leszanczuk.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SYLVIA LESZANCZUK, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000 Telephone: (847) 368-1500

Defendant-Appellee CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by:

Fredrick S. Levin, Esq. BUCKLEY LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 424-3900

CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Pending ------Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit on the appeal in the class action suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On

August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal. On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020. On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Bad Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit.

Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020 and the parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit.

Cboe said, "The Company currently believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an options exchange in the United States. It operates in five segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit ------Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the securities class action suit against Bats Global Markets, Inc. now known as CBOE Bats, LLC and Direct Edge Holdings LLC.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016. On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15, 2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17, 2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July 16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019.

The discovery period in the matter commenced and is scheduled to continue through at least the first half of 2021.

Cboe said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously."

CERTIFIED MULTIMEDIA: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------Josias Ramos, Joseph Vale, Becca Earhart, and those employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Certified MultiMedia Solutions, LLC and Mark Peterson, individually Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-002669, (Fla. Cir., February 8, 2021) seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Certified MultiMedia Solutions operated a multi-media installations and servicing business where Plaintiffs are hourly-paid workers who performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours bus were denied overtime pay at the rate of time and one-half for all of the hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Carlos A. Mesa, Esq. MESA LITIGATION & LEGAL CONSULTING, P.A. 4960 SW 72 Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Tel: (305) 569-3005 Email: [email protected]

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN PARADOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No. 6:18-cv-01228-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

1. certifying the following Classes:

-- Free-Run Poultry Class

"All persons who are citizens of the State of New York who purchased Acana Heritage Free-Run Poultry manufactured at CPF's DogStar kitchen in Kentucky from June 1, 2016, to the present;" and

-- Meadowland Class

"All persons who are citizens of the State of New York who purchased Acana Regionals Meadowland manufactured at CPF's DogStar kitchen in Kentucky from June 1, 2016, to the present;"

Excluded from the Classes are persons or entities who purchased these foods for business use or resale, governmental entities, CPF and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, current and former officers, director, agents, representatives, and members of this Court and its staff;

2. appointing her as Class Representative; and

3. appointing Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; Robbins Arroyo LLP; and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

Champion Petfoods retails pet food products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2Ok8yEO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. Michelle Perkovic, Esq. Mark T. Tamblyn, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Kevin A. Seely, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

CHESAPEAKE DETENTION: Catchings Suit Seeks Class Certification ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEDRIC CATCHINGS et al.,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. CALVIN WILSON, In his official capacity as Warden, Chesapeake Detention Facility Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00428-TSE (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order

1. certifying the Classes and Subclass:

-- Pretrial Class defined as "all people detained in the Chesapeake Detention Facility who are not detained pursuant to a judgment of conviction;"

-- Medically Vulnerable Subclass defined as "all Pretrial Class members whose medical condition renders them especially vulnerable to the coronavirus as determined by guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;" and

-- Post-Conviction Class is defined as "all people detained in the Chesapeake Detention Facility who are detained pursuant to a judgment of conviction;"

2. appointing the Plaintiffs Sedric Catchings, Charles Couser, Collin Davis, Allen Lamin, Sirron Little, Taiwo Moultrie, and Joseph Speed to represent the Pretrial Class;

3. appointing the Plaintiffs Sedric Catchings, Collin Davis, Sirron Little, Taiwo Moultrie, and Joseph Speed to represent the Medically Vulnerable Subclass;

4. appointing Plaintiff Howard Thomas to represent the Post- Conviction Class; and

5. appointing their counsel as class counsel under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This federal class action seeks to require the Defendants to implement procedures that keep Plaintiffs reasonably safe from contracting communicable disease while in custody and provide reasonable medical care for those who do contract the virus.

The Plaintiffs' suit for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Eighth and Fifth / Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Medically Vulnerable Subclass's petition for habeas corpus, arise from the Defendants' failure to protect them from the severe risk of death or serious physical harm and their deliberate indifference to those threats to their health and safety.

According to the complaint, the Defendants Wilson and Green, in their official capacities in operating and overseeing the Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF), have failed to take reasonable measures to protect from COVID-19 infection the residents of CDF in their custody and under their control. There is already an outbreak of COVID-19 at CDF, with one-third of residents and staff testing positive in a month's time. Moreover, CDF's inadequate care for those with symptoms or confirmed cases increases the likelihood that those infected will suffer serious illness, permanent physical damage, and death. Every single person at CDF faces a risk of death or serious harm as a result.

The Chesapeake Detention Facility, previously the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, is a maximum level II prison operated by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services in Baltimore.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PvzG4j at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Alec W. Farr, Esq. Daniel C. Schwartz, Esq. Adam L. Shaw, Esq. Joscelyn T. Solomon, Esq. Brett R. Orren, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 508-6000 Facsimile: (202) 508-6200 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Tianna Mays, Esq. Jon Greenbaum, Esq. Arthur Ago, Esq. John Fowler, Esq. Rochelle F. Swartz, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-662-8600 Facsimile: 202-783-0857 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The Defendants are represented by:

Brian E. Frosh, Esq. MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 E-mail: [email protected]

CHEVRON CORP: Faces San Francisco Herring Suit in Cal. State Court ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chevron Corp. The case is captioned as SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CHEVRON CORP. ET AL., Case No. CIVMSC21-00317 (Cal. Super., Contra Costa Cty., Feb. 16, 2021).

The case type states toxic tort/environmental. A case management conference will be held on July 6, 2021.

Chevron is an American multinational energy corporation. One of the successor companies of Standard Oil, it is headquartered in San Ramon, California, and active in more than 180 countries.[BN]

Plaintiffs John Mellor, Christopher Cameron, and San Francisco Herring Association are:

Stuart Gross, Esq. Pier 9 The Embarcadero no. 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 671-4628

CHEWY.COM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Dog Food Products Packaging ------Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that a trial attorney on Feb. 22 pointed to a multimillion-dollar federal class action complaint against Chewy.com, an American online retailer of pet foods and its subsidiary, as an example of a rising trend in the

More than 100 members in the proposed class would seek upward of $5 million after being misled by packaging and advertising in their purchase of these premium-priced dog food products. [GN]

CHICAGO, IL: Taylor Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir. ------Plaintiff Trudy Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Trudy Taylor v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07874, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Board breached the contract concerning her appointment as principal of Owens Academy by terminating the contract prior to the end of the agreed-upon four-year term. The Board asserts that it terminated her because the school closed, it permanently merged into another school, and/or Taylor resigned -- all reasons that, under the contract, could serve as the basis for terminating Taylor prior to the end of the contract's term.

Ms. Taylor seeks a review of the Court's Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Trudy Taylor v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 21-1359, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, February 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Trudy Taylor on March 5, 2021;

-- Transcript information sheet is due by March 12, 2021;

-- Fee or IFP forms are due on March 12, 2021 for Appellant Trudy Taylor.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TRUDY TAYLOR, and similarly or substantially similarly situated member principals, of Halcrest, Illinois, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and KAREN SAFFOLD are represented by:

Elizabeth K. Barton, Esq. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION One N. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602-4331 Telephone: (773) 553-5935

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

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

The Avrahami Plaintiffs own several jewelry stores and other properties in Arizona through their corporation American Findings. The Insured Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of American Findings. In 2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs consulted with their accounting firm, the McEntee Defendants, about ways to reduce their businesses' tax burdens. The McEntee Defendants recommended the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help the Avrahami Plaintiffs save significantly on their taxes. The Avrahami Plaintiffs ultimately retained the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help form a microcaptive insurance company.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants fraudulently created a scheme to develop, promote, sell, and implement faulty captive insurance products by giving improper legal, tax, and investment advice to individuals and businesses. They allege that the fraudulent scheme caused damages by exacerbating their tax burdens. The Defendants have filed a series of motions to dismiss, which are fully briefed and ready for review.

The Defendants seek an interlocutory appeal following the Court's Order dated January 26, 2021, stating that their objections to Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories are overruled, and Court's Order dated February 12, 2021 on motion for miscellaneous relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Benyamin Avrahami, et al. v. Celia Clark, et al., Case No. 21-15337, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 25, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Appellants Celia Clark and Clark & Gentry PLLC Mediation Questionnaire wer due on March 4, 2021;

-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 25, 2021;

-- Transcript is due on April 26, 2021;

-- Appellants Celia Clark and Clark & Gentry PLLC opening brief is due on June 3, 2021;

-- Appellees Benyamin Avrahami, Orna Avrahami, BYS Company ACC, Chandler One LLC, Feedback Insurance Company Limited, Junction Development LLC, O&E Corporation, White Knight Investment ACC and White Mountain Equities LLC answering brief is due on July 6, 2021; and

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

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

William Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq. David R. Deary, Esq. Donna Lee, Esq. John W. McKenzie, III, Esq. Tyler M. Simpson, Esq. Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq. LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (214) 572-1700 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

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

Paul J. McGoldrick, Esq. Scott Zerlaut, Esq. SHORALL MCGOLDRICK BRINKMANN 1232 East Missouri Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 230-5400 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline ------The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of those who acquired Clover Health Investments, Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLOV) securities from October 6, 2020 through February 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 6, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and began to trade under the symbol CLOV on NASDAQ. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a report stating that prior to the merger, Clover had been under active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active investigation by the DOJ. On this news, the price of Clover's shares fell $1.72 per share, or approximately 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately $700 million.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at [email protected], or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-371-6600 https://www.kmllp.com [email protected] [GN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Class Action ------Corey I. Rogoff, Esq. -- [email protected] -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Clover Health is an insurance company focusing on Medicare Advantage that uses its proprietary software platform to offer PPO and HMO plans to eligible consumers. It fits the mold for many would-be SPAC acquisitions: a technology company with its own platform (known as the Clover Assistant) servicing a growing industry (health care). Chamath Palihapitiya must have thought so as well, as Clover Health announced its plans to merge with his SPAC -- Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH") -- on October 6, 2020. The business combination was completed three months later, on January 7, 2021.

However, less than one month later, a sole plaintiff filed a purported federal securities class action against Clover Health Investments, SCH, and relevant officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In his complaint, the plaintiff highlighted an analyst report alleging Clover Health and Mr. Palihapitiya "misled investors about critical aspects of Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC go-public transaction" and that Clover Health was under active

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com investigation by the Department of Justice for allegedly improper business practices. Based on these allegations, the complaint contends Clover Health failed to disclose material information, causing its public statements to be materially false and misleading.

Clover Health has not yet filed its response, and the Court has not made any statements about class certification. [GN]

COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collectors Universe, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Collectors Universe, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Collectors Universe Inc. -- https://www.collectorsuniverse.com/ -- is an American company formed in 1986, now based in Santa Ana, California, which provides third-party authentication and grading services to collectors, retail buyers and sellers of collectibles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

CONTAINER STORE: Neal Sues for Invasion of Privacy ------Samantha Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Case No. CACE-21-004409 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 2, 2021), is brought under the Florida Security of Communications Act, arising from the Defendant's unlawful interception of electronic communications.

Specifically, this case stems from the Defendant's use of tracking, recording, and/or "session replay" software to intercept the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Plaintiff's electronic communications with the Defendant's website, including how they interact with the website, their mouse movements and clicks, information inputted into the website, and/or pages and content viewed on the website.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of Plaintiff's privacy rights under the FSCA. Such clandestine monitoring and recording of an individual's electronic communications has long been held a violation of the FSCA. The Defendant has intercepted the electronic communications involving Plaintiff and the Class members' visits to its website, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy and/or exposure of their private information. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful interceptions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida who visited the Defendant's website three times.

The Defendant owns and operates the following website: www.containerstore.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

COPART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Copart, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Copart, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01808 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Copart, Inc. or simply Copart -- https://www.copart.com/ -- is a global provider of online vehicle auction and remarketing services to automotive resellers such as insurance, rental car, fleet and finance companies in 11 countries: the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, Ireland, Brazil, Spain, Dubai, Bahrain, Oman and Finland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

CORE & MAIN: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for July 2 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISHMAEL PEREZ, individually. and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. CORE & MAIN LP, a Florida limited partnership: and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01821-MCS-KK (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order that the deadlines and hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification are continued as follows:

Deadline to file Motion for Class July 2, 2021 Certification:

Deadline to file Opposition July 23, 2021 to Motion:

Deadline to file Reply August 6, 2021

Hearing on Motion for August 23, 2021 Class Certification:

Core & Main, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a U.S. distributor of water, sewer and fire protection products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MFYOEl at no extra charge.[CC]

CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against CORELLE BRANDS, LLC. The case is styled as Caroline Garcia, Michael Sporn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORELLE BRANDS, LLC D/B/A INSTANT BRANDS, Case No. CGC21589808 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty., March 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Corelle Brands, LLC -- https://corporate.instantbrands.com/ -- is an American kitchenware products maker and distributor based in Rosemont, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: [email protected]

CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ------Shearman & Sterling reports that on February 16, 2021, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against a medical and wellness cannabis operator and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Curaleaf Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-04486 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). Plaintiffs alleged the Company made false and misleading statements regarding the benefits and legality of its cannabinol ("CBD") products. The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the Company disclosed what plaintiffs claimed was not disclosed and that plaintiffs thus failed to plead falsity or, with respect to certain alleged misstatements, loss causation.

The Company is a U.S. cannabis operator listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange. In November 2018, the Company announced the launch of "a line of premium hemp-based CBD products" to support "overall wellness." It marketed the products as treatments for a variety of health and medical conditions. In the initial announcement, as well as subsequent press releases, the Company stated that its products were of "highest standard for safety [and] effectiveness." On July 22, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a letter warning the Company that several of its CBD products were unapproved and/or misbranded drugs sold in violation of federal law. Plaintiffs claimed the Company failed to warn investors of the lack of FDA approval and that potential regulatory issues would stymie Company sales. Plaintiffs also claimed the Company misleadingly touted the health benefits of its CBD products.

Several claims were dismissed for failure to plead falsity based on disclosures and warnings contained in a listing statement that the Company filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities in October 2018. For example, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the Company failed to fully disclose the illegality of the sale of CBD products under federal law due to lack of FDA approval. Agreeing with defendants, the Court held that "the Company publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the very information that plaintiffs contend it concealed" -- namely, that its CBD products were not approved by the FDA and that marketing them as having health benefits may violate federal law. The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company did not disclose that the products were "illegal" but instead only disclosed that the products could be "in violation" of federal law, holding that there is "no requirement that a Company disclose its risk in any magic words preferred by plaintiffs." The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the warnings were misleading because they only disclosed the "potential[]" for regulatory action" when such action was, according to plaintiffs, a certainty, concluding that "[d]escribing this risk in terms of potentiality rather than certainty â€“ when certainty of enforcement could not be known anyway - does not violate securities law."

The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the Company mispresented its CBD products as being "safe" and "effective" for failure to allege loss causation. Plaintiffs claimed that the FDA letter "revealed" the "truth" that the Company's products did not have the touted health benefits. However, the Court held that the FDA letter offered no opinion regarding the truth or falsity of the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Company's statements, but instead admonished the Company for making such statements without FDA approval. As such, the letter was simply a materialization of disclosed risks with respect to FDA approval and not a corrective disclosure as to the Company's prior statements. [GN]

DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds all investors that a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Decision Diagnostics Corp. ("Decision Diagnostics" or "the Company") (OTCBB: DECN) on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at [email protected] or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp., you may, no later than March 16, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp.

According to the filed Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Decision Diagnostics failed to develop a viable COVID-19 test in any form, let alone a test that could detect the virus in less than one minute. The Company was not capable of meeting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) EUA testing requirements for its purported COVID-19 test. Despite this inability to meet FDA requirements, the Company touted an unrealistic time to market for its tests. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class.

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

Contact:

DIRECTV LLC: Federal Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ------A federal judge granted summary judgment on February 12 to DirecTV, LLC (DirecTV), holding it was not liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for unsolicited telemarketing calls placed by a third-party vendor because DirecTV had clearly instructed the vendor not to make any cold calls.

The class action, Cordoba et al. v. DirecTV, alleged that DirecTV had violated the TCPA by authorizing a call center vendor, Telecel Marketing Solutions, LLC (Telecel), to place telemarketing calls to solicit subscriptions on DirecTV's behalf without obtaining the called party's consent. Specifically, Cordoba argued that Telecel had not kept an internal do-not-call list or respected do-not-call requests, placing unconsented-to telemarketing calls to nearly 17,000 individuals, and claimed that DirecTV knew of and authorized those calls. Telecel, an independent contractor, received commissions for each customer that activated service with DirecTV.

Judge Cohen of the Northern District of Georgia found that, far from authorizing the calls, DirecTV's contracts with Telecel "expressly prohibited" the making of unsolicited calls to potential customers who had not contacted Telecel first, even when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The agreement went beyond a "vague instruction . . . to obey all applicable laws," stating "unambiguously" that telemarketing calls "to residential telephone lines or cellular phones are not permitted." DirecTV also required Telecel to comply with its telemarketing policy, which forbade all such calls "unless they are returning a direct inquiry from a customer and such inquiry can be substantiated." And these prohibitions were prominently placed on

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the cover letter for the telemarketing policy with a bold and underlined "Reminder," not buried in legal jargon. As a result, the court held DirecTV could not be found to have given express consent for the calls to Telecel.

Additionally, there was no evidence DirecTV knew of these calls, aside from a single call that resulted in a warning from DirecTV to Telecel. However, DirecTV, in corresponding with Cordoba about calls from third-party vendors, had made sure Cordoba knew that removal from DirecTV's internal do-not-call list would not "impact activities of independent retailers, who may promote DirecTV services or products." Therefore, Telecel had no implied or apparent authority to place these calls.

Since DirecTV had clearly not ratified Telecel's cold calls, the court granted DirecTV's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class and individual TCPA claims. Following this decision, the only unresolved matter is a claim by another plaintiff under the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. That claim, alleging that DirecTV disclosed protected subscriber information, will be moved to arbitration as ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in February 2020.

DirecTV's success contrasts markedly with the outcome of Dish Network's (Dish) TCPA litigation in 2017. Dish faced federal allegations that it had placed tens of millions of telemarketing sales calls to individuals on national and internal do-not-call lists through third-party vendors. The court found Dish liable, assessing a record-setting $280 million in civil penalties under the TCPA and Telemarketing Sales Rule, due in part to Dish's failure to provide clear instructions to and oversight of its vendors. The Fourth Circuit later upheld a $61 million class action verdict against Dish Network in a separate TCPA case on similar grounds. [GN]

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in B&R Suit Pending ------Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to compel arbitration in B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., is pending.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to shift

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security standard and chip technology.

The plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720.

On August 28, 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class. The defendants appealed the ruling on September 11, 2020.

The Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 30, 2020.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

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

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts. Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois.

DROPBOX INC: Settlement Reached in California IPO Related Suit ------Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated IPO related class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, reached a settlement in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court.

The Company is currently involved in four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws that were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO), and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated

On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The six lawsuits each made the same or similar allegations of violations of federal securities laws, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, the Company's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On March 2, 2020, the Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 16, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the federal consolidated class action complaint.

On October 21, 2020, the court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Plaintiffsâ€™ complaint, setting a deadline of January 6, 2021 for the Federal Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint.

The federal court extended this deadline to February 22, 2021 to provide time for the parties to explore resolving the case.

On February 11, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached a settlement in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court.

On May 11, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated state court case based on the exclusive federal forum provisions contained in our amended and restated bylaws. On December 4, 2020, the state court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated state court case. On December 15, 2020, the State Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this order.

Dropbox said, "We believe the appeal and claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against them."

Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software. The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco, California.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com E.L.F. COSMETICS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.L.F Cosmetics, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01116 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. e.l.f. Cosmetics -- https://www.elfcosmetics.com/ -- is an international cosmetics brand based in Oakland, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: [email protected]

EAN SERVICES: Swiggum FSCA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------The case styled KATHRYN SWIGGUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 21-000647-CI, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00493-TPB-CPT to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act by using session replay software on its Website.

EAN Services, LLC is an automobile services company located in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

J. Douglas Baldridge, Esq. Theodore B. Randles, Esq. VENABLE LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 344-4000 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

EAN SERVICES: Swiggum Says Web Transactions Illegally Monitored ------Kathryn Swiggum, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EAN Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-000647-CI (Fla. Cir., February 8, 2021), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act.

Defendant owns and operates www.enterprise.com. Swiggum alleges that EAN Services intercepted, tracked and records her electronic communications through the site at issue without her knowledge or prior consent including how they interact with the website, their mouse movements and clicks, information inputted into the website, and/or pages and content viewed on the website causing invasion of her privacy and/or exposure of her private information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180

EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline ------Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 23, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 22, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable

If you purchased Ebix securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at [email protected], telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 [email protected] www.bespc.com [GN]

EBIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline ------Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ebix investors have until April 23, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Ebix investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to [email protected].

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Ebix securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to [email protected], or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847

EBIX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline ------Johnson Fistel, LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Ebix between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2021.

The Ebix class action lawsuit charges Ebix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities during the Class Period.

Ebix Ishares fell 39.89% on February 22, 2021, following the disclosure that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned. RMS stated in a letter that it was resigning over concerns with Ebix's gift card business in India.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ebix class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ebix class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Ebix class action lawsuit is not dependent upon

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker ([email protected]) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 [email protected] [GN]

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

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, EBIX SECURITIES BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AND FEBRUARY 19, 2021 (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $100,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Ebix shareholders in United States District Court, Southern District of New York. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Ebix Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The Ebix Defendants, allegedly, failed to disclose to investors that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in the Company's internal

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; (3) the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Ebix Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 19, 2021, Ebix announced that "[b]y letter dated February 15, 2021, RSM US LLP ('RSM') notified the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the 'Audit Committee') of Ebix, Inc. . . . of its resignation as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm."

According to Ebix, ". . . RSM told the Chairman of the Company's Audit Committee during a telephone call that RSM was resigning as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, effective immediately. RSM then advised the Chairman on the call that it was resigning as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020, including whether such transactions have been properly accounted for and disclosed in the financial statements subject to the Audit." Ebix also reported that "RSM informed the Chairman that the unusual transactions concerned the Company's gift card business in India."

On this news, Ebix shares fell by as much as 27% during after-hours trading on February 19, 2021, thereby injuring Ebix investors. Ebix investors were further harmed when Ebix stock fell approximately 40% on February 22, 2021.

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

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Reminds of April 19 Deadline ------Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Feb. 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased EHang shares between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or [email protected].

EHang purports to be an autonomous aerial vehicle ("AAV") technology platform company engaged in pioneering the future of transportation and related commercial solutions.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 AAV were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; and (iv) the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees.

On February 16, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn," which alleged that the Company promoted its stock based on fabricated revenues. Specifically, the report claimed that much of the Company's revenue was based on sham sales made by customers who were primarily interested in artificially "pumping" EHang's stock price rather than becoming genuine purchasers of EHang's products. The report further detailed that EHang had a collection rate of 20% on its reported sales, and that the company holding most of EHang's Chinese assets had much of its equity frozen by a Chinese court due to questionable transactions.

On this news, the price of EHang American Depository Shares ("ADS" or "shares") price fell 62% on February 16, down from its previous close price of $124.09 to a close price of $46.30.

What You Can Do

If you purchased EHang securities between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or [email protected]. The lead plaintiff deadline is April 19, 2021.

About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

CONTACT:

Joe Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 [email protected] [GN]

EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Suit Claims ------DIANA SANTANA, Plaintiff v. EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE LLC and YANNIS/DIMITRI ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Tex., February 23, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees against the Defendants for their alleged illegal pattern or practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked at an automotive shop that was initially owned by Yanni/Dimitri Enterprises, LLC, and later sold to Ekko's Automotive, LLC in August 2019. She worked with the Defendants as the front office clerk from approximately March 2020 until December 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that while employed by the Defendants, she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. She recorded her time using the Defendants' time keeping system. However, the Defendant either did not compensate her, or paid her less than her hourly rate for the overtime hours she worked. Allegedly, the wages she received from the Defendant were not reported to any government and no taxes were withheld of paid by Defendants because the payments were made in cash.

The complaint further asserts that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have suffered damages as a direct result of the Defendant's illegal actions. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees, and other further

The Corporate Defendants provides automotive services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Dynamic Difficulty' Class-Action Suit Gets Dropped ------Alex Calvin at PCGamesInsider reports that EA has managed to convince the lawyers representing a class-action case that it does not use its "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment" (DDA) technology to change how hard its games are.

In a blog post - as spotted by GI.biz - the publishing giant said that the case has been dismissed after it provided the plaintiff's legal representation with "detailed technical information" to confirm that DDA isn't used to impact difficulty in the Ultimate Team modes for FIFA, Madden or NHL. The case was voluntarily dismissed with the US District Court for the Northern District of California on February 11th.

"While EA does own a patent for DDA technology, that technology never was in FIFA, Madden or NHL, and never will be," the publisher wrote.

"We would not use DDA technology to give players an advantage or disadvantage in online multiplayer modes in any of our games and we absolutely do not have it in FIFA, Madden or NHL."

Worth the loot?

The case was initially filed against EA in November of last year, with EA saying that its claims were "baseless and misrepresent our games."

This is just one class-action lawsuit that EA is facing. The firm is facing another in the Northern District of California over FIFA

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Ultimate Team loot boxes, while there's a Canadian class-action case over EA's monetisation model.

This story first appeared on PCGamesInsider.biz [GN]

ELEMENT MATERIALS: Appeals Remand of Flores Labor Class Action ------Defendant Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Roger Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00275-DMG-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 12, 2021.

The case arises from alleged labor violations and is assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February 19, 2021, granting Flores' motion to remand and remanding this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 18STCV10074, for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Roger Flores v. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach, LLC, Case No. 21-80012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 2, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ROGER FLORES, individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated, is represented by:

Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Defendant-Petitioner ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH,

Timothy J. Long, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 329-7919 E-mail: [email protected]

ENCORE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 23 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Encore Capital Group (NASDAQ: ECPG) resulting from allegations that Encore may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1944.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 8, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") filed a complaint alleging that Encore and its subsidiaries violated a consent order "by suing consumers without possessing required documentation, using law firms and an internal legal department to engage in collection efforts without providing required disclosures, and failing to provide consumers with required loan documentation after consumers requested it." On this news, shares of Encore fell $3.59 per share, or nearly 10%, to close at $42.29 on September 9, 2020, damaging investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contact Information:

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

ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Cline Class Suit Pending ------Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class action suit initiated by Perry Cline, is pending.

On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. that alleged SPMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments.

On October 3, 2019, the Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012 and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments, and pass-through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies.

After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest.

This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for interest accrued from the trial. Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2020, SPMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit and appealed the entirety of the Order.

Energy Transfer said, "SPMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can SPMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal, but intends to vigorously appeal the entirety of the Order."

Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.

ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Favors Regency Defendants in Dieckman Suit ------Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on both remaining counts at issue of the class action suit initiated by Adrian Dieckman.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency Energy Partners LP unitholder, filed a class action complaint related to the Regency-ETO merger in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer LP (ET), Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. (ETO), Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP), and the members of Regency's board of directors.

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of

Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.

The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC. The Court of Chancery later granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification.

Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15, 2021, the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on both remaining counts at issue in this litigation.

EPIC GAMES: Set to Settle Class Action Over Fortnite Loot Boxes ------Kyle Orland, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Epic is set to settle a class-action lawsuit over its use of randomized loot boxes in Fortnite's "Save the World" mode by paying affected players with in-game currency. Rocket League players who previously purchased loot boxes in that game will also receive an in-game payment.

While Epic never offered loot boxes in Fortnite's mega-popular battle royale mode, it let "Save the World" players purchase "loot llamas" full of random items until early 2019 (amid international outcry about the randomized loot-box business and its similarity to gambling). Shortly after ending the practice, Epic was faced with a class-action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that it had "psychologically manipulate[d] its young players into thinking they will 'get lucky.'"

Under a proposed settlement for that suit, which Epic says has achieved preliminary approval, all players who purchased a loot llama at any time will be rewarded with 1,000 V-Bucks (worth roughly $8). Even though it's settling a US lawsuit, Epic says this same deal will apply to all Fortnite players globally.

Rocket League players will similarly receive 1,000 credits (worth

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com roughly $9.10) if they bought a randomized Event Crate or key in that game before Epic stopped offering them in October 2019 (just months after it purchased Rocket League developer Psyonix). Players of both games won't have to do anything to claim the benefit, which will appear in their accounts in the coming days.

A marketing bargain? Epic estimates roughly 6.5 million Fortnite players and 2.9 million Rocket League players will receive the automatic virtual currency payments, according to The Verge. That suggests a rough valuation of over $78.3 million in digital reward payouts as part of the settlement. [Update: An Epic spokesperson has clarified to Ars Technica that these numbers only cover the US players who will be receiving the digital currency payout. An undisclosed number of non-US Fortnite players will also be receiving the 1,000 V-Bucks.]

The actual cost incurred by Epic for the giveaway will likely end up much lower, though. Distributing the purely virtual currency incurs minimal direct costs for Epic and only poses an indirect cost in the sense that it replaces virtual currency purchases those players would have made anyway. Some lapsed players won't end up using their digital windfall at all, while others would not have spent any additional money in the game regardless.

In a way, the digital giveaway could even be seen as an effective promotion, luring players back to the games and creating the potential for them to spend more on additional microtransactions down the road. In that sense, the settlement is somewhat reminiscent of a Nintendo price-fixing case that the company settled with prosecutors in 1991. The payout there came in the form of a $5 coupon that could only be redeemed by buying additional Nintendo products, a marketing coup that Nintendo is probably sad it didn't come up with itself.

In addition to the virtual currency, Epic will also be providing "up to $26.5 million in cash and other benefits to U.S.-based Fortnite and Rocket League players" to settle the claims. Those cash payments (of up to $50 per claimant) will only be available to players who submit an active claim form establishing that they think their purchase constituted "consumer fraud" or breach of contract. Minors in California who purchased a loot box "with [their] own money and without parental permission" will also be eligible for a cash refund of up to $50 if they submit a claim.

"We believe players should know upfront what they are paying for when they make in-game purchases," Epic wrote in a tweet announcing the move on Feb. 22. "This is why we only offer X-Ray Llamas that show you the contents before you purchase them in 'Save the World'"

While some European countries have banned loot boxes as a form of illegal gambling, legislative efforts to regulate the practice in some US states (and the US Senate) have by and large stalled after gaining some momentum in 2018 and 2019. [GN]

EPIC GAMES: Williams Sues Over Game's Manipulation of Minors ------K.W. (a minor and through K.W.'s guardian, Jillian Williams) and Jillian Williams, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Epic Games, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00976 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2021), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under the California Business and Professional Code.

Epic Games is a video gaming company that owns flagship game Fortnite. Through Fortnite, Epic Games transacts with video-game currency, virtual items and game content and makes its users pay using real money. Williams alleges that the game enticed her child into buying more and more virtual things and claims that each purchase of items, or game content constitutes a contract between a minor and Epic Games. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Peter R Afrasiabi, Esq. ONE LLP 4000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower, Suite 500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 502-2870 Facsimile: (949) 258-5081 Email: [email protected]

- and -

John E. Lord, Esq. ONE LLP 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 866-5157 Facsimile: (310) 943-2085 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Maximillian N. Amster, Esq. Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq. BAY ADVOCACY PLLC 1700 South Mac Dill Avenue Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 251-6262 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due October 25 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; 12 HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 13 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstdat entered an order approving in part the joint stipulation to vacate the current dates set in this action; continue the deadline for defendants to file a responsive pleading; and propose new dates per the court's February 8, 2021 order.

The current pretrial and class certification dates are vacated. The deadline for the Defendants to file a response to the operative complaints is continued to April 7, 2021.

The following deadlines are set:

Event Date

Deadline to file motion for class October 25, 2021 certification:

Deadline to file opposition to November 23, 2021 motion for class certification:

Deadline to file reply in support of December 10, 2021 motion for class certification:

Last day to participatre in December 17, 2021 settlement conference / mediation:

Hearing on motion for class January 10, 2022 certificatoon:

Last date to file notice of January 12, 2021 settlement:

Non-Expert discovery cutoff: February 25, 2022

Initial expert disclosures: March 14, 2022

Rebuttal expert disclosures: March 28, 2022

Expert discovery cutoff: April 11, 2022

Last day to file all motions: April 18, 2022

Estenson provides logistics services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bb5ZOd at no extra charge.[CC]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Alhadeff Suit Removed to C.D. California ------The case captioned as Albert Alhadeff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 30-02021-01179274-CU-MC-CXC was removed from the Orange County Superior Court-Central Justice Ctr, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00395 to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

John A Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Phone: (949) 851-3939 Fax: (949) 553-7539 Email: [email protected]

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com F21 OPCO: Taylor BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------The case styled VICTAVIA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F21 OPCO, LLC D/B/A FOREVER 21, Case No. 2021CH00000011, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Lake County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01197 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the Plaintiff's and Class members' fingerprints without: (i) obtaining their written consent; (ii) informing them of the specific purpose and length of time their fingerprints would be collected, stored, or used; and (iii) a written and publicly-available policy establishing data retention and destruction guidelines.

F21 Opco, LLC, doing business as Forever 21, is an American fashion retailer headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

Molly K. McGinley, Esq. Kenn Brotman, Esq. Marvis A. Barnes II, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602-4207 Telephone: (312) 372-1121 Facsimile: (312) 827-8108 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FABFITFUN INC: Gaston Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL GASTON and RENATE GARRISON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FABFITFUN, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 5, 2021 for an order:

a. certifying a Nationwide Class of:

"all individuals identified by FabFitFun, Inc. and to whom FabFitFun sent notice that their

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com information may have been exposed in a data security incident whereby third parties may have accessed the Defendant's customers' Personal Information in connection with unauthorized access to Defendant's website";

b. certifying a Colorado Subclass of:

"all individuals identified by FabFitFun and to whom FabFitFun sent notice that their information may have been exposed in a data security incident whereby third parties may have accessed the Defendant's unauthorized access to the Defendant's website";

c. certifying an Oregon Subclass of:

"all individuals identified by FabFitFun and to whom FabFitFun sent notice that their information may have been exposed in a data security incident whereby third parties may have accessed customers' Personal Information in connection with Defendant's unauthorized access to Defendant's website";

d. appointing Cheryl Gaston and Renate Garrison as class representatives;

e. appointing Cheryl Gaston as the subclass representative of the Colorado Subclass;

f. appointing Renate Garrison as the subclass representative of the Oregon Subclass; and

g. appointing Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corp. as Class Counsel.

The proposed "Class Period" is April 26, 2020 to May 14, 2020 and May 22, 2020 to August 3, 2020.

FabFitFun retails curated boxes of health and beauty products to its customers through an online subscription service. The Company offers a daily e-mail service that gives readers tips on beauty, wellness, diet, fitness, and fashion.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ol37Fq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Leslie Guillon, Esq. Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

FACEBOOK INC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 8 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOTSTRATEGY, CO., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Parties jointly stipulate to and ask Court's approval for the following schedule for briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

Event Proposed Deadline

Motion for class certification April 8, 2021 currently due Thursday, March 11, 2021):

The Plaintiff's deadline to April 8, 2021 identify class certification expert witnesses and serve reports and underlying supporting

Opposition to motion for class May 6, 2021 certification (currently due Thursday, April 1, 2021)

The Defendant's deadline to May 6, 2021 identify class certification expert witnesses and serve reports and underlying supporting materials:

Reply in support of motion for May 27, 2021 class certification (currently due April 15, 2021):

The Plaintiff's deadline to May 27, 2021 serve class certification rebuttal expert reports and underlying supporting materials:

Hearing on motion for class June 10, 2021 or certification (currently April such other date 29, 2021): at the Court's convenience

Facebook is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3kGZohI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

David a. Hodges, esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com THE DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM 212 Center Street, 5 th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-2400 Facsimile: (501) 374-8926 E-mail: [email protected]

The Defendant Facebook, Inc. is represented by:

Ashley M. Simonsen, Esq. Simon J. Frankel, Esq. Sean F. Howell, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & B URLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643 Telephone: (424) 332-4782 Facsimile: (424) 332-4749 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

FALONI LAW: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faloni Law Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Raynaldo Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Faloni Law Group, LLC, CVI SGP-CO Acquisition Trust, Case No. 2:21-cv-04023-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., March 3, 2021).

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

Faloni Law Group, LLC -- https://falonilaw.com/ -- is a full service Law Firm which was founded over 40 years ago by David A. Faloni, Sr., Esq.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. 280 Prospect Avenue, Apt. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (877) 827-3395 Fax: (877) 827-3394 Email: benkap232@aol.com

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com FANDANGO MEDIA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------The case captioned as Jason Goldstein, individiually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fandango Media, LLC, Case No. 502021CA001745XXXXMB was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:21-cv-80466-XXXX to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as 950 Constitutional - State Statute.

Fandango Media, LLC -- https://www.fandango.com/ -- is an American ticketing company that sells movie tickets via their website as well as through their mobile app, as well as a provider of television and streaming media information, e.g., through its subsidiaries Flixster, Movies.com, and Rotten Tomatoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: 954-400-4713 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: [email protected]

Nury Agudo Siekkinen, Esq. ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M St NW, Ste. 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 706-5229 Email: [email protected]

FEED PROJECTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feed Projects LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Feed Projects LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01833 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

FEED -- https://feedprojects.com/ -- is an impact-driven lifestyle brand, making products that help feed the children of the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: [email protected]

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Mayer Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a FBCS, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01086 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions (FCBS) -- https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------Plaintiff Water Sports Kauai, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WATER SPORTS KAUAI, INC., DBA SAND PEOPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, and ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03750-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair or deceptive business practices.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated business entities that purchased insurance policy from the Defendants, alleges that the Defendants denied its insurance claim for business interruption coverage despite the fact that it suffered and continues to suffer substantial lost business income and other financial losses following the closure of its stores in Hawaii as mandated by the government to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants also decided to deny and denied the Plaintiff's claims without any inspection or review of its physical locations or documents concerning its business activities in 2020. The Plaintiff argues that the policy is an all-risk property damage policy because its terms indicate that it covers all risks which can cause harm to physical property except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. The policy also provides civil authority coverage, pursuant to which Defendants agreed that they will pay for the actual loss of business income sustained and necessary extra expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated February 1, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss its second amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as WATER SPORTS KAUAI, INC., a Hawaii corporation, on behalf itself and all others similarly situated, DBA Sand People, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation; ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-15366, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on March 9, 2021;

-- Appellant's opening brief is due on May 3, 2021;

-- Appellees' answering brief is due on June 2, 2021; and

-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief.[BN]

FLAUM APPETIZING: Final Approval of Collective Settlement Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO PERECHU and CESAR DURAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. FLAUM APPETIZING CORP. d/b/a FLAUM APPETIZING, and MOSHE GRUNHUT and AVIRAM CHEN, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01085-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for final approval of class and collective action settlement, for award of attorneys' fees and expenses, for approval of service payments to the class representative and original opt-ins and for approval of payment of the claims administrator's costs and expenses.

The plaintiffs ask that the court review and approve the terms of the proposed settlement of this matter, both as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Plaintiffs' claims under the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court approve the proposed apportionment of the settlement proceeds, after conducting a hearing about the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement.

Flaum is located in Brooklyn, New York, and is part of the food wholesalers industry.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2PvoGUp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Bruce E. Menken, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10007

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Severance Benefits ------RODNEY CARROLL, TODD VAN DER JAGT, JERRY RAY, TONY JELINEK, STEPHEN ANDERSON, and FRED MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERALD K. DITTMER; DERECK P. SCHMIDT; and UNNAMED FIDUCIARIES OF FLEXSTEEL'S ERISA-GOVERNED SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (N.D. Iowa, March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Flexsteel refused to pay employee benefits as required by its ERISA-governed severance plan when it terminated eligible employees from January 1, 2020 to the present. Flexsteel failed to provide 60-day notice or the equivalent amount of pay to employees required by the WARN Act when it closed locations in Dubuque, Iowa and Starkville, Mississippi, on or around April 28, 2020 that employed a total of approximately 370 workers. Flexsteel also failed to pay Dubuque employees all wages due under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act.

Flexsteel Industries, Inc. is a furniture company headquartered in Dubuque, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq. Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq. O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, P.L.C. 2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S Davenport, IO 52807 Telephone: (563) 355-6060 Facsimile: (563) 355-6666 E-mail: [email protected]

FRANCE: Families Join Suit After Deaths in Nursing Homes ------A Paris court [held] a hearing in a class-action effort to hold French health authorities and companies accountable after thousands with the virus died in nursing homes, and families were locked out and left in the dark about what was happening to their isolated loved ones.

The hearing is a first step in likely a years-long legal marathon. Families hope it shines a light on what went wrong last year as the virus devastated France's oldest generation and deprived their children and grandchildren of a chance to help or even say goodbye.

"We want to ensure that mistakes aren't repeated, that someone is held responsible," said plaintiff Sabrina Deliry, who has mobilized families around France since her mother's Paris nursing home was first locked down a year ago.

The hearing involves a special measure to demand access to documents or other material involving decisions at nursing homes. It is among many legal efforts around the mismanagement of the pandemic that are working through the French justice system. Others include manslaughter charges, or target top government ministers, but this could be one of the most far-reaching cases.

It targets several nursing homes, the national health agency DGS, the Paris public hospital authority and others. Plaintiffs include family members of nursing home residents, doctors and associations.

Their complaint focuses on multiple issues at French homes for the elderly and disabled during the first half of 2020. Those flaws included mask shortages for residents and staff; testing shortages; the use of a powerful sedative called Rivotril on some residents while homes were locked down; and opaque decisions on which residents received hospital treatment for the virus and which were left to suffer or die in their nursing homes.

The national health agency, the Paris hospital authority and two of the nursing homes named did not respond to requests for comment ahead of the hearing.

After France recorded Europe's first virus infections and deaths a year ago, French officials shut down nursing homes to outsiders and kept residents inside. The government said it had to act fast to

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com protect the country's most vulnerable populations. But many families say the lockdown deprived them of decision-making abilities for their loved ones, and that in some cases the enforced isolation worsened cognitive and other health problems.

Recognizing these concerns, President Emmanuel Macron relaxed some rules for nursing homes ahead of everything else as France's first lockdown eased. But for many, the damage had already been done. And new waves of infections in the summer, fall and winter sent many nursing homes back into temporary, repeated shutdowns.

Official figures show that nearly 25,000 people with the virus have died in French nursing homes out of more than 87,000 lives lost nationwide -- a death toll still climbing by hundreds every day. But thousands of other French nursing home residents who contracted COVID-19 died after being hospitalized, and studies suggest they make up as many as half of France's overall virus victims. That is among the highest proportions worldwide.

French officials say mask shortages at the outset of the pandemic were beyond their control and a global problem and note that masks have been mandatory and widely available since last summer. Nursing home directors have defended their decisions to lock out visitors given the vulnerabilities of their residents.

Dr. Alain Masclet, head of group AR2S involved in the lawsuit, said the court process "will allow us to define what was forgotten, the shortages, the failures."

The goal, he said, should be to ensure: "Never again." [GN]

FRED MEYER: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01120 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Fred Meyer Jewelers -- https://www.fredmeyerjewelers.com/ -- is a national chain of jewelers. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fred Meyer and Kroger. The company also operates under the name Littman Jewelers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: [email protected]

FURMO LLC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furmo LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Furmo LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01824 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Furmo LLC -- http://www.thefurmogroup.com/ -- is located in Denver, Colorado and is part of the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: [email protected]

G4S SECURE: Snell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. The case is styled as James Snell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Case No. BCV-21-100465 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 3, 2021).

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

G4S Secure Solutions -- https://www.g4s.com/ -- is an American/British-based security services company, and a subsidiary of G4S plc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 888-209-8927

GAIN CAPITAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gain Capital Group, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gain Capital Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01807 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

GAIN Capital Group, LLC -- https://www.gaincapital.com/ -- provides retail foreign exchange trading services. The Company offers services such as introducing broker programs, money manager, and white label solutions to fund managers, commodity trading advisors, and professional traders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Following FDA Report ------Keller and Heckman LLP reports that the law firm has previously blogged about the fallout from a Congressional report on the level of heavy metals in baby foods, including class-action lawsuits against Gerber Products Co. and Plum, PBC as well FDA's response to the report.

Unsurprisingly, these lawsuits were just the beginning of a trend and in recent weeks a series of new class-actions have been filed, each alleging similar consumer deception claims relating to the presence of heavy metals in baby foods.

A class action was filed against Gerber Products Co. and Hain

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Celestial Group (Hain) in the North District of Illinois for allegedly omitting and concealing the presence of dangerous levels of heavy metal in the baby food products they sell.

Another class action was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Hain for allegedly misleadingly marketing baby foods such as Earth's Best Organic Banana Raspberry & Brown Rice Fruit & Grain Puree as healthy and free of dangerous substances.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed in the North District of New York against Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. for allegedly misrepresenting Beech-Nut baby foods are "real food for babies" and failing to disclose the presence of dangerous levels of heavy metals.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Nurture, Inc. in the Southern District of New York for allegedly misleadingly marketing Happy Baby Superfood Puffs as healthy and nutritious for babies and failing to disclose the presence of heavy metals.

Given the recent filings, the law firm has not yet seen briefing or any judicial decisions on the merits of the claims. [GN]

GF MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Oct. 8 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GF MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00944-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an initial case management order as follows:

a. Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall be made on or before March 1, 2021.

b. Additional parties shall be joined on or before March 15, 2021.

c. Pleadings shall be amended on or before March 15, 2021.

d. Class certification discovery shall be completed on or before June 22, 2021.

e. The Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be filed on or before July 22, 2021.

f. The Defendant's expert reports shall be filed on or before August 23, 2021.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com g. Depositions of class certification experts shall take place on or before September 8, 2021.

h. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before October 8, 2021.

i. The Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before November 8, 2021.

j. The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification shall be filed on or before November 22, 2021.

GF Management provides hospitality management services. The Company owns and manages hotels, resorts, conference centers, catering facilities, waterparks, casinos, and golf courses, as well as offers management advisory and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kMJoe3 at no extra charge.[CC]

GLADDEN EQUIPMENT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gladden Equipment Erectors, Inc. The case is styled as Gonzalo Lopez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gladden Equipment Erectors, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0001816 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 2, 2021).

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

Gladden Equipment Erectors, Inc. is a construction company based in Tracy, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Daniel J. Brown, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd Venice, CA 90291-5590 Phone: (323) 207-5925 Email: [email protected]

GODADDY INC: Settlement Objector Files Notice of Appeal ------GoDaddy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a single objector to the settlement filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR) (D. Ariz.), filed on June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written settlement agreement.

On December 16, 2019, the company amended the settlement agreement to include two additional putative class action cases, which also alleged violations of the TCPA: John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254 (D. Ariz.), appeal pending 18-16048 (9th Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563) (S.D. Ala.). In 2019, the company recorded an $18.1 million charge to general and administrative expense, representing our original estimated loss provision for this settlement.

Under the terms of the final settlement agreement, the company made available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members, at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used for future purchases of products from us; (ii) an incentive payment to the class representatives; (iii) notice and administration costs in connection with the settlement; and (iv) attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class.

On April 22, 2020, the parties filed statements in response to a request from the S.D. Ala. Court (the Court) to refine the class definition, resulting in a reduction in the total number of class members from the original estimated class. Accordingly, the company recorded a $2.9 million reduction of our estimated loss provision to general and administrative expense during the three months ended March 31, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, the Court granted approval of the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary certification of the settlement class, subject to the parties' execution of an amended settlement agreement to remove John Herrick as a class representative.

The parties executed such amendment on May 26, 2020, and on June 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the final settlement agreement. The Court's order also set October 7, 2020 as the deadline for class members to submit claims and December 14, 2020 as the hearing date regarding final approval of the settlement.

On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an amended order reducing the attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class. Additionally, the actual number of claims made by class members through the October 7, 2020 deadline was lower than our original estimates. Based primarily on these two factors, the company recorded a $4.8 million reduction of our estimated loss provision to general and administrative expense during the three months ended September 30, 2020.

On December 23, 2020, the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the class settlement, which further reduced the attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class and denied plaintiffs' request for an incentive payment.

Additionally, the actual notice and administration costs associated with the settlement were lower than originally estimated.

On January 19, 2021, a single objector to the settlement filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result of these developments, the company recorded a $2.3 million reduction to general and administrative expense during the three months ended December 31, 2020, lowering the company's estimated loss provision for this settlement to $8.1 million on December 31, 2020. The timing of the payments to be made under the final settlement agreement is pending resolution of the appeal.

The company had denied and continue to deny the allegations in the complaint. Nothing in the final settlement agreement shall be deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such litigation.

The company received a full release from the settlement class (other than from those class members who timely elected to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the claims released in the final settlement agreement. Our legal fees associated with this matter have been recorded to general and administrative expense as incurred and were not material.

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Report Collection ------RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00586 (S.D. Tex., February 24, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking redress for its alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite not being a customer of the Defendant, the Defendant requested and obtained his Innovis credit report without obtaining his consent or authorization and without a permissible purpose enumerated in the FCRA. Purportedly, the Defendant created false representations to access the Plaintiff's highly confidential credit information from Innovis by misrepresenting that the Plaintiff applied for credit from the Defendant, that the Plaintiff had a current business relationship with the Defendant, and that the Defendant will be making a firm offer of credit to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that he has not applied for or otherwise sought any products or lines of credit from the Defendant, and he did not receive a firm offer of credit from the Defendant after the Defendant accessed his Innovis credit report.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff has been harmed in the form of anxiety, distress, mental anguish, and fear that he may be a victim of identity theft, intrusion upon seclusion, and privacy invasion.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated persons within the U.S. that had their consumer credit report obtained by the Defendant, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to seek for injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from accessing consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose, as well as actual, statutory, and punitive damages, litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC operates as an investment management company that offers investment banking, securities, asset management, capital market, valuation, bonds, funds, financial analysis, investment strategies, and advisory services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Victor T. Metroff, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8180 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

GOOGLE INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses Stadia Lawsuit ------Frances Jensen, Esq. -- [email protected] -- of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that a lawsuit filed against Google alleges that the tech company greatly exaggerated the quality and resolution of games available on Stadia, Google's cloud gaming service. Stadia does not require a console and allows players to play video games streamed over the internet to multiple devices (TV, laptop, tablet, and mobile).

The class action lawsuit here, originally filed in Queens County Superior Court in October of 2020 and removed to New York federal court on February 12, 2021, claims that Google violated consumer protection laws designed to protect against unfair and deceptive business practices and false advertising in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that Google used false and misleading statements about how all games on Stadia would be playable at 4k resolution and failed to deliver on its promise that Stadia was more powerful than gaming consoles.

The complaint points to several articles and media reports that surfaced after Stadia's launch, which debunked Google's claims by explaining that games touted as 4K resolution were not in fact in true or native 4K. Instead, the games reportedly ran at 1080p or 1440p resolution, and were upscaled to 4K on Stadia and the Google Chromecast Ultra (which is needed to play Stadia games at 4K). While it may be the responsibility of the developer to provide gaming content quality such as 4K resolution and 60 frames-per-second, the complaint alleges that Google did nothing to correct the misinformation that all Stadia games would be 4K.

The complaint alleges that some of the articles were later changed, insinuating that the edits may have been at Google's direction to soften the blow from the negative press. Additionally, the complaint alleges that some of Google's own statements on Twitter and the Stadia website were later revised or removed to obscure information after the news that the quality and resolution of Stadia games were not as originally claimed.

If the lawsuit proceeds, the class is seeking damages in the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com amounts of the Stadia subscription packages, as well as injunctive relief to stop the allegedly unfair and deceptive practices. In other words, in addition to giving refunds to anyone who purchased a Founder's Edition, Premiere Edition, or paid for a Stadia Pro subscription, the plaintiffs are requesting that Google list the resolution of games offered on the Stadia store. This lawsuit, in addition to the recent announcement that Google shuttered its internal game development studio, is yet another bump in the road for Google's Stadia project.

Developers, publishers, and platform providers should be mindful of over-promising, as is the case for all advertisers. Consumers recognize the difference between what a company promises and what it actually delivers, and many in the gaming community are keen to pick up on those differences. This should serve as a reminder that potentially serious legal exposure arises when features are advertised in pre-release marketing that do not appear in final products sold to consumers.

Google has done nothing to correct the false information concerning the power and resolution of the games available on Stadia and does not disclose to consumers in the Google Stadia store the resolution of each of the games available for purchase. [GN]

GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Seeks to Certify Class Action ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTAMONTE PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida Corporation, v. GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00604-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting its motion to certify the case as a class action.

Altamonte, and more than small medical practices like it entered into materially uniform contracts. Under these contracts, each practice paid Greenway tens of thousands of dollars for standard software that never performed as Greenway promised. Greenway claimed for years that it would fix the software. It never did. Yet Greenway refused to allow the medical practices to stop paying Greenway the monthly fees for broken software, much less refund to them the tens of millions of dollars Greenway already bilked out of them, the complaint says.

Nearly a decade ago, Greenway began selling the at-issue software under the brand name the "Intergy Meaningful Use Edition." As the name suggested and Greenway expressly promised in contracts with Altamonte and other customers, Intergy was supposed to comply with the standards of the government's "Meaningful Use" ("MU") program.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Starting in 2010, the MU program codified the baseline feature set for all Electronic Health Record ("EHR") software sold in the U.S. Contrary to the product's namesake and unbeknownst to Greenway's customers, however, the Intergy Meaningful Use Edition software failed to comply with the MU standards for years. Greenway now admits that the "Meaningful Use Edition" of Intergy was not, in fact, compliant with "Meaningful Use." Indeed, Greenway has attempted (and failed) to fix Intergy to make it compliant for more than two years. None of the customers who paid for this faulty product received the full benefit of their bargain.

Greenway Health, LLC is a privately-owned company currently based in Florida, founded in 2013 following Vista Equity Partners' acquisition of other, similar companies. It sells technological products to healthcare providers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bVMicr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. John T. Nicolaou, Esq. Gabriel A. Panek, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Michael J. Brickman, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. James C. Bradley, Esq. Caleb Hodge, Esq. ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A (29464) Post Office Box 1007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 727-6500

- and -

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Brett Ialacci, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK, LLC 2001 Park Place, North Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-0036 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave. Suite 201H, No. 105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 350 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (770) 668-2081 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Timothy C. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER, LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, W 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-034 E-mail: [email protected]

GRIDDY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Price Gouging ------Click2Houston reports that a Chambers County woman has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the electric company, Griddy.

According to a news release, Mont Belvieu resident Lisa Khoury said the company engaged in "unlawful price gouging" during the winter storm.

Khoury said her average bill is usually between $200 and $250, but

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the electric bill from Feb. 13 through Feb. 19 came out to $9,340 because the company "began making withdrawals from her bank account daily."

According to the release, Khoury was only without power for one day and, even when she had power, was cognizant of usage out of fear for a high electricity bill.

The lawsuit claims the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and is seeking an injunction to prevent Griddy from "billing and collecting payment for excessive prices and demands the forgiving of any late or unpaid bills from customers."

"At this point we don't know how many people might be affected, but there are likely thousands of customers who've received these outrageous bills," says Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston, who represents Khoury. "A class-action will be the most efficient and effective way for Griddy's customers to come together and fight this predatory pricing."

Khoury and others involved in the lawsuit are seeking $1 billion in monetary relief.

This is not the first time Griddy customers have felt the effects of extreme weather on the electric bills.

Customers pay $9.99 a month and in return, the company gives them electricity at wholesale prices. This means that if the company's wholesale price goes up, the customer's price goes up as well.

Many people experienced this firsthand in 2019 when prices skyrocketed in the summer and people ended up paying hundreds of dollars due to a heat wave that caused a spike in wholesale prices.

Griddy said it has 29,000 members. It's unclear how many other Texans also pay wholesale prices from other companies. [GN]

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Reminds of June 6 Deadline ------SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses

This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of GTT Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or the "Company") from February 26,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 2018 to August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").

Your Rights Will Be Affected By A Class Action Lawsuit Pending In This Court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000.00) (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on April 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Claude M. Hilton at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Room 800, Alexandria, VA 22314, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendant Releasees, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. The capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as they have in the Stipulation.

The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof without further written notice of any kind to the Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members should check the settlement website at www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com, the Court's PACER site (defined below), or contact Lead Counsel at the address below.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at GTT Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91247, Seattle, WA 98111, 888-906-0555. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form are also available by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/, or by visiting the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 410 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 during normal business hours. Additionally, the Notice and Claim Form can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to potentially be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or completed online no later than June 6, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than April 2, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 2, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, GTT, or its Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

For any questions, visit www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free at 888-906-0555.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made directed to:

SAXENA WHITE P.A. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. 7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 (561) 206-6708 [email protected]

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

GTT Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91247 Seattle, WA 98111 888-906-0555 www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com [email protected]

By Order of the Court

URL: http://www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com

Contact Information: SAXENA WHITE P.A. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. 7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 (561) 206-6708 [email protected] [GN]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Albano Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content ------LORI-ANNE ALBANO, MYJORIE PHILIPPE, REBECCA TELARO, and ALYSSA ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, and NURTURE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01118 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business Law and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and misleading representations of their baby food products under the Earth's Best, Beech-Nut, Gerber, and HappyBABY brands. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to consumers, including the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Plaintiffs, that the products contained high level of toxic heavy metals. Had the Plaintiffs and the Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the products or would have paid less for them.

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

Beech-Nut Nutrition Company is a baby food company headquartered in Amsterdam, New York.

Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Nurture, Inc. is an organic baby and toddler food company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Eric A. Kafka, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq. Brian E. Johnson, Esq. Paul M. Stephan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW East Tower, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and â€“

Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Mark Troutman, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: [email protected]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food ------Katesha Smith and Miranda Fogle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00129-BP (W.D. Mo., March 2, 2021), is brought as a consumer protection and false advertising class action lawsuit against Hain Celestial based on its misleading and unfair business practices with respect to the marketing and sale of certain Earth's Best baby food products which contain elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, arsenic, and mercury (the "Products"), in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs and consumers, the Products contain levels of toxic heavy metals which exceed FDA guidance and Hain Celestial's own standards, asserts the complaint. The U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a staff report on February 4, 2021 confirming that commercial baby foods, including those sold by Hain Celestial, contain significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury (the "Staff Report"). The Staff Report follows a national investigation by Healthy Babies Bright Futures which also confirms the presence of elevated levels of toxic heavy metals in an October 2019 report (the "HBBF Report").

According to the complaint, nothing on the Products' labels warns consumers of these elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. Hain Celestial's failure to disclose the elevated presence of toxic metals is injurious to consumers, as consumers purchase the Products reasonably believing that the Products would not contain dangerous contaminants, including but not limited to toxic heavy metals. These omitted facts are material to consumers as they pertain to the Products' safety and the quality of the Products' ingredients, including whether they are contaminated with any toxic substances. Consumers do not know, and have no reason to know, that the Products contain toxic heavy metals at elevated levels. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for consumption, particularly in the context of baby food, where the consumer is

As a result of the Defendant's failure to disclose the presence of these toxic heavy metals, consumers purchased the Products when, had they known of the presence of these contaminants, they would not have purchased the Products at all. Therefore, the Plaintiffs and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant's deceptive practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Hain Celestial's products.

Hain Celestial is one of the nation's leading purveyors of what is considered to be premium quality, healthy baby food.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Tim Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER & HERSHEWE, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105-5194 Phone: (816) 876-2600 Fax: (816) 221-8763 () Email: [email protected]

HAMILTON POINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims ------RAMON HIDALGO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON POINT GRANARY, LLC d/b/a THE GRANGE BAR & EATERY, ROY ANTHONY HENLEY, and RITA ROYER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01637 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around June 2016 to work as a porter and dishwasher for the Defendants' The Grange Bar & Eatery until his employment was terminated on or around March 15, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed substantial works prior and after his scheduled hours throughout his employment with the Defendants. Specifically, from January 2017 to the end of his employment, he came in about 30 to 60 minutes every workday before his shift started to get ready for his shift and left about 2 hours past his scheduled shift. He routinely worked for 3 to 4 hours past scheduled shift depending on how busy the restaurant was. However, although he and similarly situated employees were

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com required to clock in and out for time-keeping purposes, the Defendants would adjust their time on the employee time clock computer so that they were paid even less than the hours that show on the computer time records. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly compensated by the Defendants at their hourly rate and the overtime premium rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all overtime they worked, the suit says.

In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees with wage notices and with proper wage statement at all relevant times.

Hamilton Point Granary, LLC d/b/a The Grange Bar & Eatery operates a restaurant. The Individual Defendants are principals of the Corporate Defendant who exercise operational control as it related to all employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181

HANWHA TECHWIN: Jacobs BIPA Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ------The class action lawsuit captioned as LEROY JACOBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HANWHA TECHWIN AMERICA, INC. (Filed Jan. 28, 2021) was transferred from the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) on Feb. 16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00866 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that "would consist of all other similarly situated individuals pursuant to Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), and to recover statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed for the violations.

Hanwha Techwin delivers a comprehensive line of security cameras

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com and surveillance solutions for analog and network based systems. [BN]

The Defendant Hanwha Techwin America is represented by:

Nicholas S. Lee, Esq. BISHOP DIEHL & LEE, LTD. 1475 E. Woodfield Rd. Suite 800 Schaumburg, IL 60173 Telephone: (847) 969-9123 Facsimile: (847) 969-9124 E-mail: [email protected]

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Robert A. Levy Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ------Plaintiffs Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT E. LEVY, D.M.D., LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00643-SRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased insurance from Defendants to protect their dental practices against losses from catastrophic events. During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs shut down their practices entirely, or only saw a few emergency patients, and made claims under their insurance policies for the losses caused by the shutdowns. Defendants denied each claim, asserting that the policies did not cover losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore they had no obligation to provide any coverage.

The Plaintiffs asserted six claims: 1) business income breach of contract; 2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applicable to business income 3) declaratory relief applicable to business income; 4) extra expense breach of contract; 5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applicable to extra expense; and 6) declaratory relief applicable to extra expense. The Plaintiffs also sought to represent four classes of plaintiffs allegedly holding similar policies and suffering similar losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing all counts in this action on February 16, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1446, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 24,

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT A. LEVY, D.M.D., LLC; VANESSA N. KELLER D.M.D. & TRISHA M. YOUNG D.M.D., P.C.; RIVKA GOLDENHERSH D.M.D., LLC; and FARHAD MOSHIRI, AND MAZYAR MOSHIRI, D.M.D., M.S., P.C., dba Moshiri Orthodontics, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Ryan L. Bruning, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 735-8100 Facsimile: (314) 898-3078 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

HEALTHY HALO: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Halo Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as David Melgren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Healthy Halo Insurance Services Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00104-TOR (E.D. Wash., March 2, 2021).

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

Healthy Halo -- https://healthyhalo.com/ -- is a full-service health insurance agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Samuel J Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Email: [email protected]

HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway ------Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola (Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12, 2019.

The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were materially false and misleading because they purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice, understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly large customer in North America just before the Separation and Merger.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020.

Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, the company's Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant in the action. Lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 21, 2020, in which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a "control person" of Covetrus.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York.

HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action ------Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating the Company defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

Herbalife said, "The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome."

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

HORSEHEAD HOLDING: June 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Horsehead Holding Corp. Horsehead securities include common stock (CUSIP #440694305); 3.8% convertible senior notes (CUSIP #440694AB3); 10.50% senior secured notes (CUSIPs #440694AC1, #440694AE7 and #440694AF4); and 9% senior unsecured notes (CUSIP # 440694AG2).

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who purchased Horsehead Holdings Corp. ("Horsehead") securities (CUSIPs #440694305, #440694AB3, #440694AC1, #440694AE7, #440694AF4 and #440694AG2) during the period from February 25, 2014 through February 2, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period")1:

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Class Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $14.75 million in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held at 1:00 p.m. ET, on June 4, 2021, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Leonard P. Stark at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 5, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. In the event that there are any changes to the time, date, or method of the Settlement Hearing, such changes will be posted on the Settlement website at www.horseheadlitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Horsehead Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Services, 600 N. Jackson St, Suite 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; fax: (610) 565-7985; email: [email protected]. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.horseheadlitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than May 28, 2021, or submitted electronically through the online filing system at www.horseheadlitigation.com no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on May 28, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than May 14, 2021, by the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 28, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Horsehead Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 [email protected]

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Gregory B. Linkh 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 201-9150

By Order of the Court

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), available at www.horseheadlitigation.com. [GN]

HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Austin Sues Over Race Bias in the Workplace ------JEFFREY AUSTIN, JOAN AUSTIN, JOHNELLA BRADFORD, ANTRECE BAGGETT, ASHLEY BRITTON PICOTT, ADRIAN BROWN, CASSANDRA BROWN, DELIAH BROWN, TRINA CAMPBELL, FELICIA RUCKER CARTER, HYGINUS CHUKWU, SHIRLEY COLLINS, LISA COOPER, AVA COSEY, MARIE CROMWELL, TERRENCE CROSBY, MARCUS CURVEY, CAROLYN DAVIS, KAREN DAVIS, SYBLE DAVIS, LINDA DENKINS, BRIGETTE DENNIS, CHAMEETA DENTON, ANTIONETTE DICKSON, CHARLES DRAYDEN, ROSEMARY EDWARDS, CATINA EILAND, LORLIE ELLIS, READRI EPPS, MICALYN FLAGG, ROSALYN FRANCIS, GERALDINE GIBSON, BRANDY GRIFFIN, AFRAH HASSAN, AVIS HORDE, KIM INGRAM, DAWNICA JACKSON, RODNEY JACKSON, TROY JEFFERSON, CHINA JENKINS, DEMEITA JOHNSON, MICHELLE JOHNSON, REGINALD JOHNSON, ANDREA JONES, STEPHANIE JONES, BEVERLY JOSEPH, PANDORA JUBILEE, BETTY KELLER, ELLAMEES KELLY MOLO, TERRY KIDD, ELFREDA KING, LATINA KING, EDNA KINGSLEY, DONNY LEVESTON, CONRAD LEVY, MARLENE LONDON, DAMITA MCCLAIN, MARCUS MCNEIL, LUE MIMS, RICARDO MODESTE, KISHMA MORANICE, MIESHA MOSLEY, AMEENAH MUHAMMAD, MARY PAGE, SHIRLEY PARISH, CYNTHIA PATTON, WILMA PERKINS, BEVERLY PERRY, GERTRUDE PERRY RIDLEY, SHEILA QUINN, ERNEST REYNOLDS, KISTEN RHODES, ERICA RHONE, CARRIE ROBINSON, KATHERINE ROBISON, ROSE RUSSELL, VICTOR SEABORN, YOLANDA SIMMONS MOORE, SONYA SNEED, JONATHAN TAYLOR, SHIARNICE TAYLOR, CRYSTAL THOMAS, BRENDA TILLIS ALLEN, GODWIN UNUIGBOKHAI, LAQUINTA VARGAS, GERMAINE WASHINGTON, FREDERICA WATSON, ALYSSA WALLACE, DONNA WILLIAMS, AND TINA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00686 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of rights protected in 42 U.S. Constitution.

The case arises out of the deliberate acts of racial discrimination

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com by Cesar Maldonado, chancellor of Houston Community College (HCC) in 2014, and his staff, undertaken in their decision-making and policy-making positions, on behalf of HCC. The complained-of practices and policies of HCC treated non-Hispanic Black employees like Plaintiffs differently from Hispanic and White employees. The claims in this suit include damages resulting from retaliatory actions taken against the Plaintiffs because of their race and/or for their participation in this lawsuit. Maldonado and his cooperating staff members, like Janet May and Tom Anderson, collectively acted in concert with one another under color of law to cause the harm and damages. The Plaintiffs were all targeted, mistreated, demoted, suspended, improperly investigated, falsely accused, not hired, and/or asked to admit to objectively false accusations manufactured against them, and when they objected or refused to be complicit in their own improper punishment, they were either improperly disciplined, written-up, not hired or promoted, and/or removed from the workplace -- all because of their race, the suit alleges.

Houston Community College is a public institution situated in Harris County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Benjamin L. Hall, III, Esq. William L. Van Fleet II, Esq. THE HALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 530 Lovett Blvd. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 942-9600 Facsimile: (713) 942-9566 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and â€“

George J. Hittner, Esq. THE HITTNER GROUP, PLLC P.O. Box 541189 Houston, TX 77254 Telephone: (713) 505-1003 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Adrian V. Villacorta, Esq. THE VILLACORTA LAW FIRM, P.C. 530 Lovett Blvd.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (832) 991-8864 Facsimile: (832) 201-7469 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

James Ardoin, Esq. JIMMY ARDOIN ASSOCIATES, PLLC 4900 Fournace Place, Suite 550 Houston, TX 77401 Telephone: (713) 574-8900 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq. Jordan Warshauer, Esq. Edward B. Goolsby, Esq. Nathan B. Campbell, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI MENSING, P.C 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

HUMBOLDT BRONCOS: Court Weighs What to Do With Different Lawsuits ------newsoptimist.ca reports that a Regina judge has reserved his decision on whether to delay one of the many lawsuits filed after the deadly Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

Lawyers spent arguing what a delay would mean for a group of grieving parents who want to move ahead with their case, and what's fair for all the victims who were on the junior hockey team's bus that day.

Sixteen people were killed and 13 were injured when, on April 6, 2018, an inexperienced truck driver went through a stop sign and into the path of the bus at a rural intersection near Tisdale, Sask.

Justice Graeme Mitchell said he's sensitive to how important the matter is. At one point during the hearing, he struggled to know

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com for certain how many individual lawsuits stemmed from the crash.

At the core of the hearing was a proposed class action and whether a lawsuit brought by five other parents shortly after the crash should wait until the courts decide if the class can go ahead.

John Rice, a Vancouver lawyer working on the class action, said the representatives for nine surviving Broncos players were OK with not bringing their cases forward until after the April 2022 certification hearing.

But the lawyer for five other parents, who all lost children, said his clients don't want to wait. There's no guarantee the class-action will be certified, Kevin Mellor said, and it could be appealed, prolonging the process by several years.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," Mellor told the court.

He said not only would forcing a delay inflict psychological harm on the parents, they would be burdened with more legal costs. They have already spent thousands of dollars on the case getting expert reports and finding witnesses, he said.

Mellor said the last thing the families he's representing thought they would have to do is defend themselves against other families to have their day in court.

Rice acknowledged the suffering these parents have faced. But, he said court needs to consider what's fair for all Broncos victims, who would also be impacted by court delays.

Because all the lawsuits share similarities, what happens in one affects others, he argued, and the "least-worst option" is for everyone to wait until the certification hearing.

After first expressing he wanted to be delicate, Rice said: "Those that were killed won't be coming back."

"I would ask, my Lord, when you're contemplating the comparative duress of these litigants please juxtapose the duress of those who had children killed . . . with the enduring, living harms - physical and psychological - of the . . . surviving players," Rice said.

He also suggested the lawsuit from the five families would not be heard in the next year or so, and the delay would be temporary.

"The closure that they so deservedly want will not happen in any

The class action so far includes the families of 24-year-old Dayna Brons, the team's athletic therapist from Lake Lenore, Sask., who died in hospital, and injured goalie Jacob Wassermann, 21, from Humboldt, Sask. It names as defendants the Saskatchewan government, the truck driver and the Calgary-based company that employed him.

Rice said other families have since joined, including the families of Broncos coach Darcy Haugan and bus driver Glen Doerksen. Both men were killed.

The class action is also open to families who billeted players, first responders and members of the general public traumatized by the crash scene.

The early lawsuit represents the families of five who died in the collision: assistant coach Mark Cross, 27, from Strasbourg, Sask.; Jaxon Joseph, 20, of St. Albert, Alta.; Logan Hunter, 18, of St. Albert, Alta.; Jacob Leicht, 19, of Humboldt, Sask.; and Adam Herold, 16, of Montmartre, Sask.

"I lost my best friend on April 6, 2018," reads an affidavit filed by Adam's father, Russ Herold.

"I farmed with him. I hunted with him. I snowmobiled with him. I taught hockey to him and I coached him. My family would spend summer and winter seasons together at our family cabin as a family. Adam spent hours on the water wakeboarding.

"Now, nobody goes."

In court filings, Mellor also said a delay could create problems because the truck driver, Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, could be deported to India after he is released from prison and before any civil trial.

In court, Rice said it's unlikely Sidhu would be deported before the end of the year and the class action also wants to hear from him. [GN]

IMPINJ INC: Awaits Court Order to Discontinue Plymouth Suit ------Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the New York State court has not yet entered an order discontinuing the Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al.

On January 31, 2019, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former chief financial officer, members of the company's board of directors and the underwriters of its July 2016 initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO.

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO, alleged that the company made false or misleading statements in the registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings concerning demand for its products and inventory in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities class actions.

In connection with the federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, headed by the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, on July 9, 2020, the parties in both this action and the federal securities class actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims in both actions.

On November 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order approving the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties in this action filed stipulation discontinuing this action with prejudice.

The New York State court, significantly hampered by COVID-19, has not yet entered an order discontinuing the action with prejudice.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity for everyday items by delivering each item's unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications. Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

IMPINJ INC: Consolidated Class Suit in Washington Concluded ------

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the consolidated class action suit headed by the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, has been concluded.

On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company, its chief executive officer and former chief operating officer.

Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for first-quarter 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about the company's business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that the company made false or misleading statements in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserted claims that the company made false or misleading statements about customer demand for its products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's former chief operating officer, dismissed product-capability-related allegations against the company's former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants.

On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with the lead plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and plaintiff in the New York State securities class action discussed below, the parties in both actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims asserted in both actions. The settlement provided for a payment to the plaintiff class of $20.0 million.

The company's insurers contributed $14.6 million to the settlement, and the company contributed the remaining settlement amount of $5.4 million. Accordingly, the company recorded a provision of $5.4 million related to its estimated settlement amount to general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2020, which was paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020.

On July 29, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 20, 2020, following a final approval hearing the previous day, the court entered an order approving the settlement and such matter is now closed.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

INDEPENDENCE HOLDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independence Holding Company. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Independence Holding Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00272 (D. Conn., March 2, 2021).

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

Independence Holding Company (IHC) -- http://ir.ihcgroup.com/ -- is a holding company principally engaged in the life and health insurance busines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Eric Lindh Foster, Esq. ERIC LINDH FOSTER LAW, LLC 48 Main Street Old Saybrook, CT 06475 Phone: (203) 533-4321 Email: [email protected]

INSIGHT VENTURE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due April 29 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK COLACURCIO, MARIS and DAVID HANSON, and JAMES McMURCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII LP, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01856-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered a Rule 16(B) AND Rule 23(D)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows:

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file April 29, 2021 motion for class certification:

Opposition to Motion to Certify May 28, 2021 Class:

Reply in Support of Motion to June 11, 2021 Certify Class:

Hearing on Motion to Certify To be set by the Class: Court after briefing

Insight Partners is an American venture capital and private equity firm based in New York City.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kL8E4m at no extra charge.[CC]

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

IRTC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13066&wire=1 SWI Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=13066&wire=1 EH Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13066&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC)

IRTC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 4, 2020 - January 28, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13066&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iRhythm Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)

SWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 18, 2018

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com - December 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=13066&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SolarWinds Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)

EH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2019 - February 16, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13066&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ehang Holdings Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 [email protected] Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN]

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline ------ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: iRhythm Technologies (IRTC) Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-litigation

Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC) Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-clover-health-investments-corp-securities-litigation

EHang Holdings Limited (EH) Class Period: 12/12/2019 - 2/16/2021 (and on February 16, 2021, only for those who purchased shares at or above the price of $112.00). Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ehang-holdings-limited-american-depositary-shares-securities- litigation fuboTV Inc. (FUBO)

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Class Period: 3/23/2020 - 1/4/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-fubotv-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

IRWIN NATURALS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irwin Naturals. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Irwin Naturals, Case No. 1:21-cv-01751 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Irwin Naturals -- https://irwinnaturals.com/ -- retails health supplements. The Company offers nutritional supplements, healthy, multivitamins, beauty, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mark Rozenberg, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: [email protected]

JENNER'S POND: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by March 8 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MACLEOD, BY AND THROUGH THE EXECUTOR OF HER ESTATE, JENNY BROOK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JENNER'S POND, INC. d/b/a, a/k/a JENNERâ€™S POND RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03485-ER (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered an order granting the joint stipulation and request to modify second scheduling order.

The Deadlines for fact and expert discovery and the motion for class certification will be extended as follows:

1. All fact discovery shall be completed by March 8, 2021.

2. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification by March 8, 2021. The Defendant shall file a response by April 7, 2021.

3. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 7, 2021. All other deadlines remain unchanged.

Jenner's Pond, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization offers assisted living, skilled nursing care, health and wellness programs, rehabilitation services, and other amenities. Jenner's Pond serves communities in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rgbiBI at no extra charge.[CC]

Johnson & Johnson: Loses Appeal in Australian Pelvic Mesh Suit ------Reuters reports that Australian court dismissed an appeal by Johnson & Johnson against a ruling that its subsidiary Ethicon had misled patients and surgeons about the risks of its pelvic mesh implants.

The full bench of the Federal Court of Australia upheld a November 2019 decision by a federal court judge which found that Ethicon had sold the implants, used to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, without warning women about the serious risks and

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com was negligent, rushing the products to market before proper testing.

J&J appealed the ruling last year after it was ordered to pay three women who led the class action a total of A$2.6 million ($2 million) plus legal costs as compensation. There are more than 1,350 women in the class action.

"The appeal decision paves the way to secure damages for all group members represented by the applicants in the coming months," Shine Justice, which ran the class action, said in a statement.

J&J said it was reviewing the decision and considering its options.

"Ethicon believes it acted ethically and responsibly in the research, development and supply of its transvaginal mesh products and appropriately and responsibly communicated the benefits and risks to doctors and patients in Australia," the company said in an emailed statement.

It has faced similar lawsuits in the United States, Canada and Europe. In October 2019 it agreed to pay nearly $117 million to resolve claims in 41 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Lawsuit Heads to Appeals Court ------Cameron Ayers, writing for Meso Watch, reports that a planned class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Bausch Health over alleged contaminants in their talcum powders -- including asbestos -- is going to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs -- Louisa Gutierrez and Debbie Luna -- said Feb. 22 his clients are appealing a lower-court ruling that tossed their case against the manufacturers. The consumers allege that the manufacturers falsely advertised their products as being "safe and pure, when they actually contained hazardous substances such as 'asbestos, asbestiform fibers, lead, silica, and arsenic,'" according to an earlier court filing.

This intended class-action was dismissed Jan. 22 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, with the judge concluding that the plaintiffs' allegations lacked needed specificity under Rule 9B of the Federal Rules of Procedure. Rule 9B sets a "particularity" bar that all cases alleging fraud must clear before proceeding.

The primary basis for the appeal filed Feb. 19 is over the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com interpretation of Rule 9B, according to Jim Treglio of Potter Handy, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs.

Purity and Safety Disputed The case centers on ads and marketing claims for baby powder and shower products made by the two companies. Promotional claims such as "most pure" and "hypoallergenic and tested with dermatologists" supposedly misled the plaintiffs into buying these products, thinking they were "safe and pure," when they allegedly contained dangerous contaminants such as asbestos. The pair stopped buying these products after reading an article in December 2018 revealing talcum powder's links with asbestos, lead, silica, arsenic, and/or asbestiform fibers.

But most of these allegations never specified which advertisements and promotions led them to buy the products, thus failing to clear Rule 9B's particularity hurdle, according to Southern District Judge Todd Robinson.

"Apart from a few exceptions, [the] plaintiffs do not allege the specific content of the advertisement they viewed. . . . Instead, they only provide their own interpretation of the advertisements," the judge wrote in his order dismissing the suit.

Wrong Product Other allegations were likewise dismissed. One pointed to ads referencing Johnson & Johnson products as being the "#1 Choice for Hospitals," but as the manufacturer noted, this ad was not referring to their talcum powder products.

Given that this was the fifth time the plaintiffs had amended their allegations to address issues with the suit, the judge instead threw the case out, stating that "it seems unlikely that [the] plaintiffs can rectify the same fundamental deficiencies that have plagued their complaints" in past filings. [GN]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Morton v. Leidos Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01911) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

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

On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was "concealing numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and borders."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales. The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.

On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe it is validating all the major points of our report."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos' products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210304006175/en/

Contacts

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

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws.

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

On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report alleging, among other things, that "Leidos' $1.0 billion levered acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection and Automation business (SD&A) is experiencing significant problems, including product defects, that increase the likelihood of a material adverse effect." The report also alleged that the Company misstated revenue, citing for example, a $6 million variance between the third quarter 2020 investor presentation and Form 10-Q, which "raises the possibility that Leidos has booked fake revenue, or is keeping two sets of books."

On this news, Leido's stock price fell $3.41 per share, or 3.14%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Leidos should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email [email protected].

About GPM

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

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

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fagan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Premium Charges ------CAMILLE FAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.; LM GENERAL INSURANCE; LM INSURANCE CORPORATION; LM PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 21-829903-C (D. Nev., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to provide and charge a fair and appropriate insurance premium and to provide premium reduction to its Nevada automobile insurance policyholders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class have faced substantial life changes since March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and miles driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the Plaintiff and the class members' vehicles. However, the Defendant has not taken the appropriate action to reduce the Plaintiff and the class members' premiums to accurately reflect the decreased risk.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers auto, home, life, and business insurance products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

Robert T. Eglet, Esq. Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq. EGLET ADAMS 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 450-5400 Facsimile: (702) 450-5451

-and-

Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 432 Ridge Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 324-1500 Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK: Satterley Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages ------Bobbi Satterley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00875-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2021), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant due to denial of overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours routinely and with the Defendant's knowledge and behest throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked over 40 in a given work-week. The Plaintiff was paid their hourly rate for 40 hours work, regardless of how many more hours they had actually worked.

During the entire time that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, the Defendant knew that the drivers were working overtime without being compensated and/or that their time was being shaved by the company. The Defendant's managers readily observed the Plaintiff and those similarly situated working overtime. Furthermore, the Defendant falsified the Plaintiff's time records to indicate she was on break during times she was working, says the complaint.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The Plaintiff began her employment as a driver with the Defendant on June 25, 2020, and worked until July 18, 2020.

The Defendant employs drivers to provide delivery services to its third-party clients, such as Amazon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Adian R. Miller, Esq. BARRETT & FARAHANY 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 214-0120 Facsimile: (404) 214-0125 Email: [email protected]

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania ------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 a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and the company (LNC) breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners 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: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX ------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 Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL) continues to defend itself against a putative class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018.

Plaintiff 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 own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors 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.

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

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

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing ------Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York remains a defendant in a putative class action initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (LLANY), No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies.

Plaintiff 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 which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiffâ€™s policies.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of New York."

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class.

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

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

LUCKY 2: FLSA Settlement Class Wins Collective Certification ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA LEWIS, and WILL MATTHEWS, v. LUCKY 2 LOGISTICS LLC, d/b/a Need It Now Courier, Case No. 19-cv-323-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order:

1. finding that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and reflects a reasonable compromise of bona fide disputes between the parties;

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 2. granting the parties' joint motion to approve the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement;

3. certifying the following collective action settlement class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

"all employees who have worked as a delivery driver for the Defendant in Milwaukee/Sussex, Wisconsin and Lisle, Illinois between May 29, 2017 and April 28, 2019;"

4. certifying the following Rule 23 settlement class:

"all employees who have worked as a delivery driver for the Defendant in Milwaukee/Sussex, Wisconsin and Lisle, Illinois between May 29, 2017 and April 28, 2019;"

5. appointing Rhonda Lewis and Will Matthews to serve as the representative for the certified 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) Collective Class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class;

6. appointing the law firm of Forester Haynie PLLC as class counsel for the certified 29 U.S.C. Â§216(b) Collective Class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class; and

7. appointing the notice of class action and collective action and proposed settlement.

Lucky 2 is a freight shipping Broker from New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ebKi2m at no extra charge.[CC]

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.

Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability of the Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel. On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., and seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New York.

MAD COW: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mad Cow Memories, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mad Cow Memories, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01790 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Mad Cow Memories, LLC doing business as Armadillo Pepper -- https://www.armadillopepper.com/ -- is a Hot Sauce, BBQ Sauce, Jerky & Fiery Snack Store specializing in the hottest hot sauces, award-winning BBQ Sauces & Rubs, Beef and Wild Game Jerky, fiery snacks and gift baskets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: [email protected]

MASHABLE INC: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by June 11 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL NICKLEN and CRISTINA MITTERMEIER, v. MASHABLE, INC., et. al, Case 1:20-cv-10300-JSR, Case No. 1:20-cv-10300-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a case management order (Rule 23) as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs shall file a further amended complaint by February 24, 2021.

2. Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by March 4, 2021.

3. The Defendants' response(s) to the operative complaint are due March 8, 2021.

4. The Plaintiffs' response(s) to any motion(s) to dismiss are due March 22, 2021.

5. The Defendants may file reply brief(s) no later than March 29, 2021.

6. The Court will hear oral argument on any motions to dismiss on April 7, 2021 at 3:45 p.m. Counsel shall jointly call Chambers by March 30, 2021 to state their

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com preferences regarding whether the proceeding should take place in person or remotely.

7. The Plaintiffs' class certification motion must be filed by June 11, 2021.

8. Any opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion must be filed by June 25, 2021.

9. Any reply brief must be filed by July 1, 2021.

10. The Court will hear oral argument on the class certification motion July 8, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14B.

Mashable is an American entertainment, culture, tech, science and social good digital media platform, news website and multi-platform media and entertainment company founded by Pete Cashmore in 2005.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Oh0Nzo at no extra charge.[CC]

MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Hearing Scheduled in March 2021 ------Litigation Finance Journal reports that one of the largest class actions in UK history is set to return to court for a hearing this month. Millions of consumers in the UK could see payouts of hundreds of pounds each in an action claiming credit giant Mastercard charged unlawfully high fees between May 1992 and June 2008. [GN]

MAVEN COALITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maven Coalition, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Maven Coalition, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01788 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Maven Coalition -- https://maven.io/company/ -- develops an exclusive network of professionally managed online media channels, with an underlying technology platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: [email protected]

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------The case captioned as City of Shawnee and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc, Case No. CJ-21-00013 was removed from the District of Pottawatomie County, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Oklahoma on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00174-SLP to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as 367 Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Bradley C West, Esq. Terry W West, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 W Highland St Shawnee, OK 74801 Phone: (405) 275-0040 Fax: (405) 275-0052 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Curtis N Bruehl, Esq. THE BRUEHL LAW FIRM PLLC 14005 N Eastern Ave Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 657-1221 Fax: (405) 509-6268 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Harrison C Lujan, Esq. FULMER SILL PLLC 1101 N Broadway Ave, Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 510-0077 Fax: (405) 510-0077 Email: [email protected]

- and -

James D Sill, Esq. SILL BEADLES JOHNSON BISCONE & WHITE P O Box 3759 Shawnee, OK 74802 Phone: (405) 275-0060 Fax: (405) 275-8419

- and -

Matthew J Sill, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP PLLC 1101 N BroadwayM Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 509-6300 Fax: (405) 509-6268 Email: [email protected]

The Defendant is represented by:

Jeffrey A Curran, Esq. Kyle D Evans, Esq. Robert G McCampbell, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC 211 N Robinson Ave, 15th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-5537 Fax: (405) 235-2875 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: PI Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky ------The case captioned as Green County Fiscal Court, on behalf of Green

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com County; Breckinridge County Fiscal Court on behalf of Breckinridge County; Hardin County Fiscal Court on behalf of Hardin County; Meade County Fiscal Court on behalf of Meade County; Menifee County Fiscal Court on behalf of Menifee County; Nelson County Fiscal Court on behalf of Nelson County; Ohio County Fiscal Court on behalf of Ohio County; Washington County Fiscal Court on behalf of Washington County, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Kentucky County Fiscal Courts; City of Henderson, Kentucky on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Kentucky Home Rule Cities v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No. 21-CI-12 was removed from the Green Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Kentucky on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00035-GNS to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Andrew M. Grabhorn Michael D. Grabhorn GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC 2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107 Louisville, KY 40223 Phone: (502) 244-9331 Fax: (502) 244-9334 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

William D. Nefzger BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC 1041 Goss Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 Phone: (502) 587-2002 Fax: (502) 587-2006 Email: [email protected]

Kara M. Stewart, Esq. Linsey Walker West DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - Lexington 100 West Main Street, Suite 900 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 425-1000 Fax: (859) 425-1099 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

MDL 2179: Oil Spill Incident Suit Transferred to E.D. La. ------In the oil spill incident by the oil rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers Donovan v. Barbier, et al., C.A. No. 8:20-02598 (M.D. Fla.) to the Eastern District of Louisiana and with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Carl J. Barbier for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Donovan, who is proceeding pro se, moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order that conditionally transferred Donovan to the Eastern District of Louisiana for inclusion in MDL No. 2179. Defendants Stephen J. Herman, James P. Roy, Kenneth R. Feinberg, and Patrick A. Juneau oppose the motion. Donovan's motion to vacate argues that his action focuses on specific alleged misconduct on the part of defendants, which falls outside the MDL's ambit including allegations that some of the principal attorneys involved in the MDL had made misrepresentations inducing complainants to accept a proposed settlement. These wide-ranging allegations go to the core of the MDL itself, including the prosecution and settlement of tens of thousands of claims in the litigation.

Plaintiff in his complaint also challenges various decisions of the transferee court, including the dismissal of prior action and the dismissal of three actions (on behalf of plaintiff's clients) against defendant Feinberg relating to the pre-MDL Gulf Coast Claims Facility. The panel has ruled that Donovan's issue constitutes a collateral challenge to the rulings of the transferee court. Allowing the transferee court to consider this challenge to the pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 2179 will enhance efficiency, as otherwise the transferor court would be required to spend time and energy getting up to speed on a complex and years-long litigation.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Additionally, Donovan raises various procedural objections to transfer, both in his briefing on the motion to vacate and in the subsequent motion for clarification. These uniformly lack merit, per the panel. Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate because he has not yet served the summons and complaint on defendants. Panel ruled that failure to serve one or more defendants in a potential tag-along action with the complaint and summons does not preclude transfer of such action under Section 1407 but may constitute grounds for denying the proposed transfer where prejudice can be shown which the plaintiff has not shown. Plaintiff suggests that transfer is not appropriate because the transferor court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants until they are properly served of which the panel ruled that any objection to the transferor courtâ€™s jurisdiction can be raised in the transferee court. The panel has decided that the plaintiff's other procedural objections appear to stem from a misunderstanding of the conditional transfer process and these procedural objections to the conditional transfer order lack merit and are based on misapplication of the Panel Rules.

Actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from the explosion and fire that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, and the resulting oil spill.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3v6g3jt

MDL 2741: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Cal. Week Killer Product Suit ------In case, "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Pro se plaintiff Ralph A. Applegate's motion for Section 1407 remand of two actions in the Northern District of California:

-- APPLEGATE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:18-03363 (S.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 2:18-00045); and

-- APPLEGATE v. BAYER AG, C.A. No. 3:19-06800 (S.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 2:19-04264)

Plaintiff in the two actions filed motions to seek return to the transferor court to obtain a ruling on their motions to remand to state court, despite the fact that the transferee court has not yet ruled on these motions and has not issued a suggestion of Section 1407 remand. The panel argues that that the transferee judge, who is responsible for the day-to-day management of this exceedingly

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com complex litigation, will address these and other plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court in due course.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 order is available at https://bit.ly/3en9YcP

MERCHANTS CREDIT: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Latashia Jenkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merchants Credit Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00874-SDG-JCF (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2021).

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

Merchants Credit Bureau -- https://www.mcbusa.com/ -- is a full-service credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3895 Brookgreen Pt. Decatur, GA 30034 Phone: (404) 500-7861 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLCâ€“NJ 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 P.O. Box 07712 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: [email protected]

METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action ------MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability (LTD) claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the present.

MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

METLIFE INC: Notice of Proposed Settlement Approved ------MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the district court approved notice of the proposed settlement to the classes in City

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife, Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

The parties reached an agreement on a class settlement of the case, and on June 17, 2020, plaintiff filed with the district court a motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes.

The Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement payment.

On November 24, 2020, the district court approved notice of the proposed settlement to the classes.

METLIFE INC: Parchmann Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit ------MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiff in Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018), had filed an appeal on the court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial Officer violated Section

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On January 11, 2021, the court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

MH SUB I: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California ------The case captioned as Kim Rattler, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. MH Sub I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Demandforce, Inc., a California corporation; Case No. RG20057640 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-01492 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands -- https://www.internetbrands.com/ -- is an American new media company based in El Segundo, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

Matthew I. Bobb, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 550 S. Hope St., Ste. 2000

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 532-2116 Email: [email protected]

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class Action in Jackson Suit ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald L. Jackson, v. Microchip Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order:

1. granting the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

2. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of a Class consisting of:

"all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Microchip Technology, Inc. common stock on a U.S. open market during the class period March 2, 2018 through August 9, 2018, both dates inclusive (the Class Period);"

Excluded from the Class are defendants in this action, Microchip, Steven Sanghi, Ganesh Moorthy, and J. Eric Bjornholt, the officers and directors of the Company during the Class Period (Excluded D&Os), members of the Defendants' and Excluded D&Os' immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants or the Excluded D&Os have or had a controlling interest.

3. appoinitng Ronald L. Jackson as Class Representative;

4. appoinitng Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Class Counsel for Class Representative and the Class; and

5. appointing Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. aa Liaison Counsel for Class Representative and the Class.

Microchip Technology is a publicly-listed American corporation that manufactures microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP integrated circuits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uM0Yn3 at no extra charge.[CC]

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Must File Class Status Bid by March 5 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMMEL AMANSEC, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-08798-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order that:

1. the Defendant shall prepare a witness to testify about the location of Midland Credit Management, Inc.'s office location(s) and the staff employed.

2. the Plaintiff shall complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on or before February 26, 2021.

3. the Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or before March 5, 2021.

MCM provides debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kDA3W1 at no extra charge.[CC]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Clark Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ramon Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital Group, Inc., DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01941 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN 7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194

MIDLAND CREDIT: Garellek Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter ------AKIVA GARELLEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00988 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection letter from the Defendant on or about November 2, 2020 seeking to collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff with Citibank N.A. Simplicity in which the Plaintiff used the Simplicity funds for purchases which were primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The Letter contains a heading at the top of the letter which states "PRE-LEGAL NOTIFICATION," implying that legal action is imminent. The letter is deceptive by threatening litigation if the consumer does not contact the Defendant. When the Plaintiff did not respond to the initial letter, the Defendant sent a subsequent letter on February 4, 2020 with a similar threat to start litigation which clearly shows that Defendant never intended to commence litigation, the suit adds.

The Defendant allegedly violated Section 1692e(2) by falsely representing the character and legal status of the debt, and Section 1692e(5) by falsely threatening legal action when they had no intention of suing the Plaintiff as even after the deadline to respond had passed, he had still not been sued on the debt.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500

MIDLAND CREDIT: Oliveros Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter ------DIANE OLIVEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01065 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking damages and declaratory relief for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to creditor Synchrony Bank primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically use of a Sears Mastercard.

According to the complaint, the alleged debt was purportedly sold by Synchrony Bank to Defendant Midland Funding, who contracted with Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about January 28, 2021, Defendant MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection letter, which states a current balance of $2,405.82, ad provides three payment options. However, the third option provided is not adequately explained and resulted in two different possible interpretations which makes the letter false, deceptive and misleading, the suit adds.

The Defendants allegedly violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA as the letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and by making a false and misleading representation.

As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff demands for statutory and actual damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107

MINNESOTA: Daniel Larsen Seeks to Certify Class Action ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Larsen, et al., v. State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-00568-DWF-TNL (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff Dan Larsen asks the Court for an order certifying this case as class action and appointing class counsel.

The Plaintiff Larsen moves the Court to take emergency action due to the recent pandemic involving COVID-I9. There are 47 plaintiffs within this complaint all residing in double-occupancy rooms. The beds are less than 3 feet apart from one another and the plaintiffs are unable to social distance as recommended by CDC guidelines. There has already been 3 death related to COVID-19. The Defendants' actions demonstrate their inability to protect the class members when failing plaintiffs opportunities to social distance.

The COVID-I9 pandemic is unprecedented, both as a matter of public health and as matter of societal disruption, and evidence suggests that the immediate likelihood infection is only elevated in prisons especially with the new variants that are mutating. That prisoners have not yet been infected with COVID-19 is no bar to a finding of irreparable harm; indeed, as the United States Supreme Court has clarified, prison officials may be deliberately indifferent "to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms ." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34, 22 (te93).

The Plaintiffs include Joseph Goodwin, Guy Greene, Terry L. Branson, August Kingbird, Mark Wallace, Austin Black Elk, Michael Perseke, Chester Grauberger, Danin Dotson, D Ezeray Roblero-Barrios, Ernesto Longoria, Joseph Delle, Danny Stone, Matthew Wong, Leslie Tallman, Robert Suddeth, Allen Pyron, Anthony Garnett, Donald Hill, Paul Knutson, Joshua Brundy, Julian Caprice, David McGuire, Robert Smith, Shawn Fletcher, David Hamilton, Jacquard Larkin, Raymond Semler, Shawn Jamison, Roland Brant, Aaron Hayes, Anthony Green, Kevin Nelson, Richard Fageroos, Max Ortega, Dan Wilson, Michael Rogers, Jose Gutierrez, Sean Brinkman, Thomas Bolter, Jeremy Bilder, Brent Nielsen, Christopher Sime, Kevin Karsjen, Cormell Williamson, Jeremy Asher and all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include Minnesota Department of Human Services; Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Minnesota Attorney General's Office; Minnesota Department of Corrections; Minnesota County's

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Health and Human Services -- (i.e.Anoka County Health and Human Services Director, Ramsey County Health and Human Services Director, Sherburne County Health and Human Services Director, St. Louis County Health and Human Services Director, Goodhue County Health and Human Services Director, Dakota County Health and Human Services Director, Washington County Health and Human Services Director et al.) Tim Walz, Governor -- State of Minnesota; Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner -- Minnesota Department of Human Services; Nancy Johnston, Executive Director Minnesota Sex Offender Program -- Minnesota Department of Human Services; Marshall Smith, Department of Health Systems Chief Executive Officer -- Direct Care and Treatment -- Minnesota Department of Human Services; Keith Ellison, Attorney General -- State of Minnesota; Dr. Elizabeth Peterson, Associate Clinical Director -- Psychological Services Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Dr. Crystal Leal, Psychological Services Unit l-C, Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Peter Puffer, Clinical Director -- Chief Executive Officer III -- Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Kevin Moser, Operations Director -- Chief Executive Officer III -- Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Paul Schnell, Commissioner -- Minnesota Department of Corrections; an unknown number of John Does and Jane Does sued in their individual and official capacities.

A copy of the Plaintiff Larsen motion to certify class dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

MONEY METALS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Money Metals Exchange LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Money Metals Exchange LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01813 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Money Metals Exchange -- https://www.moneymetals.com/ -- helps customers switch their paper dollars into the safety of gold & silver bullion coins & bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline ------The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("Moneygram" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MGI) for violations of Â§Â§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/2O8ectX to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was considered as an unregistered and unlawful security by the SEC. If the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple, the Company was likely to lose a significant revenue stream based on market development fees it received due to the partnership. In fact, the Company's revenue from these development fees was critical to its financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about MoneyGram, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:

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

MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monster Worldwide, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01124 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Monster Worldwide Inc. -- https://www.monster.com/ -- operates as a global online employment solutions company. The Company provides employment, career management, recruitment and talent management capabilities solutions to employee, job seekers and employers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: [email protected]

MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conklin Alleges ------TIMOTHY CONKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTREIGN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC D/B/A RESORTS WORLD CATSKILLS; EMPIRE RESORTS, INC. D/B/A RESORTS WORLD CATSKILLS; RAY TERWILLIGER; and MIKE HOOD, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-01595 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Conklin was employed by the Defendants as stewarding shift manager.

Montreign Operating Company, LLC owns and operates a casino Monticello, NY operating under the name Resorts World Catskills. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq. 576 Fifth Avenue, Suite 903 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 457-1699

MOOREGROUP CORP: Porter Seeks to Certify Construction Worker Class ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA PORTER, SHARKEY SIMMONS, and EMANUEL COLAJAY RIVERA Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MOOREGROUP CORPORATION, BALDWIN HARBOR CONTRACTING INC., JOHN MOORE, GARY MOORE and MARTIN MOORE, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:17-cv-07405-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

1. certifying their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims for unpaid overtime premiums, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide wage statements on behalf of the following class:

"all fireguards, welders, carpenters, laborers and other construction employees who worked for the Mooregroup Defendants at any time since December 20, 2011";

2. appointing themselves as class representatives for the Class and appointing their counsel, Pelton Graham LLC, as Class Counsel; and

3. authorizing themselves to send Notice of Pendency of Class Action in a form to be approved by the Court, and

4. providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiffs performed a wide range of construction duties for the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly engaged in consistent, ongoing timekeeping, scheduling and payroll practices that resulted in systematic violations of federal and state wage and hour laws,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com including unpaid overtime, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide wage statements. Throughout the relevant time period, the Defendants have paid all fireguards, welders, carpenters, laborers and other construction workers in the same manner: failing to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, frequently failing to pay for certain hours worked, and failing to provide wage notices and wage statements as required by the NYLL and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Individual Defendants have owned, operated and managed Mooregroup, which provides construction contracting services. Mooregroup primarily performs exterior superstructure work, such as excavation, foundation and concrete work.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qbjqSK at no extra charge.[CC]

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective, and the putative Class, are:

Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800

MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Settlement Class Gets Certification ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAT MASSRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order that:

1. the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit, Plaintiff, Settlement Class members, and MJRF.

2. The following Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

"All persons to with an address in Kings County, New York to whom Defendant sent an initial collection letter between August 13, 2018 to August 13, 2019 to collect a debt allegedly owed to Lenox Hill Hospital and "all medical providers who may be associated with Lenox Hill"

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com containing the language "In the event that you do not dispute the amount shown above and if you feel that you have coverage through an insurance carrier, please complete the below form and return to us."

3. Based on the Parties' stipulations: (A) the Settlement Class as defined is sufficiently numerous such that joinder is impracticable; (B) common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Settlement Class members, and included whether or not MJRF violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending consumers written collection communications, which were allegedly overshadowed consumers validation rights; (C) the claim of Plaintiff is typical of the Settlement Class members' claims; (D) the Plaintiff is an appropriate and adequate representative for the Class and his attorneys, Ari Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman are hereby appointed as Class Counsel; and (E) a class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Settlement Class members.

4. The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class.

5. On February 22, 2021, the Court held a fairness hearing to which Settlement Class members, including any with objections, were invited.

6. The Court finds that provisions for notice to the class satisfy the requirements due process pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the United States Constitution and any other applicable law.

7. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hereby finally approves the Agreement submitted by the Parties, including the Release and payments by MJRF.

-- MJRF shall make the following payments:

a. MJRF shall create a class settlement fund of $8,215.00 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class Administrator shall distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class Members who did not exclude themselves ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. The shares of any of the Settlement Class Members who

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com could not be located will be donated as a cy pres award to Legal Services of New York, and the award will be expressly earmarked for the benefit of New York consumers. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will also be donated as a cy pres award to Legal Services of New York; and

b. MJRF shall pay Plaintiff $1,500.00.

8. The Court finds the Agreement is fair and made in good faith.

9. The Court finds that the work performed by Plaintiff's counsel in this successful action was reasonable, and that Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3).

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303F0Ok at no extra charge.[CC]

MULTIPLAN CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 26 Deadline ------Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of MultiPlan Corporation ("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III. ("Churchill III" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN) between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit MultiPlan Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or [email protected]

Churchill III was formed in 2019 as a blank check company, or SPAC, in October 2019 and completed its IPO on or about February 14, 2020. In July, 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a preliminary agreement to merge with MultiPlan, a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of the Company's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger were due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c) MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by insurers, causing the Company to cut its take rate by up to half in some cases; (d) as a result, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (e) as a result, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through price acquisitions; (f) as a result, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger, Muddy Waters published a research report titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab." According to the report, MultiPlan was in significant financial decline because of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited from excessively high healthcare costs.

On this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 26, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/multiplancorporation-mpln-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud- stock-366/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or [email protected].

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information

Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 [email protected] [GN]

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline ------The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN; MPLN.WS) ("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") on behalf of: (1) those who purchased or acquired MultiPlan securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and (2) all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired MultiPlan securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 26, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at [email protected]; or click https://www.ktmc.com/multiplan-corp-securities-class-action- lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=multiplan.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose acquisition vehicle. On February 14, 2020, Churchill III completed its initial public offering, selling 110 million ownership units to investors for gross proceeds of $1.1 billion (the "IPO"). Pursuant to the IPO prospectus, Churchill III was required to acquire a target business with an aggregate fair market value of at least 80% of the assets held in trust from the IPO proceeds and to do so within two years of the IPO.

The Class Period commences on July 12, 2020, when Churchill III and MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist, issued a joint press release announcing their agreement to combine. The Merger, initially valued at $5.7 billion, would be funded by the IPO proceeds as well as billions of dollars in new debt and equity issuances.

On September 18, 2020, Churchill III issued the proxy statement for the Merger which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal (the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated that Churchill had identified MultiPlan as a potential acquisition target soon after the IPO. On the basis of the Proxy, on October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to approve the Merger at a special shareholders meeting. Because of the Proxy, shareholders were prevented from the fully informed opportunity to redeem their shares as was their right. The shares subject to redemption were valued in the Proxy at approximately $10 per share.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger, Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab", which was based on extensive non-public sources such as interviews with former MultiPlan executives and other industry experts, as well as proprietary analysis. The report revealed, in part, that: (1) MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost Churchill III up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two years; (2) MultiPlan was in significant financial decline because of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited from excessively high healthcare costs; (3) UnitedHealthcare had purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard, to reduce its business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and conflicted services offered by MultiPlan inhouse; and (4) MultiPlan had suffered from material, undisclosed pricing pressures that had caused it to slash the "take rate" it charged customers in half in some instances and falsely characterized revenue declines as "idiosyncratic" when in fact they were due to sustained, negative pricing trends afflicting MultiPlan's business.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Following this news, the price of Churchill III's securities declined. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III's Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy failed to disclose among other things that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, which threatened up to 35% of Churchill III's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c) MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by insurers; (d) as a result of the foregoing, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far less than represented to investors.

MultiPlan investors may, no later than April 26, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please

CONTACT:

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

MY HOME: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by April 27 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeClements v. My Home Group Real Estate LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00362 (D. Ariz.,), the Hon. Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered an order granting the parties' stipulation as follows:

1. The deadline for engaging in good faith settlement talks is extended to March 9, 2021; and

2. The motion for class Certification shall be filed no later than April 27, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

My Home Group Real Estate delivers real estate brokerage that focuses on residential properties, and currently operates multiple locations in the Arizona area.[CC]

NASAU COUNTY, NY: LaPierre, et al., Seek to Certify Class ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eugene G. LaPierre, Daniel Padilla, Lenny Taverns, Shawn Trent, Ely Thomas, Jahlil Treasure, Matthew Martinez, Antinio Eullal, Nercin Chacon, Westley Witts, Jonathan Scully, Jose Hernandez, et al., v. Sherrif James E. Dzurenda, Dr. Donna M. Henig, Captain Donahue, Captain Golio, Sgt. Maronne, C.O. Barrera, C.O. Horan, C.O. Torcha, Grievance Supervisor John Doe, and Kitchen Supervisor John Doe, Case No. 2:21-cv-00464-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

1. granting his motion for class certification; and

2. appointing class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that COVID-19 affects all 700 prisoners and staff in Nassau County Correctional Center (NCCC). He adds that hundreds of NCCC Prisoners have been subjected to due process violations by way of disciplinary policies.

Nassau County is located in the U.S. state of New York. At the time of the 2010 census, the county's population was 1,339,532, estimated to have increased to 1,356,924 in 2019.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e4pkmm at no extra charge.[CC]

NEBULA CARAVEL: Feiteira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEBULA CARAVEL ACQUISITION CORP., et al. The case is styled as Ernie Feiteira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEBULA CARAVEL ACQUISITION CORP., BRANDON VAN BUREN, ADAM H. CLAMMER, JAMES H. GREEN JR., DAVID KERKO, DARREN THOMPSON, SCOTT W. WAGNER, ALEXI A. WELLMAN, Case No. CGC21589825 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Securities/Investments."

Nebula Caravel Acquisition Corp. ("Caravel", NASDAQ: NEBC) is a newly organized blank check company sponsored by True Wind, a San Francisco-based, technology-focused private equity firm. Mr. Clammer and Mr. Greene are the founding partners of True Wind.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 333 East City Avenue, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610.667.6200 Fax: 610.667.9029 Email: [email protected]

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Aristy-Vercessi ------Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated January 13, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated January 13, 2021, classifying Danis Aristy-Vercessi as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and holding that she is entitled to monetary and injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 21-388, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Danis Aristy-Vercessi is represented by:

Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: [email protected]

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by:

James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500

NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Chavis-Myrick ------Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated January 13, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated January 13, 2021, classifying Sherry Chavis-Myrick as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and holding that she is entitled to monetary and injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 21-412, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Sherry Chavis-Myrick is represented by:

Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: [email protected]

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by:

James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500

NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit ------Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden.

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903 and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.

NEWELL BRANDS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit ------Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

On January 10, 2020, the court in In re Newell Brands Inc. Securities Litigation entered a dismissal with prejudice after granting the Company's motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On December 1, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

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

NORTHERN BREWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern Brewer, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Northern Brewer, LLC, Northern Brewer Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01821 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Northern Brewer -- https://www.northernbrewer.com/ -- is a home brewing & winemaking shop offering an extensive selection of equipment & ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: [email protected]

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR: Showalter Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------Marie Rebelo Showalter, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV376845 (Cal., Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., March 2, 2021), is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay all overtime wages owed, provide off-duty meal breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and pay all wages owed upon separation of employment to the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Sales Associate at the Defendants' retail store in California.

Northern California Chair Corporation was a California corporation that owns and operates retail furniture stores in the State California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

OCINOMLED LTD: Faces Aldape Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------RAFAEL ALDAPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCINOMLED, LTD. d/b/a DELMONICO RESTAURANT; BALARINI RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ARNO RISTORANTE; FIVE "M" CORP. d/b/a DK RESTAURANT; 50/50 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a SCALETTA RISTORANTE, MILAN LICUL, BRANKO TURCINOVIC, OMER GRGUREV, and FERDO GRGUREV, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01822 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, including overtime compensation due to time shaving, unpaid minimum

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com wage due to invalid tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, and unpaid spread-of-hours premium in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a busser at Defendants' Delmonico's Restaurant located at 56 Beaver Street, New York, New York from in or about January 2018 until on or about April 15, 2019.

Ocinomled, Ltd., doing business as Delmonico Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 56 Beaver Street, New York, New York.

Balarini Restaurant Corp., doing business as Arno Ristorante, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 141 West 38th Street, New York, New York.

Five "M" Corp., doing business as DK Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 207 West 36th Street, New York, New York.

50/50 Restaurant Corp., doing business as Scaletta Ristorante, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 50 West 77th Street, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Morris Settlement Pending ------Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in Morris v. PHH Mortgage Corp., is pending.

The company is subject to individual lawsuits relating to its Fair Debt Collection Practices Ac (FDCPA) compliance and putative state law class actions based on the FDCPA and state laws similar to the FDCPA.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Ocwen has recently agreed to a settlement in principle of a putative class action, Morris v. PHH Mortgage Corp., filed in March 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that PHH Mortgage Corporation's (PMC's) practice of charging a fee to borrowers who voluntarily choose to use certain optional expedited payment options violates the FDCPA and its state law analogs.

Several similar putative class actions have been filed against PMC and Ocwen since July 2019. Following mediation, PMC agreed to the terms of a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in the Morris matter.

A motion requesting preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on August 25, 2020.

Ocwen expects final approval of the Morris settlement will resolve the claims of the substantial majority of the putative class members described in the other similar cases that Ocwen is defending.

Several third parties, including a group of State Attorneys General, have filed papers opposing preliminary approval, and these third parties could ultimately file objections to the proposed settlement.

Ocwen cannot guarantee that the proposed settlement will receive final approval and in the absence of such approval, Ocwen cannot predict the eventual outcome of the Morris proceeding and similar putative class actions.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company, originates and services loans in the United States, the United States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida.

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin August 30 ------Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al.; 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB, has scheduled a jury trial to begin August 30, 2021.

Ocwen is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California where the plaintiffs claim Ocwen marked up fees for property valuations and

Ocwen's motion for summary judgment, filed in June 2019, was denied in May 2020; however, the court did rule that plaintiff' recoverable damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the amount of marked-up fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost of the valuation that plaintiffs sought.

The court has scheduled a jury trial to begin August 30, 2021.

At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may had on the company or its operations.

Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Ocwen said, "If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Ocwen may have affirmative indemnification rights and/or other claims against third parties related to the allegations in the lawsuit. Although we may pursue these claims, we cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of recoveries from these third parties."

OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing ------Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Ocwen is involved in a TCPA class action that involves claims against trustees of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities trusts (RMBS trusts) based on vicarious liability for Ocwen's alleged non-compliance with the TCPA.

The trustees have sought indemnification from Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims. Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against us in relation to our TCPA compliance.

Ocwen said, "At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount accrued or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected."

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

OMUSUBI CORPORATION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omusubi Corporation. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Omusubi Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01836 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Omusubi -- http://www.omusubi-gonbei.com/en/ -- serves traditional, delicious Japanese rice balls also known as "onigiri", made from high quality and nutrient-rich Japanese rice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: [email protected]

ONTRAK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline ------Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) from November 5, 2020, through February 26, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Ontrak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Ontrak Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or [email protected].

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year 2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective, June 26, 2021

The Company stated that this customer evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis and [a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings. The Company also stated that the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics. On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Ontrak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ontrakinc-otrk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud- 373/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or [email protected].

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Â© 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 [email protected] [GN]

ONTRAK INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ------Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak") (NASDAQ: OTRK) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Ontrak between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities laws.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year 2020. The Company stated that its largest customer had terminated

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The Company also stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings." The Company further stated that "the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics." On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (ii) that, as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (iii) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ontrak during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 3, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected].

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.com for more information about the firm. [GN]

ONTRAK INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors of Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) to determine whether the Company engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

On March 3, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of Ontrak investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired Ontrak securities

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Ontrak Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The Ontrak Defendants, according to the class action complaint, failed to disclose to investors (1) that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Ontrak Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, OTRK SECURITIES DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

ONTRAK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ------The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) securities from November

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 3, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or approximately 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ontrak securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at [email protected], or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-371-6600 https://www.kmllp.com [email protected] [GN]

ORMAT TECH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ------If you suffered a loss on your Ormat investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ormat-technologies-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at [email protected] to learn more about your rights.

On March 1, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "Ormat: Dirty Dealings in 'Clean' Energy." According to the report, the Company "has engaged in what we believe to be widespread and systematic acts of intentional corruption," adding that it "expect[s] the blowback to these revelations to be severe, threatening Ormat's contracts in its most lucrative markets." The report alleges that Hindenburg "uncovered evidence tying Ormat to corruption with senior government officials," and "direct evidence tying Ormat to corruption with senior Guatemalan government officials" further noting "Ormat paid contractors in Kenya tied to corrupt government officials."

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.00, or 1.1%, to close at $84.67 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The same day, after the market closed, Ormat responded to the report and acknowledged that "[t]he Company is aware of claims being investigated in Israel regarding Ravit Barniv, an Ormat Board member, and Hezi Kattan, the Company's General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer." Though the "claims involve Ms. Barniv's and Mr. Kattan's work at another company, prior to joining Ormat," the Company announced that it would "transfer the responsibility for the Company's compliance function to other members of the Ormat

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.68, or nearly 2%, to close at $82.99 per share on March 2, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Ormat should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email [email protected].

About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224

ORTLAND GENERAL: Consolidated Securities Suit in Oregon Ongoing ------Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Portland General Electric Company Securities Litigation.

During September and October 2020, three putative class action complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523, Cannataro v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583, and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786.

Two of these actions were filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020; a third action was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020.

During the fourth quarter of 2020, the plaintiff in Hessel voluntarily dismissed his case and the court consolidated Cannataro and PERS of Mississippi into a single case captioned In re Portland General Electric Company Securities Litigation and appointed Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi lead plaintiff.

On January 11, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE's alleged lack of sufficient internal controls and risks associated with PGE's trading activity in wholesale electric markets, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020.

The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' costs, and attorneys' and expert fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Since the lawsuit is in early stages, the Company is unable to predict outcomes or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.

P.F. CHANG: 9th Circuit Claws Back "Krab Mix" Suit Dismissal ------Lawrence Weinstein, Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate and Alyson Tocicki on at proskaueronadvertising.com reports that a split Ninth Circuit panel recently reversed the dismissal of claims against P.F. Chang's regarding the chain's use of the term "krab mix" in the ingredients list for certain sushi rolls. Kang v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).

Plaintiff claimed he purchased P.F. Chang's "krab mix" sushi rolls because the term "krab mix" led him to believe the rolls contained at least some real crab meat, when in fact they contained none. P.F. Chang's countered that reasonable consumers would be tipped off by the fanciful spelling of "krab," as well as the fact that other items on the same page of the P.F. Chang's menu listed "crab" (spelled correctly) in their ingredients. Accordingly, P.F. Chang's argued, a consumer confronted with both "crab" and "krab mix" on the same page would not be misled into believing they are the same. The district court agreed, and dismissed plaintiff's claims as implausible on their face. In doing so, the court analogized to a prior decision finding no reasonable consumer would be misled into believing "Froot Loops" contain "Fruit." McKinnis v. Kellogg, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96106 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

The Ninth Circuit reversed, relying primarily on Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008). In Williams, the defendant sold products labeled "Fruit Juice Snacks" with images of fruits on the front label. The ingredients list on the side of the box disclosed that the product did not actually contain juice from any fruits pictured on the packaging. The Williams Court found the defendant could not immunize itself against prominent, misleading front-label claims by disclosing the truth about the product's ingredients elsewhere. The majority held the same to be true in this case -- just as the Williams court believed a consumer might not look beyond representations on the front of a box to discover an ingredients list displayed elsewhere on the packaging, the majority here concluded a P.F. Chang's customer might not look beyond the phrase "krab mix" to discover the term "crab" used elsewhere on the same menu.

In a persuasive dissent, Judge Bennett criticized the majority for failing to give the ordinary California consumer enough -- or any

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com -- credit. Importantly, Judge Bennett pointed out that the standard for misrepresentation is not whether the "least sophisticated" or "most gullible" consumer would be misled. According to Judge Bennett, reasonable consumers in the food industry are prudent enough to know that fanciful spellings materially change the meaning of a word, since this kind of advertising is now commonplace in the food industry. For instance, "cavi-art" is not caviar, "Froot Loops" are not fruit, and "tofurky" is not turkey. Judge Bennett concluded "nothing about â€˜krab mix' suggests that the sushi rolls will contain real crab," and "wishful thinking on the plaintiff's part" does not make for a plausible claim. Judge Bennett also reiterated the district court's finding that the context in which "krab mix" appeared (i.e., in close proximity to other items labeled "crab") should clue consumers in.

P.F. Chang's joins the ranks of Williams and Bell v. Publix Super Markets, 982 F.3d 468 (2020) as decisions likely to be embraced by the advertising class action plaintiffs' bar. However, this decision will not change the status quo that it is both common and entirely appropriate for courts to dismiss as a matter of law complaints alleging unreasonable understandings of advertising claims which are cured by disclosures elsewhere on the advertising. There are several recent and notable decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuits recognizing this principle. For example:

In Fink v. Time Warner, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' false advertising complaint, acknowledging that it is "well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a reasonable consumer," and that "the presence of a disclaimer or similar clarifying language may defeat a claim of deception." 714 F.3d 739, 741-42 (2d Cir. 2013). In Jessani v. Monini North America, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that reasonable consumers would take away the false message that a flavored olive oil truthfully described as "truffle flavored" contains real truffles. 744 F. App'x 18 (2d Cir. 2018). The Court agreed with Monini, who Proskauer represented, that this was simply not a reasonable takeaway in the overall context of its label, and given the absence of truffles on the ingredient list. In Ebner v. Fresh, the Ninth Circuit explained that Williams merely "stands for the proposition that if the defendant commits an act of deception, the presence of fine print revealing the truth is insufficient to dispel that deception." 838 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). In Ebner, the Ninth Circuit found it was not plausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived as to how much lip balm the defendant's product contained where the label accurately stated its net weight.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com In Razo v. Ashley Furniture Industries, the Ninth Circuit held that the "district court properly granted summary judgment on Razo's claims because a reasonable consumer would have read the unambiguous and truthful disclosures placed on the front and back of Ashley's DuraBlend hangtag." 782 Fed. Appx. 632, 633 (9th Cir. 2019).

In numerous recent lawsuits against confection makers, federal district courts have dismissed claims alleging defendants' "white"-labeled sugary goods deceived reasonable consumers into thinking the products contain white chocolate, when they do not. In dismissing these claims, courts noted that the ingredients list on the packaging clearly did not include any mention of "white chocolate." See our prior coverage of such cases involving Nestle Tollhouse and Ghirardelli.

Further, the dissent warns against the inevitable harm that stems from allowing such implausible claims to proceed further down the litigation path -- the cost of defending these claims is not inconsequential, and is ultimately passed onto consumers. It remains to be seen if the Ninth Circuit will come to better appreciate this fact and reverse course as this line of decisions spawns increasing numbers of food labeling suits. [GN]

PANINI AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panini America, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Panini America, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01792 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Panini America, Inc. -- https://www.paniniamerica.net/ -- provides commercial printing services. The Company offers products such as stickers, trading cards, albums, sports collectibles, and certified authentic memorabilia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

PAYWARD INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payward, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Payward, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01816 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Payward, Inc. -- https://www.kraken.com/ -- provides digital currency exchange and trading platform. The Company offers trading tools, user interface, technical security, and regulatory compliance to traders in digital currencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

PEARL LAW: Fields Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Law Offices, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shawndia Fields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pearl Law Offices, LLC, First Federal Credit Control, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00497 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2021).

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

Pearl Law Offices, LLC -- https://attorneypearl.com/ -- is a law firm in Northfield, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160 Beachwood, OH 44122

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Phone: (216) 800-5529 Fax: (216) 514-4987 Email: [email protected]

PEPE DISPLAYS: Faces Juarez Suit Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime ------NELSON JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPE DISPLAYS, INC., and JOSE C. AMPUERO, individually and as officer, director, and/or principal of Pepe Displays, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00985 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action seeking damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a carpenter who performed work for the Defendants' clientele throughout New York City.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' carpenters typically worked between 40 and 65 hours per week and frequently in excess of 10 hours per workday, including the Plaintiff. However, they were solely paid a flat rate for all hours they worked. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the overtime premium of one and one-half times their hourly rate for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated carpenters with the wage statements as required by the WTPA with each paycheck they received, the suit adds.

Pepe Displays, Inc. is a privately owned business organized that provides construction services. Jose C. Ampuero, as an officer of the Corporate Defendant, had the ability to set terms and conditions of their employees such as their rate of pay, work schedule, and assignments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

James A. Vagnini, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Sinkfield FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Recoveries, LLC. The case is captioned as Allecia Sinkfield v. Persolve Recoveries, LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80338-RKA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arising from consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman.

Persolve is a full service legal recovery and collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jesse S Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Hwy. Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Matthew David Bavaro, Esq. LOAN LAWYERS 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 523-4357 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: [email protected]

PERSONAL TOUCH: Underpays Home Health Aides, Brown Suit Alleges ------JOSEPHINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE OF LONG ISLAND, INC., ROBERT CAIONE and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01139 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action against

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Health Care Worker Wage Parity Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated home health aides the required minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide/maid for various customers in Nassau County, New York from about June 1, 2013 until about November 2, 2018.

Personal Touch Home Care of Long Island, Inc. is a home care provider with its principal place of business at 60 Hempstead Ave., Suite 215, West Hempstead, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: [email protected]

PIER 1 IMPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pier 1 Imports Online, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pier 1 Imports Online, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01123 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Pier 1 -- https://www.pier1.com/ -- offers inspiring home decor, rugs, furniture, dining room sets, Papasan chairs & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: [email protected]

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com PORRIDGE LLC: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Suit Says ------BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORRIDGE, LLC d/b/a THE ODELLS SHOP; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01663 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://theodellsshop.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like her, which is a direct violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit says.

Porridge, LLC, d/b/a The Odells Shop, is engaged in selling apparel and fashion products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Trojan Class Suit Upheld ------Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs motion for reconsidaration on the Court's decision affirming the Marion County Circuit's decision of dismissal.

In 1993, the company (PGE) closed Trojan and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment.

In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits sought damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.

In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. On December 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on February 4, 2020.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.

PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending ------ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the January 2020 Court order dismissing their consolidated securities class action is still pending.

ProShare Capital Management LLC (the Sponsor) and ProShares Trust II are named as defendants in the following purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.; (ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al.

The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same, namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sections 229.303(a)(3)(ii)), 229.105, by issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others.

The Court consolidated the three actions under the caption In re ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On January 3, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered the case closed. On January 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trust and Sponsor will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of this action. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.

PROSHARES TRUST II: Di Scala Purported Class Suit Underway ------ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor"), ProShares Trust II and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, continue to defend themselves from a purported class action suit entitled, Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.

On July 28, 2020, ProShare Capital Management LLC, ProShares Trust II and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO"), a series of the Trust, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.

The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sections 229.303(a)(3)(ii)), 229.105, by issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for UCO, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the action. The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

The Court also has entered a scheduling order for filing an amended complaint and motion to dismiss briefing. The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

ProShares said, "The defendants cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil may incur expenses in defending against such lawsuit."

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Pending ------Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Cho v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., is pending.

In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Cho v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in the Prudential Employee Savings Plan and (i) alleges that Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the administration, management and operation of the Plan, including engaging in prohibited transactions; and (ii) seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In September 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added as individual defendants certain PFI officers and current and former members of the Company's Administrative Committee and Investment Oversight Committee.

In December 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S. Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Behfarin Suit ------Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, issued an order: (i) granting plaintiffs' motion for certification of the settlement class; (ii) approving the proposed nationwide class settlement agreement; (iii) approving the class notice; (iv) awarding

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs and a reduced incentive award to Behfarin; and (v) dismissing the action with prejudice, but maintaining jurisdiction over the settlement.

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.

The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

In October 2019, plaintiff filed: (1) the First Amended Complaint adding Prudential Insurance Company of America and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey as defendants; and (2) a motion seeking preliminary certification of a settlement class, appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. In November 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

In June 2020, the court issued an order: (i) granting plaintiffs' motion for certification of the settlement class; (ii) approving the proposed nationwide class settlement agreement; (iii) approving the class notice; (iv) awarding attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs and a reduced incentive award to Behfarin; and (v) dismissing the action with prejudice, but maintaining jurisdiction over the settlement.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Facing Stone Putative Class Suit in NJ ------Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Doyle C. Stone v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance Company

In February 2021, a putative class action complaint entitled Doyle C. Stone v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. and Pruco Life Insurance Company for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, based on: (i) the Companyâ€™s alleged deficient identification, notification and payment practices for retirement plan participants in transferred group retirement, annuity and insurance plans; and (ii) improper transfer of Plan Participant funds to its own accounts. The putative class includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 to the present.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Appeals Dismissal of Class Action ------Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the putative class action suit entitled, City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations against PFI, and Charles Lowrey, PFI's chief executive officer, and

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Kenneth Tanji, PFI's chief financial officer, individually, and alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to account for adversely developing mortality experience in the Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and (iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience.

The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019. In March 2020, the court issued an order consolidating this action with Donald P. Crawford v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. In June 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and added Robert M. Falzon, PFI's vice chairman, as an individual defendant.

In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In December 2020, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and plaintiff subsequently filed, in January 2021, a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Crawford Suit Consolidated with Warren Suit ------Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that putative class action suit entitled, David P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, has been with City of Warren v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. Case updates are consolidated with the City of Warren action.

In January 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled David P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com against PFI, and Charles Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, individually, and alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to account for adversely developing mortality experience in the Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and (iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience.

The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.

In March 2020, the court issued an order consolidating this action with City of Warren v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. Case updates are consolidated with the City of Warren action.

RALPH LAUREN: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------The case captioned as Genesis Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, Case No. 21-L-00005 was removed from the Circuit Court of Kane County, 16th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01181 to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ralph Lauren Corporation -- https://corporate.ralphlauren.com/ -- is an American fashion company producing products ranging from the mid-range to the luxury segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline ------Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com "Company") (NYSE: RRC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 21-cv-00301, is on behalf of a class consisting of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Range Resources common stock between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Range Resources securities during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its subsidiary, Range Resources â€“ Appalachia, LLC, engage in the exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian region, including Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania regulations, Range Resources must apply for the correct designation of the status of its wells with local regulators. These status designations include, for example, "active," "inactive," or "abandoned."

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP") enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a well's status. According to the DEP, "inactive" wells must be viable for future use within a certain time frame. If a well is not viable for future use within that time frame, then the well should be classified as "abandoned" and must be plugged. Improperly classified wells present serious health, safety, and environmental concerns, further highlighting the need for the correct designation of a well's status.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 10, 2021, shortly before the close of the trading session, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania -- specifically concerning whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested to designate as inactive, the DEP found that "between Tuesday, July 16, 2013, and Monday, October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12 months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue.

The following day, as the market fully digested the significance of the DEP's announcement, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP [email protected] 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

RBC DOMINION: Banks, Insurance Firms Owe Employee Vacation Pay ------Dave Seglins at cbc.ca reports that when Leigh Cunningham of Winnipeg left her 26-year career as an investment adviser with RBC Dominion Securities, she did some math and realized that for decades she hadn't been receiving six per cent vacation pay on her full income.

Cunningham has launched a proposed $800-million class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of advisers.

She alleges that RBC, which last week reported soaring profits, has systematically short-changed workers by failing to provide proper vacation pay to advisers whose compensation is based mostly on commissions and bonuses.

"It's just wrong," Cunningham told CBC News. "We are helping as employees to create that profit."

Cunningham's lawsuit was served to RBC in December but not made public until now.

It is one of five proposed class actions launched against banks and insurance companies since early 2019 seeking a total of $1.2 billion for vacation pay that's allegedly owed current and former employees.

The allegations include that employers would calculate vacation pay based only on an employee's base salary, without including commissions and bonuses that can make up a large portion of a worker's compensation.

If successful, experts say these suits could open the floodgates on major employers that fail to pay salespeople and commissioned staff in accordance with various provincial and territorial employment standards laws across Canada.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 'I need my money. Plain and simple.' RBC, named in three of the five proposed class actions, declined to discuss specifics, but did issue a statement to CBC News.

"RBC takes pride in ensuring that everyone who works at any RBC company is fairly compensated," RBC Insurance communications director Greg Skinner wrote in an email.

"The policies that apply to the employees involved in the action state that their compensation includes vacation pay and statutory holiday pay."

Maureen Barrett of Brampton, Ont., resigned her position as an insurance salesperson for RBC in 2017, after almost a decade with the company.

She, too, is now a lead plaintiff, but in a different proposed class-action lawsuit seeking $80 million from RBC Insurance on behalf of its salespeople.

"I need my money, plain and simple," Barrett told CBC News. "There's no bells and whistles around it, you owe me my money. I've worked for it."

Barrett's claim alleges she only ever received vacation pay on her base salary of $37,500 and that RBC Insurance systemically failed to include in the calculation the commissions and performance bonuses that routinely made up a large share of her compensation.

"We need to make sure that this is rectified for those who are taken advantage of," she said. "That's how I feel. When this happened, when I found out that this took place, I felt as if I was taken advantage of."

Barrett says she moved to a new job as a salesperson with a smaller company, and was paid the proper amount of vacation pay from the start.

The Bank of Montreal is facing a similar class action launched by former BMO private wealth adviser Paul Cheetham in Vancouver.

BMO declined to comment on the suit.

Allstate Insurance is also facing a $160-million claim launched by home and auto insurance salesperson Sung Taek Lee in Toronto.

It said the claim is "completely without merit" and that it will defend its case "in due course."

"Allstate compensates its employees in full compliance with all provincial employment legislation," it said in a statement.

The class actions have yet to be certified by the courts, and so none of the allegations have been tested by a judge or jury.

A wake-up call for major employers, lawyer says The class actions on behalf of large groups of employees have emerged following recent court decisions that upheld individual employees' rights to outstanding vacation pay as part of severance packages.

Toronto investment banker David Bain sued his former employer, UBS Securities Canada Inc., after he lost his job in 2013 when the company shut down part of its Canadian operations.

In 2018, Ontario's Court of Appeal upheld his right to $87,472 in vacation pay for his years of service, calculated as a percentage of his base salary as well as his bonuses.

These kinds of rulings have been a wake-up call for major employers, according to Toronto lawyer James Heeney, who specializes in employment law and is not involved in any of the class-action lawsuits.

"Many companies have caught up and changed the way that they pay people to be compliant, but many, many haven't," he told CBC News.

He says employment standards across Canada vary by province and by profession and need to be modernized.

He suspects the $1.2 billion worth of lawsuits and class actions over vacation pay could be just the beginning.

"If you look across the country, there's at least hundreds of millions of dollars of liability, if not more, because there are just so many entities that have not caught up," he said.

While the five proposed class actions have yet to be given a green light, lawyers for Leigh Cunningham of Winnipeg hope to be in court later this year to certify the action on behalf of RBC investment advisers.

She acknowledges advisers are usually well paid, but says she worked hard for her clients and is entitled to what is provided for under the law.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com "If the law states that an investment adviser is entitled to receive a holiday and vacation pay, why should I be penalized?" she said.

"If you look at six per cent over 21 years . . . RBC Dominion Securities has really had the use of that six per cent of mine, my money."[GN]

RBC DOMINION: Faces $800M Class Suit Over Vacation & Holiday Pay ------Danton Unger at ctvnews.ca reports that a former investment advisor of RBC Dominion Securities has launched an $800 million class-action lawsuit against her former employer, alleging it has been failing or refusing to pay investment advisors vacation and holiday pay.

Leigh Cunningham had worked as an investment advisor for RBC Dominion Securities for 26 years at its Winnipeg office. She said after leaving the company in 2017, she was going over pay stubs and realized something wasn't adding up.

Cunningham is the lead and currently sole plaintiff of a class-action lawsuit against RBC Dominion Securities alleging the company failed to pay class member's vacation and holiday pay based on their total wages, including commissions.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been tested in court

"I don't understand how this could have happened," Cunningham said during a news conference in Winnipeg on Thursday.

"When I started to investigate this, it was like I stepped on a rake â€“ I really felt betrayed."

The class-action statement of claim - which was filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice in July 2020 - alleges that RBC Dominion Securities never recorded or told class members what percentage of their wages were on account of vacation and holiday pay.

It alleges RBC Dominion Securities misrepresented that vacation and holiday pay was properly included and accounted for in the calculation of their commissions.

"If it was included in my compensation, then can you please prove it?" Cunningham said.

The statement of claim said Employment Standards Legislation

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com requires employers to pay vacation and holiday pay on an employee's total wages including commissions, in addition to their regular wages.

Cunningham said in Manitoba, employees are entitled to at least two weeks of vacation and vacation pay of four per cent of their gross wages after one year of employment. After five years, it rises to three weeks, and the pay increases to six per cent of gross wages.

The class action is seeking $750 million in general damages, along with $50 million in punitive damages.

A spokesperson from RBC Dominion Securities told CTV News it has not filed a statement of defence as the class action has not been certified.

"RBC takes pride in ensuring that everyone who works at any RBC company is fairly compensated," the spokesperson told CTV News in an email. "The policies that apply to the employees involved in the action state that their compensation includes vacation pay and statutory holiday pay."

The RBC Dominion Securities spokesperson said they cannot comment further while the matters are before the court. [GN]

REDWOOD LOGISTICS: Kavanagh Asserts Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay ------Thomas Kavanagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Redwood Logistics, LLC,, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00715, (N.D. Ill., February 8, 2021), seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant is a logistics company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois where Kavanagh was hired as a Carrier Sales Representative, identifying, sourcing and developing relationships with motor carriers. He claims to be misclassified as a salaried employee thus denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says ------Orlando Garcia v. Amratlal N. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. and Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; Bhanu A. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. and Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; and Ricmaro Hospitality, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 21 ST CV 06193 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging regarding lack of information provided on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip in April of 2021 to the Los Angeles California, area. He chose The Lexmar - Dodger Stadium/Hollywood located at 811 N. 17 Alvarado St., Los Angeles, California because this hotel was at a desirable price and location. Due to the Plaintiff's condition, he is unable to, or seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate, reach objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from his chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.

Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently and safely. On January 23, 2021, while sitting bodily in California, Plaintiff went to The Lexma -- Dodger Stadium/Hollywood reservation Website http://www.thelexmar.com/ seeking to book an accessible room at the location.

The Website reservation system is owned and operated by the Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Hollywood Inn Express South. Plaintiff found that there was insufficient information about the accessible features in the "accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for him.

Defendants Amratlal N. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. and Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; Bhanu A. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. And Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust own The Lexmar -- Dodger Stadium/Hollywood located at 811 N. Alvarado St., Los Angeles, California. The Defendant Ricmaro Hospitality, Inc., a California Corporation operates the Hotel currently and at 11 all times relevant to this complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

RLJ II: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Alleges ------Orlando Garcia v. RLJ II -- EM Downey, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21NWCV00089 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging regarding lack of information provided on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com in March of 2021 to the Downey, California, area. He chose the Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey located at 8425 Firestone Blvd., Downey, California because this hotel was at a desirable price and location. Due to the Plaintiffâ€™s condition, he is unable to, or seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate, reach objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from his chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.

Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently and safely. On January 23, 2021, while sitting bodily in California, Plaintiff went to the Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey reservation Website at https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/laxdwes-embassy-suites-los-angeles-downey/ seeking to book an accessible room at the location.

The Website reservation system is owned and operated by the Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey.

The Plaintiff found that there was insufficient information about the accessible features in the "accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for him.

The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate that transfer. But the Hotel reservation website does not provide any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible guestroom toilets. This is critical information for him, he adds.

Defendant RLJ II - EM Downey, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership owns and operates the Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey located at 8425 Firestone Blvd., Downey, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Removed to D. Oregon ------The case captioned as Raymond Norvell, Mike Vallejo, David Segovia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., Case No. 21cv03338 was removed from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00319-YY to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. -- https://robinhood.com/ -- is an American financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for offering commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a mobile app introduced in March 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Michael R. Fuller OLSENDAINES US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 222-2000 Fax: (503) 362-1375 Email: [email protected]

The Defendant is represented by:

Joel A. Mullin Stephen H. Galloway STOEL RIVES LLP 760 S.W. Ninth Ave., Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 294-9665 Fax: (503) 220-2480 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

ROHRER CORPORATION: Illegally Stored Fingerprints, Bryer Suit Says ------ERIC BRYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com situated, Plaintiff v. ROHRER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2021L000269 (Ill. 18th Jud. Ct., Dupage Cty., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by failing to properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used; failing to provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprints; failing to receive a written release from them to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprints; and failing to obtain consent from them to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party.

Rohrer Corporation is a consumer packaging provider located in Wadsworth, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RUSHMORE LOAN: August 20 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Duncan v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-01524 (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff Kenneth Duncan and Defendant Rushmore Loan Management Services ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time up to and including, August 20, 2021, within which to file its Motion for Class Certification and award any further relief deemed just and proper.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit.

Rushmore provides financial services. The Company offers performing and non-performing residential mortgage loans.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kJw5Lr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

J. Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 Southeast 6 th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Darren R. Newhart, Esq. NEWHART LEGAL, P.A. 14611Southern Blvd. Suite 1351 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Telephone: (561) 331-1806 Facsimile: (561) 473-2946 E-mail: [email protected]

The Defendant is represented by:

William P. Heller, Esq. Marc J. Gottlieb, Esq. Celia C. Falzone, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Las Olas Centre II 350 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1600 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Telephone: (954) 463-2700 Facsimile: (954) 463-2224 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

RUSHMORE LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 20 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duncan v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-01524 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered an endorsed order granting joint second motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification.

The time for filing a motion for class certification is extended to August 20, 2021, says Judge kelly.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit.

Rushmore provides financial services. The Company offers performing and non-performing residential mortgage loans.[CC]

RYDER SYSTEM: Bid to Dismiss Key West Policy Suit Pending ------said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al., is pending.

On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive, was commenced against Ryder and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is expected to be completed March 2021.

Ryder System, Inc., commonly known as Ryder, is an American provider of transportation and supply chain management products, and is especially known for its fleet of rental trucks. Ryder specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and dedicated contracted carriage. The company is based in Miami, Florida.

SD BULLION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against SD Bullion, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SD Bullion, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01793 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

SD Bullion -- https://sdbullion.com/ -- deals with precious metals. It sells gold, silver, and platinum bullion in the form of coins and bars at lower prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Papers Related to Class Cert. Bid Due March 15 ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY INFANTINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. SEALAND

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com CONTRACTORS, CORP., Case No. 6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson entered a scheduling order as follows:

1. Any responding papers submitted in connection with this motion must be filed and served on or before March 15, 2021, with a courtesy copy of such filing to be provided to the Court;

2. Since the moving party has stated, pursuant to Western District of New York Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(a)(1), in the notice of motion that the moving party intends to file and serve reply papers, such papers must be filed and served on or before March 29, 2021, with a courtesy copy of such filing to be provided to the Court; and

3. The time for service and the content of papers must be in accordance with Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 7 and 5.1 (papers not in compliance will not be considered); and

4. Oral argument will be heard before the undersigned on April 13, 2021, at 3:00 p.m., at 2310 United States Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester, New York

A motion to certify class having been filed on February 19, 2021, by plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rnYQ2E at no extra charge.[CC]

SILFEX INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lopez Suit Claims ------RUDY LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILFEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00061-TMR (S.D. Ohio, February 23, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees' overtime compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant between October 2019 and February 2021 as a manufacturing employee at the Defendant's Springfield, Ohio manufacturing facility.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com employees, and paid them on an hourly basis. However, although they frequently worked over 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours they worked, including overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. This is a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate them for the time they spent performing pre-shift work duties amounted approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day, and failure to include the shift differential and bonuses paid to its manufacturing employees in their regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime compensation. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate records of the unpaid overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated manufacturing employees, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Silfex, Inc. provides high purity custom silicon components and assemblies that serve a broad base of high technology markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and â€“

Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Powell Family Files Suit in North Dakota ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. The case is styled as Powell Family Mineral LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons v. Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., March 3, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. -- http://www.slawsoncompanies.com/ -- explores and produces oil and gas products. The Company offers crude oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and other oil products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael S. Montgomery, Esq. MONTGOMERY & PENDER, P.C. 5630 34th Avenue So., Ste. 120 Fargo, ND 58104 Phone: (701) 281-8001 Email: [email protected]

- and -

Rex A Sharp, Esq. Gregory Bentz, Esq. Isaac Diel, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Charles Thomas Schimmel, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 6900 College Blvd., Ste 285

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Overland Park, KS 66211 Phone: (913) 901-0505 [email protected]

SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Seeks Healthcare Providers' Unpaid Wages ------The case, ERICA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP NURSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00762-AT (N.D. Ga., February 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract.

The Plaintiff has contracted with the Defendant in August 2020 to offer her services as a provider.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to depart from her home in Beaver, Pennsylvania to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, but she needed to drive with her vehicle, which is needed for the healthcare job she was providing. In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay her $77.00 an hour for the first 40 hours and $115.50 an hour for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Although the Plaintiff arrived at her worksite on August 21, 2020 for orientation pursuant to the contract; however, she was not provided work as guaranteed by her contract, and she was not provided reimbursement for her travel and lodging to and from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, the suit adds.

The complaint also asserts that the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Collective overtime compensation, and failed to keep accurate records of time their employees worked.

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated employees, who were contracted to provide temporary service for the Defendant but were not reimbursed for travel time and expenses, the Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages which constitute minimum wage and overtime compensation for all work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, liquidated damages, service payments to Plaintiff, pre- and post-judgment payment and interests, costs and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease its practice of violating the FLSA.

Snap Nurse, Inc. serves as an intermediary for healthcare providers to find temporary work across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Gary F. Easom, Esq. THE EASOM FIRM P.O. Box 1093 Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32004 Tel: (904) 894-3094 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant St., Suite 125 Pittsburg, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: [email protected]

- and â€“

Daniel Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut St., Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: [email protected]

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Wasa Medical & Calvo Suits Consolidated ------Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suits initiated by Wasa Medical Holdings and Jeannette Calvo were consolidated.

On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical filed a putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the company, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D.

The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same relief.

On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order consolidating the cases and appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff, and lead counsel.

Sorrento said, "It is anticipated that the Plaintiff will file a consolidated amended complaint pursuant to a court scheduling order or stipulation of the parties. No deadline for the filing of that complaint or any response thereto by defendants has been set. The Company is defending these matters vigorously."

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The company is based in San Diego, California

SPARTANBURG, SC: Judge Endorses Denial of Lovelace Class Cert. Bid ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Lee Lovelace, Austin Scott Turner, Protection and Advocacy for the People with Disabilities, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1-10, v. Chuck Wright, Spartanburg County Sheriff, and Allen Freeman, Jail Administrator, Case No. 6:20-cv-01977-BHH-KFM (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Kevin F. McDonald recommended that the district court deny the plaintiffs' motion to certify class with leave to file an updated motion following the district court's ruling on the pending motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and motion to supplement the record.

On May 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On July 6, 2020, following the filing of the report and recommendation on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, the undersigned issued an order holding the motion to certify class in abeyance pending the district court's ruling on the plaintiffs'

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com motion for preliminary injunction. The order directed the defendants to file a response to the motion to certify class within 14 days of the district court's ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction.

Since the filing of Judge McDonald's order holding the motion to certify class in abeyance, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record with regard to their motion for preliminary injunction, noting that conditions in the SCDC have changed since the undersigned's report and recommendation on the motion was filed. The motion to supplement the record is pending before the district court. Given the length of time that has passed since the filing of the plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the rapidly evolving information regarding COVID-19 and changing conditions at the SCDC, Judge McDonald recommends that the district court deny the plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

A copy of the Judge Recommendation dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uHWC0e at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing ------State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company remains a defendant in a purported class suit related to its invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against us alleging that our invoicing practices violated duties owed to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In addition, the company received a purported class action demand letter alleging that our invoicing practices were unfair and deceptive under Massachusetts law.

A class of customers, or particular customers, may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts law.

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

STEMILT AG: Gomez Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA and JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying two classes:

-- For their federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) claims, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as:

"All Mexican nationals employed at Stemilt Ag Services, LLC in Washington, pursuant to the 2017 H-2A contract from August 14, 2017 through November 15, 2017;"

The TVPA Class asserts: 1) forced labor claims under the federal TVPA arising from a common scheme of threats and a common practice of the abuse of law to obtain the continued labor of its H-2A workers along with a related claim for hostile work environment based on national origin in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination arising from these same common practices; 2) claims that Stemilt failed to comply with multiple requirements of the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act, along with a related breach of contract claim arising from Stemilt's imposition of unlawful production standards"; and

-- The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class defined as:

"All Mexican nationals employed at Stemilt Ag Services, LLC in Washington, pursuant to the 2017 H-2A contracts from January 16 through November 15, 2017, who traveled on Stemilt buses to Stemilt orchards for work;"

The Wait Time Class asserts that Stemilt had a policy of requiring H-2A workers who used Stemilt transportation to wait without compensation both before and after 8 work in violation of Washington wage and hour law.

This is a forced labor class action brought under the TVPA on behalf of over 1,100 Mexican H-2A workers who allege that, in 2017, supervisors for Stemilt Ag Services, LLC routinely threatened to send them "back to Mexico" and blacklist them from future work at

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Stemilt "or any other American company" for failing to meet unlawful daily apple harvest production standards.

Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes providing farm management services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NMm2tb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Laura R. Gerber, Esq. Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Maria Diana Garcia, Esq. Joachim Morrison, Esq. Alfredo Gonzalez Benitez, Esq. Amy L. Crewdson, Esq. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 7103 W. Clearwater Avenue, Suite C Kennewick, WA 99336 Telephone: (509) 374-9855 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Accent Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission ------Aimee Hickman, Jared Hickman, William Treasurer, Kelly Drogowski, and Frank Drogowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation (f/k/a Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.), Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02100, (D. N.J., February 8, 2021), is a product liability suit involving the vehicle transmission of the Subaru Accent.

The 2019 Subaru Ascent featured a "Lineartronic HCVT (High-Torque Continuously Variable Transmission) with Adaptive Control, Auto

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Vehicle Hold (AVH) and 8-speed manual mode with paddle shifters." Plaintiffs claim that the transmissions later installed contain one or more defects that cause hesitation, jerking, shuddering, lurching, squeaking, whining, or other loud noises, delays in acceleration, inconsistent shifting, stalling, and a loss of power or ability to accelerate at all. Said defect damages vehicle's alignment, puts unnecessary stress on the tires and brakes, causes premature wear and replacement and may even cause damage to the engine making it difficult for drivers to move smoothly through intersections, entering and exiting highways, changing lanes and even controlling speed on inclines and declines in the road.

Plaintiffs are owners of Subaru Ascents.

Subaru of America markets and distributes automobiles throughout the United States and is a division of the Japanese conglomerate Subaru Corp. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: [email protected]

TANNER TRAINING: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanner Training LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tanner Training LLC doing business as: The Cashflow Academy, Case No. 1:21-cv-01102 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

The Cash Flow Academy -- https://thecashflowacademy.com/ -- is a financial services company which aims to empower and inspire people to discover how to create their own income.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Email: [email protected]

TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Ervin, on behalf of himself and other members of the putative class, v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Holdings Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-00266-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. certifying each of his claims for class action treatment and defining the class as follows:

"All TD Ameritrade accountholders who, during the time period from February 19, 2010 through the present, received a substitute payment in lieu of a qualifying dividend without also receiving a premium payment;"

Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding over this or any related case. The class definition also excludes all officers and employees of TD Ameritrade.;

2. appointing hims as class representative and that his attorneys of Bartle & Marcus LLC and The Law Office of Jared A. Rose be appointed class counsel.

3. directing the parties to submit an agreed-upon class notice or submit any disputes they may have over class notice within 21 days of a class certification order so that notice may be issued promptly.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed-income investments.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3kJDvhU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David L. Marcus, Esq. BARTLE & MARCUS LLC 116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4699 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Jared A. Rose, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE 919 West 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-4335 Facsimile: 816.873.5406 E-mail: [email protected]

The Defendants are represented by:

Jason M. Hans, Esq. GERMAN MAY PC 1201 Walnut Street, 20th Floor Kansas City, MO 64106 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq. Theodore L. Kornobis, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 1601 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Pending ------Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the appeal on the order of dismissal of the class action suit headed by IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund, is pending.

On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief

The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

On November 12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund as the sole lead plaintiff in the case. On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.

On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to dismiss and closed the case.

On August 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal contesting the dismissal, which Textron has opposed. That appeal remains pending.

Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna, Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with innovative products and services. The company is based in Providence, Rhode Island.

THERA GROUP: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thera Group. The case is captioned as Kareem Nisbett v. Thera Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01364-PGG-SDA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware ------Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against the class action and derivative suit styled, Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM.

On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM.

On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.

The two complaints are nearly identical, were filed by the same group of counsel, and name Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC (as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as defendants and Tilray as a nominal defendant.

On March 4, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint.

The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution (the "Privateer Defendants") for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the Downstream Merger.

The operative complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Tilray. On July 17, 2020, the stockholder plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims.

On August 14, 2020, Tilray and all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 14, 2020, in light of the Plaintiffs' statement that certain actions may have mooted some of their claims related to the alleged unfair extension of control over Tilray, the Court entered an order adjourning the planned November 4, 2020 hearing and removing the pending deadlines for briefing on the motions to dismiss.

The hearing was rescheduled to February 5, 2021. On February 5, 2021, the Court held a hearing on those Motions and reserved judgment.

On December 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims that the Downstream Merger improperly perpetuated or extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's alleged control as moot in light of the automatic conversion of Tilray's Class 1 common stock to Class 2 common stock.

The parties have not yet agreed to a schedule on the briefing for that motion, but, at the February 5, 2021 hearing, the Plaintiffs agreed that their perpetuation of control claims are moot and stated that they intend to move for a fee award in connection with those claims.

The defendants believe the claims, in this case, are without merit, and intend to defend this case vigorously, but there are no assurances as to its outcome.

Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway ------Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by Lisa Langevin.

On June 16, 2020, Langevin commenced a purported class action in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, on her behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of all medicinal and recreational users in Canada of the defendants' cannabis products who consumed the products

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com before their expiry date. She alleges that the defendants, including Tilray, marketed medicinal and recreational cannabis products in circumstances where the defendants misrepresented the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or Cannabidiol (CBD) in their respective products.

As a result of the defendants' alleged mislabeling of the cannabis products it is claimed that the plaintiff and proposed class members did not receive and consume the product that they believed that they had purchased and that this caused them loss, risk of injury and actual injury. Ms. Langevin claims that on February 13, 2020 she purchased Canaca â€“ TenUp manufactured and distributed by Tilray.

She had it tested and allegedly found that it only contained 43% of the claimed amount of THC. The Statement of Claim seeks $500,000,000 in damages and restitution and $5,000,000 in punitive damages plus interest and costs collectively from the defendants.

On July 20, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Amended Statement of Claim, and on December 4, 2020 the Plaintiff delivered a Third Amended Statement of Claim.

Tilray said, "We plan to vigorously defend against this action."

TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Appeals Suit Ruling to 1st Cir. ------Plaintiff Adam Rovinelli filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ADAM ROVINELLI and JENNIFER CARLOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-11304-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Springfield.

The Plaintiffs allege that Trans World "used highly aggressive sales tactics to charge thousands of consumers for, and profit millions of dollars from, bogus 'loyalty memberships' and magazine subscriptions," through allegedly "deceptive and misleading" marketing practices.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to strike the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com class allegations and denying as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss the surviving individual claims as failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Rovinelli, et al v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., Case No. 21-1160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, February 25, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that docketing statement, transcript report/order form, and appearance form are due on March 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM ROVINELLI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

Mark J. Albano, Esq. ALBANO LAW LLC 1 Monarch Pl, Ste 1150 Springfield, MA 01144-1150 Telephone: (413) 736-6971 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Angela M. Edwards, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS 72 Canterbury Cir. East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Telephone: (413) 525-3820 E-mail: [email protected]

- and -

Jason Giaimo, Esq. Lee Scott Shalov, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP 260 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016-0000 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Defendant-Appellee TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP. is represented by:

James E. Gallagher, Esq. DAVIS MALM & D'AGOSTINE PC 1 Boston Pl., 37th Flr Boston, MA 02108-0000

- and -

David S. Greenberg, Esq. Neal H. Klausner, Esq. Ina B. Scher, Esq. DAVIS & GILBERT LLP 1740 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468-4800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Christopher J. Marino, Esq. DAVIS MALM & D'AGOSTINE PC 1 Boston Pl., 37th Flr Boston, MA 02108-0000 Telephone: (617) 589-3833 E-mail: [email protected]

TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivera Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The case is styled as Darien Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No. 2:21-cv-01095 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRUEACCORD CORP: Tukin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. et al. The case is styled as Bob V. Tukin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., CVI SGP Acquisition Trust, Case No. 4:21-cv-01526-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2021).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jitesh Dudani, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (510) 701-7886 Email: [email protected]

TRUSTCO BANK: Jenkins Files Suit in N.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustco Bank. The case is styled as Thomas Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trustco Bank, Case No. 1:21-cv-00238-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Trustco Bank -- https://www.trustcobank.com/ -- is a commercial bank within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.-New York Office 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Fax: (646) 293-7937 Email: [email protected]

TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir. ------Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit related to user settings is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate issues related to certain user settings designed to target advertising that were not working as expected and seeking unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

In December 2020, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and conversation in real-time. The company offers various products and services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20 ------Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in consolidated class action suit is scheduled on September 20, 2021.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States against the Company and the Company's directors and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated securities action.

In January 2021, the Company entered into a binding agreement to settle the pending shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The proposed settlement resolves all claims asserted against the Company and the other named defendants in the derivative lawsuits without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or the Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company's board of directors will adopt and implement certain corporate governance modifications. In addition, the Company will receive $38.0 million of insurance proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes.

The settlement will not require the Company to make any payment, aside from covering certain administrative costs related to the settlement. The settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which is scheduled for March 2021.

The shareholder class action remains pending and is scheduled for trial on September 20, 2021.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and conversation in real time. The company offers various products and services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit as Drivers Demand Employee Rights ------staffingindustry.com reports that London-based law firm Leigh Day, known for its high profile cases against Uber and Deliveroo, announced it is partnering with South African law firm Mbuyisa Moleele (MBM Law) to launch a class action in South Africa against Uber.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com The case will be on behalf of drivers wanting to be recognised as employees, rather than as independent contractors.

Leigh Day launched the landmark gig economy case against Uber in the UK which recently resulted in a Supreme Court victory for the riders meaning that Uber must classify its drivers as workers rather than self-employed.

"Uber drivers in other parts of the world now have employment rights like paid holiday after Uber was beaten in court," MBM Law stated. "Uber won't pay South African drivers unless we take them to court. Drivers may be entitled to paid holiday and unpaid overtime."

"The case will be on behalf of drivers wanting to be recognised as employees, rather than as independent contractors," MBM Law continued. "Leigh Day are assisting South Africa based law firm Mbuyisa Moleele attorneys, who will be launching a similar class action in SA and have asked local Uber drivers to join the suit."

According to Leigh Day, South African legislation relating to employment status and rights, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), is very similar to UK employment law.

"Furthermore, Uber operates a similar system in South Africa, with drivers using an app, which the UK Supreme Court concluded resulted in drivers' work being "tightly defined and controlled" by Uber," the law firm stated.

The UK's Supreme Court noted that while the system of control operated by Uber was in its commercial interests, it clearly placed drivers in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to the company.

Uber South Africa operates in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and East London, and in 2018, it was estimated to control 75% of the South African taxi market.

Leigh Day said that estimates suggest that there are between 12,000 to 20,000 drivers in South Africa using the Uber app who will be covered by the lawsuit, which is an opt-out class action in which a small number of representative plaintiffs are claiming on behalf of the wider class of Uber drivers.

Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys said, "Uber's argument that it is just an app does not hold water when its behaviour is that of an employer. The current model exploits drivers, they are

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com effectively employees but do not benefit from the associated protections. We are issuing a call to workers to stand up for their rights and join the class action against Uber."

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day said, "The ruling by the UK Supreme Court is a final vindication for UK Uber drivers who have for too long been denied their statutory employment rights as workers. We hope that this class action in South Africa will enable South African Uber drivers to access those same rights."

In a statement to Business Tech South Africa, Uber said the vast majority of drivers who use the Uber app say they want to work independently.

"We've already made significant changes to our app to ensure we support this, including through Partner Injury Protection, new safety features and access to quality and affordable private healthcare cover for drivers and their families, voluntarily," Uber stated.

"We continue to do as much as possible to enhance the earnings potential of drivers, and leverage innovative offerings like fuel rewards, vehicle maintenance and other special offers to help them," the human cloud firm continued. "At a time when we need more jobs, not fewer, we believe Uber and other platforms can be a bridge to a sustainable economic recovery."

"This is testament to the appeal of the Uber business model which provides drivers with an independent status while allowing them to develop and expand their businesses following their needs and time schedules as well as their business skills and plans, and pursue any economic activities of their choice," Uber stated.[GN]

UNCLE HEGNA: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Employees ------OTILIO ANDRES CABREJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNCLE HEGNA GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A STOP ONE DELI), ABDULLA SALEH, BASSAM AHMED, and SALEH AHMED, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01113 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked; failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their total worked hours; and failure to provide accurate wage notice and wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sandwich maker, stock and sales

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com associate, cashier, and janitor at the deli located at 88-34 Parson Blvd., Jamaica, New York.

Uncle Hegna Grocery Corp., doing business as Stop One Deli, is an owner and operator of a deli located at 88-34 Parson Blvd., Jamaica, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNIBARNS TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unibarns Trading Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unibarns Trading Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01754 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Unibarns Trading Inc. -- https://www.unibarns.com/ -- is a modern logistics company with warehousing management experience and service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES: Common Ground Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ S.C. ------Plaintiff Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent, Case No. 20-1200.

Response is due on March 31, 2021.

The Plaintiff seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case titled COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 2020-1286. The court of appeals issued its order and judgment on September 30, 2020. The court of appeals denied Common Ground's petition for rehearing en banc on December 16, 2020.

The question presented is: May the United States invoke a non-statutory mitigation defense to avoid the unambiguous requirement of section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Government "shall make" cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers in set amounts?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative contends, for itself and on behalf of those similarly situated, that the federal government ceased making the cost-sharing reduction payments to which it and other insurers are entitled under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, et al., is represented by:

Kathleen Marie Sullivan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: [email protected]

Defendant-Appellee-Respondent United States is represented by:

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED STATES: Faces Medina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America. The case is captioned as Medina v. United States of America, Case No. 1:21-cv-01427-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nationâ€™s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

Ian Anthony Medina 33 Beckman St. Apt. BK0607 New York, NY 10037

UNIVERSAL COIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Coin & Bullion, LTD. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Coin & Bullion, LTD., Case No. 1:21-cv-01795 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Universal Coin & Bullion Limited -- https://www.universalcoin.com/ -- operates as a financial services company. The Company provides gold coins, bricks and various other precious metal for purchasing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

US FERTILITY: Mullinix Suit Removed to C.D. California ------The case captioned as Jennifer Mullinix, Patrisia Vela, Omar Orozco, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Fertility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02021-01181929 was removed from the Superior Court of California - County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00409-CJC-KES to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

US Fertility -- https://www.usfertility.com/ -- is one of the largest physician-owned and physician-led management services organization supporting leading fertility programs across the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. April Chen Yang, Esq. Robert James Dart, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The Defendants are represented by:

James F. Monagle, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 West Lancaster Avenue Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: [email protected]

USA WINE & SPIRITS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Wine & Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USA Wine & Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01797 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

USA Wine & Spirits, Inc. -- http://www.usawineandspiritsinc.com/ -- is located in Sun Valley, California and is part of the Beer, Wine

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected]

VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ------The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR, VLDRW) ("Velodyne") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Velodyne securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at [email protected]; or click https://www.ktmc.com/velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-fraud-class- action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=velodyne

According to the complaint, Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems including real-time surround view lidar sensors. Velodyne became a public entity on September 29, 2020 when it merged with Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company.

The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Velodyne filed its quarterly report on a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended September 30, 2020. The report stated "[b]ased on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable

However, the truth began to be revealed on February 22, 2021, before the market opened, when Velodyne announced that its Board of Directors had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with [Velodyne] officers and directors." In addition, Velodyne's Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but they would remain directors of Velodyne.

Following this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with Velodyne's officers and directors; (2) Velodyne was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Velodyne's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Velodyne investors may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) [email protected] [GN]

VENUS ET FLEUR: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venus Et Fleur LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Venus Et Fleur LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01834 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Venus ET Fleur -- https://www.venusetfleur.com/ -- became New York's first bespoke floral house in 2015 and specializes in exquisite, luxurious floral arrangements, including Eternity(R) Roses, which last for an entire year without tending to.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: [email protected]

VERSO CORP: Living & Deceased Retirees Get Class Certification ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BAILEY, et al., v. VERSO CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00332-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order:

1. granting the parties' renewed motion for class certification on behalf of:

"All living and deceased retirees from Verso Corporation's Wickliffe, Kentucky Papermill who were affected by Verso Corporation's December 31, 2016 termination of the death benefit provided under the Parties' collective-bargaining agreement;"

2. preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class action settlement;

3. approving the parties' proposed class notice;

4. setting an objection Deadline of May 3, 2021 and a fairness hearing for July 7, 2021;

5. naming the plaintiffs Clifford Bailey and James Spencer as class representatives; and

6. appointing the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The parties agree that a class action is the proper vehicle to resolve this case. The Plaintiffs advanced claims that could have been brought by any one of the retirees. Their efforts secured a pro-rata recovery that no individual class member would have been incentivized to pursue on their own. Additionally, the parties stipulate that named Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately represent the class. The Court agrees and, for the following reasons, certifies the class.

The Plaintiffs filed this action under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a proposed class, to recover collectively-bargained life insurance coverage and death benefits for retirees of Defendant Verso now-closed Wickliffe, Kentucky paper mill.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sJ8IEK at no extra charge.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ------In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS MEJIA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. v. WALGREEN CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00218-WBS-AC (E.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 22, 2021 to enter the concurrently filed

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com [Proposed] Judgment and Order granting final approval of the class action settlement seeking the following:

1. Granting final approval of the class action settlement;

2. Certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes only;

3. Appointing Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel and Plaintiff Lucas Mejia as Class Representative for settlement purposes only;

4. Approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, based upon the terms as set forth in the court-approved Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement including payment by the Defendants of the maximum settlement payment of $4,500,000, except that Defendants shall separately pay their FICA/FUTA payments and employer side payroll taxes, equal to the amount owed to pay (1) the Class Members pursuant to the terms of the settlement; (2) the court-approved attorneys' fees and costs; (3) the court-approved class representative enhancement, (4) the court-19 approved settlement administration costs; and (5) the court-approved payment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA);

5. Approving the Plaintiff's Counsel's request for $1,125,000 in attorneys' fees plus reimbursement of litigation costs of $11,362.77;

6. Approving an enhancement of $7,500 to the Plaintiff in recognition of his service to the Class Members;

7. Approving settlement administration costs of $35,000; and

8. Approving $112,500 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as 75% of the $150,000 allocated to civil penalties under the PAGA.

Walgreen is an American company that operates as the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health. It specializes in filling prescriptions, health and wellness products, health information, and photo services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/383oFO5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: [email protected]

WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dilworth Claims ------AMIA DILWORTH, ALEJANDRO CABALLERO, ALEX CABALLERO, and NOURA MAJOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV07031 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Dilworth and Major was employed by the Defendants as cashier. Plaintiff Alejandro Caballero was employed as stocker, cashier, and maintenance worker. Plaintiff Alex Caballero as cashier and assistant manager.

Western Refining Retail, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed ------The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action initiated by Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa against Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary, has been stayed.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary WUFSA.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings.

The process for notifying potential class members has been completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage. The case will be stayed until: (i) the Attorney-General instructs the Prosecutor to continue to litigate the claims on behalf of the plaintiff (during the time the registration of Consumidores Financieros before the Secretary of Commerce remains suspended); or

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com (ii) the parties report to the Court that the plaintiff recovered its legal capacity.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

WILLOWS INN: Settles $600,000 Suit Over Alleged Wage Theft ------Gabe Guarente at eater.com reports that the Willows Inn -- Lummi Island's nationally renowned fine dining establishment -- has agreed to pay $600,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit for alleged wage theft. In the lawsuit, filed in 2017, former employees accused Willows Inn head chef/co-owner Blaine Wetzel and management for "failing to pay minimum wage for all work performed, overtime wages, and to provide or pay for rest and meal breaks under Washington law." A settlement was agreed upon by both parties in October 2020.

The lawsuit -- which the Seattle Times first reported -- is related to a labor violation notice the restaurant received around the same time, roughly four years ago. At the time, the Willows Inn doled out $149,000 in unpaid wages and damages to 19 kitchen staff members, following a Department of Labor (DOL) investigation. In its report from 2017, the Labor Department claimed Willows Inn "violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and minimum wage to its employees."

According to the 2017 DOL report, the Willows Inn violated labor laws by having its "stages" -- culinary interns who generally work for free in fine-dining restaurants -- work for as many as 14 hours a day, with no overtime, and day rates as low as $50. In response, the restaurant nixed its staging program, but denied any wrongdoing - and continues to push back on the allegations.

"After over three years of lawyers defending us against these claims, we were moved to settle due to current and mounting legal fees," Wetzel told Eater Seattle, emphasizing that the allegations "are in no way accurate." He added that the wording used in the lawsuit "is a tool that this specialized law firm uses to greatly exacerbate a citation we received from 2016."

Wetzel also stated that the restaurant has not allowed any "staigiers" or "unaccredited interns" since receiving the labor department's citation in 2016 and currently follows all Washington State wage and labor laws.

The Seattle Times reports that 99 non-supervisory employees were identified as members of the class-action lawsuit, and will receive a portion of the settlement sum, recovering about 75 percent of lost wages. Under the terms of the agreement, it's documented that Wetzel and the defendants are not admitting to any wrongdoing, and the former employees who initially filed the suit are bound by a non-disclosure provision.

After COVID measures delayed its usual annual opening plan in March 2020, the Willows Inn resumed service in a limited capacity last summer. As a seasonal operation, it is currently closed for the winter.

Eater Seattle reached out to the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will update this article as more info is provided. [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 25 ------In the class action lawsuit RE ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation as follows:

1. Last day for Zoom to complete rolling production of items it agreed to produce as of the February 5, 2021 Joint Statement is April 9. 2021;

2. Last day to file for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification is June 25, 2021;

3. Last day for Zoom to file Opposition to Motion for Class Certification is August 13, 2021;

4. Last day for Plaintiffs to file Reply in Support of Class Certification is September 3, 2021;

5. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification is set for September 23, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.; and

6. The Close of Fact Discovery is October 29, 2021.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Zoom Video is an American communications technology company headquartered in San Jose, California. It provides videotelephony and online chat services through a cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform and is used for teleconferencing, telecommuting, distance education, and social relations.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/388infU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel are:

Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. Christopher Stiner, Esq. Rachel Johnson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Ave, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

- and -

Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. Noorjahan Rahman, Esq. Julia Peng Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The Defendant Zoom is represented by:

Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Travis Leblanc, Esq. Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq. Benjamin H. Kleine, Esq. Danielle C. Pierre, Esq.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com Joseph D. Mornin, Esq. Evan G. Slovak, Esq. Kelsey R. Spector, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693 2000 Facsimile: (415) 693 2222 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[*] 10 Auto Insurance Companies Face Lawsuits Over Pandemic Pricing ------John Egan at Forbes reports that policyholders and auto insurance companies are colliding in court over allegations that drivers in Nevada have been overcharged for insurance during the coronavirus pandemic, with fewer miles being driven and fewer accidents happening.

The basis for the allegation has been played out across the country in the past year, as cars sat in driveways instead of motoring through daily commutes and errands.

On Feb. 23, Las Vegas law firm Eglet Adams and Reno, Nevada, attorney Matthew Sharp filed lawsuits in a Las Vegas court on behalf of Nevada policyholders against 10 auto insurers: Acuity, Allstate, Farmers, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, Progressive, State Farm, Travelers and USAA. The lawsuits seek class action status in Nevada.

Allegations That Auto Insurance Refunds Didn't Reflect True Decline in Driving The lawsuits claim that in April 2020, traffic at the Nevada-California border fell 66% compared to April 2019. Furthermore, the lawsuits say that the number of auto accidents in southern Nevada dropped 60% in March 2020 versus a year earlier. However, the plaintiffs assert, auto insurance premiums, credits and car insurance refunds failed to adequately reflect the decline in vehicle traffic and accidents after the onset of the pandemic.

The lawsuits note that Nevada law prohibits insurance companies from charging "excessive" insurance premiums.

Typical refunds around the country were 15% for two months, but some insurers offered one-time credits, refunds over a longer period or another refund type.

Data published in December 2020 by the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Economic Justice indicates 181,000 fewer auto accidents happened last March through October in four states -- Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts and Texas -- compared with the same period in 2019.

Insurance Industry Responds The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), a trade group for insurance companies, dismisses the lawsuits as a misguided attempt by lawyers to drum up new business during the pandemic.

In a statement, the APCIA says the plaintiffs' attorneys are "misconstruing" traffic and auto insurance data. The association says that in 2020, auto insurers provided more than $14 billion in refunds and credits to U.S. policyholders due to a reduction in driving during the pandemic. The statement cites data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing traffic deaths actually rose in the first nine months of 2020, despite the decline in overall miles traveled.

Furthermore, the group points out that the insurance industry has made more than $220 million in donations to support various communities during the pandemic.

"Litigation profiteering is a direct threat to long-term economic recovery. The insurance industry is working to rebuild communities and yet this type of lawsuit abuse has the opposite effect," said Stef Zielezienski, the association's executive vice president and chief legal officer, in a statement.

Robert Eglet, leader of the trial team at Eglet Adams, calls the APCIA's response to these suits "a clear attempt to gaslight" trial attorneys and "is unfortunately expected given how they have treated their customers, who they know have suffered economic stress because of the pandemic."

In Nevada, refunds or credits issued to auto insurance policyholders during the pandemic ranged from a one-time refund of $50 to $100 to a three-month credit of 25% in 2020, according to the lawsuits. "The reduction in claims are significantly more than these so-called discounts," Eglet says.

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com As such, auto insurers reaped "obscene windfall profits" well beyond the $14 billion in rollbacks cited by the APCIA, says Eglet.

Bob Hunter, insurance director of the Consumer Federation of America, says his organization started calling for pandemic-fueled auto insurance rollbacks in March 2020 and has continued to highlight what it views as insufficient refunds and credits. He alleges that Allstate and Progressive "effectively swindled" money from policyholders by paying dividends to their shareholders.

Hunter believes the Nevada attorneys have a legitimate case against the 10 auto insurers.

"I wish these guys luck. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say if their theory works. I only know that if there is justice, something like this should work," he says. "The real culprits, however, are the regulators who, except for four states, did nothing. Only California has done it right, still monitoring and requiring paybacks." (California, Michigan, New Jersey and New Mexico ordered refunds for drivers, and insurers voluntarily provided refunds in other states.)

In response to the lawsuits, a spokesperson for Allstate says it was the first insurer to respond to a decrease in auto accidents with paybacks of nearly $1 billion. "Since then, we have continued to support our customers with broad reductions in auto insurance rates that will continue beyond the pandemic," the spokesperson says.

A spokesperson for Progressive says the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. However, the spokesperson notes that Progressive gave customers more than $1.1 billion in premium credits and rate reductions due to the pandemic. In Nevada alone, rate reductions last summer translated to more than $25 million in annualized savings for drivers in the state, the spokesperson adds.

A USAA spokesperson says the company is reviewing the suits, adding that USAA returned $1.07 billion to auto insurance policyholders last year because fewer drivers were on the road during the pandemic.

Farmers, Liberty Mutual and State Farm declined to comment on the suits. Representatives of Acuity, GEICO, Nationwide and Travelers couldn't be reached for comment.

Zielezienski, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com attorney, encourages policyholders to contact their insurers about potential adjustments in premiums based on changes in their driving habits if insurers didn't automatically make adjustments.

"Insurers understood the urgency of helping businesses and individuals recover from the unprecedented crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic," Zielezienski says. [GN]

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements ------Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- [email protected] -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that class action settlements are complicated affairs. They can take months or even years to negotiate, followed by months to send notice and obtain trial court approval, and months or years longer if an approval order is appealed. The agreements memorializing class action settlements are often dozens of pages long or longer. They sometimes involve claims processes run by third-party vendors who are hired to manage years of complex data. Objections can require extensive briefing and at times result in evidentiary hearings. Between the attorneys' fees incurred in the settlement process as well as costs of administration, class action settlements often result in expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more.

So why do parties and their lawyers on both sides subject themselves to such a burdensome, time-consuming and expensive process? When you cut through all the posturing and all of the carefully crafted details of the written agreement and court submissions, what are the core terms at the heart of the settlement?

Every case and every class action settlement has its own unique drivers, but a few basic and familiar concepts are common to the vast majority of them. And they come in two varieties â€“ the aims of the plaintiffs and their counsel and the aims of defendants. Respectively, they can be thought of as the Relief and the Release.

The Relief Class counsel know their objective before they file suit: they want the best possible deal for the class they seek to represent. Few class actions go to trial, and from the outset, plaintiffs' counsel typically view settlement as the desired outcome. In most cases, they won't have a target settlement amount when they commence the action because they will not yet have the data from which the amount can be determined. However, they will have a general idea of the magnitude of the claim based on the size of the defendant, the

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com general size of the affected class, the extent of the harm allegedly inflicted on the class members, the nature of the claim and the legal remedies available if they can prove it, and the amounts of settlements achieved in comparable cases. The value of the relief to the class takes on heightened importance in class actions because of the need for judicial approval. It will determine whether a court will approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), or comparable state provision. It also will be a factor in determining the amount of the attorneys' fees the court will award class counsel. While there will be a host of important, subsidiary issues to resolve, the relief to the class is the key factor in class counsel's decision to settle.

The Release Defendants, too, will be focused on the cost of the relief they are being asked to pay. They might look for non-monetary ways to bridge gaps in the parties' settlement positions that add value to the settlement without adding to the out-of-pocket costs, such as forms of prospective injunctive relief or consensual undertakings that will benefit class members in the future. The amount they are willing to pay will depend, in part, on how they calculate their litigation risk, including the probable outcomes if the case were to go to trial and the expense of getting there, as well as their degree of risk aversion, the extent of disruption to their business caused by litigation, and perhaps other, less quantifiable issues, such as employee relations, public relations, and reputational risk. The bottom line for any defendant when settling a class action, though, is the importance of achieving global peace, defined as an agreement that terminates the current lawsuit and prevents future lawsuits over the same or related conduct. While there are a number of factors that contribute to the extent of the peace that a defendant buys when settling a case on a class-wide basis, there are two interconnected provisions of the settlement agreement that require special attention: the class definition and the release. Put simply, the class definition will determine who will be bound by the release, and the language of the release will determine what they are giving up by settling (or, for most class members, by not opting out of the settlement). Other provisions of a settlement, such as a "blow-up" provision (which allows a defendant to withdraw from the settlement if too many class members opt out) may also determine how much peace the settlement will buy, but the class definition and the release language are core considerations in a defendant's decision to settle.

The Rest At the risk of over-simplification, when one gets beyond the relief and the release, the rest is mostly process meant to ensure that

Sign up for a 30-day FREE TRIAL at ClassActionReporter.com the absent class members are getting a fair and equitable shake. It comes in the form of notice, opt-out provisions, and the right to object to the settlement. "The Rest" also includes the mechanics of how the settlement will work. For example, will each class member receive the same settlement amount? If not, how will each class member's payment be calculated? Will there be a claims process, or will class members receive automatic payments? Will there be residual funds, and if so, how will they be dealt with? What will happen if a class notice or settlement check bounces back? These are important issues that also will require careful consideration and drafting and that a court will weigh it deciding whether to approve the settlement, but they are secondary to the issues of relief and release that drive the parties to agreement.

Take-Away Not every class action should or will settle, but many do. To achieve settlement, parties and their counsel should stay focused on the core issues at the heart of any settlement: the relief that will be provided to the class, and the release that will be provided to the defendant. Once the parties agree on these core terms, they should be able to reach agreement on the rest. [GN]

*********

S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

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

*** End of Transmission ***