/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210426.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 77

                            Headlines

ACCELLION INC: Pollard Sues Over Exposure of Personal Information
ALL-CLAD: Mears Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Leidner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTA MESA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Camelot Securities Suit
ANDI VALENTINO: Valencia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

APPLE INC: Rutter Files Suit in California Superior Court
ARCADE BELTS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARSTRAT LLC: Schultz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Makkinje Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Singh Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Colamarino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Smith Files Suit in C.D. California
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Dahlgren Files Suit in S.D. New York
BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Flips Order Remanding Rascon Suit
BETTERIDGE JEWELERS: S.D. New York Dismisses Angeles Class Suit

BLACK KNIGHT: Fredericks FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
BLUE CROSS: Brent S. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
BOONE COUNTY INDEPENDENT: Farmer Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
BRINKER INT'L: Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd in Data Incident Case
BRINKER INT'L: M.D. Florida Certifies 2 Classes in Data Breach Suit

BURKETT RESTAURANT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Concepcion v. CDCR Endorsed
CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Seeks Final OK of Class Action Settlement
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Lindsay Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
CARRIER GLOBAL: Faces Onn Suit Over Defective Fire Extinguishers

CELLULAR SALES: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Holick FLSA Suit
CEREBELLY INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEFS' TOYS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHURCH FOR THE HEALTHY SELF: Pham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Thrower TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class

CONTAINER STORE: Neal Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
DIAMOND CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repossession Notice, Says Lundy  
DIAMOND SELECT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification
EMULEX CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mutza's Amended Suit

ERIE INSURANCE: Petty Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
FIXD AUTOMOTIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
GERBER PRODUCTS: Wallace Sues Over Toxic Heavy Metals in Baby Food

GOBBLE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOYARD SF: Hearing on Brooks' Bid to Strike Continued to June 8
GREEN DOT: Boardman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Foot Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal
HAWTHORNE FOOD: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HEIDI WASHINGTON: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify MDOC Inmate Class
HELLA BASICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HERON FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
KEYCITY CAPITAL: Starling Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

KIND LAB: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Crooks Files Suit in Western District Court
M7 BUILDERS: Vazquez Files Suit in California Superior Court
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Edwards Securities Suit Denied
MDL 2542: Ill. & Fla. AGs May Intervene in Keurig Antitrust Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Vance's BIPA Claim Granted in Part
MIDLAND CREDIT: Crook Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MOON INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MV TRANSPORTATION: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims

NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Zhang Investor Reminds of May 17 Deadline
NEW YORK: Roberson Appeals Ruling in Bergamaschi Prisoners' Suit
NEWREZ LLC: Maldonado Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
ONEBLADE INC: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
OREGON: Terrill Files ADA Suit in District Court

PARMA, OH: State Sues Over Invasion of Property
PETE AND GERRY'S: Mogull Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
PLANTSHED 87: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PODS ENTERPRISES: Rogers Files Suit in California Superior Court

RAJAN PATEL: Smith Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
REHAB AMERICA: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Therapy Assistant Class
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Flowers FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
RT PIZZA: Joint Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification Filed

SICHUAN GOURMET: Xiao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SILVERCREST ASSET: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALTY INSURANCE: Sharfman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
STATOIL USA: Bid to Exclude Rescigno's Untimely Reply Brief Denied
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

TIEDEMANN WEALTH: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOTAL MERCHANT: Abante Rooter TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TS2 HOSPITALITY: Najera Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Singh Seeks to Certify Rideshare Driver Class
UNITED STATES: Kevin's Bid to File Amended Complaint Granted

VERITA TELECOM: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Tirado Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wage
WARDEN SYNDER: Powell Seeks OK of Class Certification Bid
WELLS FARGO: Award of Attorney's Fees in Shareholder Suit Upheld

WORLDWIDE INSURANCE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Siegel Suit Over Privacy Violations

                            *********

ACCELLION INC: Pollard Sues Over Exposure of Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Pollard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACCELLION, INC., and FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC. d/b/a
FLAGSTAR BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-02572-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 8,
2021), is brought to seek appropriate monetary relief, including
actual damages, statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution,
disgorgement, attorney's fees, statutory costs, and such other and
further relief as is just and proper as a result of the exposure of
the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII").

On December 2020, Accellion's electronic information systems were
compromised, exposing customers' PII, including names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers and/or
state identification numbers, bank account information, and
employment information to third parties.

On December 16, 2020, Accellion learned that unauthorized third
parties were able to get control over the FTA device and obtain
information, including PII from the devices. On January 12, 2021,
almost a full month after learning of the breach, Accellion
announced that unauthorized individuals had gained access to its
legacy file transfer software.

The Plaintiff and other Class members have, and will continue to be
injured, by the exposure of their PII. Attackers have been able to
decrypt and download all files on the FTA device, and the stolen
files are available for purchase on the dark web. This PII can be
used to open unauthorized financial accounts in the Class members'
names and obtain government benefits on behalf of Class members,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in Missouri.

Accellion is a cloud computing company that offers a product called
"File Transfer Appliance ("FTA"), a physical device that companies
use in their server rooms that allows users to share secure,
encrypted files that are too large to send via email.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: kwolke@glancylaw.com
                 mgodino@glancylaw.com
                 jrotter@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARY JANE FAIT, PLLC
          13820 Emerson Street
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
          Phone: (847) 922-6729
          Email: mjf@faitlawoffices.com


ALL-CLAD: Mears Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Justin Mears, Jean Greeff, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. All-Clad
Metalcrafters, LLC, Groupe Seb, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02662, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on April 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00505 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC -- https://www.all-clad.com/ -- is a
U.S. manufacturer of cookware with headquarters in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          16748 McCormick St
          Encino, CA 91436-1020
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Douglas Maynard, Jr., Esq.
          MAYNARD AND HARRIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          514 S. Stratford Road, Suite 321
          Winston Salem, NC 27103
          Phone: (336) 777-1411
          Fax: (336) 777-8882
          Email: dmaynard@maynardharris.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Martha A Geer
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP - NC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5003
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: dan@whitfieldbyrson.com
                 harper@wbmllp.com
                 martha@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          550 Broad Street Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 273-9800
          Fax: (973) 273-9430
          Email: christopher.dalton@bipc.com

               - and -

          Melissa J. Bayly, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          550 Broad Street, suiote 810
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 273-9800
          Fax: (973) 273-9430
          Email: melissa.bayly@bipc.com

               - and -

          Pamela Madeliene Ferguson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 362-2580
          Fax: (415) 434-0882
          Email: pamela.ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com


ALLIED ACCOUNT: Leidner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Pinkus Leidner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Allied Account Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-01905-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).

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

Allied Account Services Inc. --
https://alliedaccountservicesinc.com/facsweb/weblogind.htm -- is a
debt collection agency located in Bellmore, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTA MESA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Camelot Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMELOT EVENT DRIVEN FUND, A SERIES OF FRANK FUNDS
TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC., fka SILVER
RUN ACQUISITION CORPORATION II, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 4:19-CV-957 (S.D. Tex.), Judge George C. Hanks, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The case is a consolidated securities class action arising out of
the financial collapse of Alta Mesa, which culminated in not only
the lawsuit but a bankruptcy proceeding and an ongoing
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Plaintiffs are: FNY Partners Fund LP; FNY Managed Accounts, LLC;
Paul J. Burbach; Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund;
and Camelot Event Driven Fund, a series of Frank Funds Trust.  The
Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint
alleging claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Alta Mesa was a company that was created by a "blank check" merger,
also known as a "special purpose acquisition company" merger or a
"SPAC" merger.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions prior to
and following" the merger regarding the value and financial health
of the acquired companies and of Alta Mesa.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) on
behalf of themselves and other Alta Mesa shareholders who were
entitled to vote on the merger.  They have detailed numerous
statements by various Defendants from SEC filings, press releases,
conferences, and earnings calls.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) on
behalf of themselves and other Alta Mesa shareholders who acquired
Alta Mesa securities during the period from Aug. 16, 2017 to May
17, 2019, inclusive.

The Plaintiffs have sued 18 Defendants.  Twelve of those Defendants
were Alta Mesa executives or board members, and two of the
Defendants were executives at the special purpose acquisition
company that became Alta Mesa; the remaining four Defendants are
related "control entities."  The Defendants have, between them,
filed eight motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' live complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Hanks opines that the Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient
to show that the Defendants who signed the March 29, 2018 10-K
acted with the requisite severe recklessness under Section 10(b).
The same circumstances also satisfy the pleading standard for
claims related to the Proxy under Section 14(a); those claims are
brought against Hackett, Gutermuth, Tepper, Walters, and
Riverstone, who according to the Plaintiffs "participated in the
preparation, review and dissemination" of the Proxy.

Judge Hanks also opines that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient
facts to establish a claim under Section 20(a).  Having considered
the Plaintiffs' allegations, the judicially noticeable SEC filings,
and the applicable law, the Judge cannot conclude that the lawsuit
is an impermissible "strike suit."  He cannot opine at this point
whether the Plaintiffs' claims will survive a motion for summary
judgment, but the Plaintiffs have established an entitlement to
discovery.

For these reasons, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.
Discovery in the case may proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ra5ktaa from
Leagle.com.


ANDI VALENTINO: Valencia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Valencia, individually and CIVIL ACTION NO.: on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ANDI VALENTINO INVESTMENTS, INC and
GILMER ALFARO, Case No. 3:21-cv-00180 (W.D.N.C., April 21, 2021),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.

The Plaintiff's hours varied from week to week during his
employment with the Defendants, but he regularly worked more than
40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was not paid an overtime
premium for the 26 hours he worked over 40 in the workweek.
Likewise, for the workweek ending December 16, 2020, the Plaintiff
worked 68.9 hours was paid his straight time rate of $10 per hour
for all hours worked, for a total gross pay of $689. The Plaintiff
was not paid an overtime premium for the 28.9 hours worked over 40
in the workweek. The Defendants misclassified all their hourly
workers as exempt from overtime in violation of the FLSA and NCWHA
and did not pay them overtime as required, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' "Pollo Campero" restaurants
and was paid on an hourly basis.

The Defendants own and operate two or more "Pollo Campero"
restaurants in Charlotte North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Phone: 336-333-9899
          Facsimile: 336-333-9894
          Email: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com


APPLE INC: Rutter Files Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled as William Rutter, Cindy Rutter, Connie Tabas, Jacqueline
Tabas, Kasra Eliasieh, Natasha Garamani, Robert Barker, Tristan
Young, and all other similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No.
21CV380480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., April 21, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort/Unfair Bus Prac
Unlimited."

Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/sitemap/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics,
computer software, and online services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
          HERCHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL, APC
          3080 Washington St.
          San Francisco, CA 94115-1618
          Phone: (415) 317-7756
          Email: david@hrw-law.com


ARCADE BELTS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcade Belts Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Arcade Belts Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03461
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Arcade Belts Inc. -- https://arcadebelts.com/ -- is a designer and
seller of functional belts. The company designs different types of
belts suitable to formals, casuals and adventure sports wear for
both men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARSTRAT LLC: Schultz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Lisa M. Schultz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02213 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021).

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

ARstrat -- https://arstrat.com/ -- provides pre-litigation and
account litigation services for successful resolutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Makkinje Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Amber Makkinje, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Athenahealth, Inc., Case No.
2021-CA-00898 was removed from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit,
Manatee County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on April 9, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00861-MSS-TGW to
the proceeding.

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

Athenahealth -- https://www.athenahealth.com/ -- is a private
American company that provides network-enabled services for
healthcare and point-of-care mobile apps in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -


          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brandon T. White, Esq.
          Jessica Sarah Kramer, Esq.
          Jason H. Baruch, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 374-8500
          Fax: (305) 789-7799
          Email: brandon.white@hklaw.com
                 jessica.kramer@hklaw.com
                 jason.baruch@hklaw.com


ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Singh Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Omerjit Singh, on behalf of
himself or herself and all other similarly situated consumers v.
Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01939-LDH-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).

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

Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC --
https://www.atlanticrecoverysolutions.com/ -- is a nationally
licensed, insured, bonded debt recovery agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          237 Club Dr
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (718) 855-3834
          Fax: (718) 534-0057
          Email: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Colamarino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balanced Healthcare
Receivables, LLC. The case is styled as Teresa Colamarino,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Balanced Healthcare Receivables, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02214
(E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021).

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

Balanced Healthcare Receivables also known as BHR --
https://www.bhrllc.com/ -- is a third-party healthcare specific
professional 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: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Smith Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America,
N.A., et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Smith, Alex Yuan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank
of America, N.A., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-03385 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

The Bank of America -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is an
American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON AND WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Fax: (818) 788-8104
          Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Dahlgren Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Healthcare LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Darlene Dahlgren, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Elanco
Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03109-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 9,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Bayer Healthcare LLC -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- discovers and
manufactures healthcare and medical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Rafael Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          16748 McCormick St
          Encino, CA 91436-1020
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com


BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Flips Order Remanding Rascon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LUIS RASCON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BENCHMARK
ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and DOES, 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendant. LUIS RASCON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BENCHMARK
ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 20-55810,
21-55210 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reverses the remand order.

Benchmark appeals from the district court's order remanding the
removed case to state court.

The district court remanded the case based on its belief that
Benchmark's removal notice was untimely and, thus, "procedurally
defective." The Ninth Circuit holds that district courts may not
remand sua sponte for procedural defects, citing Corona-Contreras
v. Gruel, 857 F.3d 1025, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2017); Kelton Arms
Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190,
1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003).

Instead, the Ninth Circuit explains, the Plaintiff must file a
motion to remand before a case may be remanded to state court
because of procedural deficiencies in the removal notice. Because
Luis Rascon never moved to remand, the district court lacked
authority to remand the case based on the supposed untimeliness of
Benchmark's removal notice, the Ninth Circuit holds.

The district court also erred in concluding that Benchmark's
removal notice was untimely, according to the Ninth Circuit's
Memorandum. When a defendant discovers through its own
investigation facts showing that a case is removable under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the defendant may seek removal
"at any time," so long as neither of the 30-day windows under 28
U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1) or (3) has been triggered. Neither of
those windows was triggered in the case, since no pleading or
"amended pleading, motion, order or other paper" revealed on its
face that there was diversity of citizenship or an amount in
controversy sufficient to confer subject-matter jurisdiction under
CAFA. 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1), (3).

Therefore, Benchmark was free to seek removal outside of the 30-day
windows. And, because Benchmark removed this case under CAFA, its
removal notice was timely even though it was filed more than one
year after Rascon filed the complaint.

Reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated April 15, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yhrtbx3k from Leagle.com.


BETTERIDGE JEWELERS: S.D. New York Dismisses Angeles Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the dismissal of the case,
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETTERIDGE JEWELERS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20 CV 8130-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.).

The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled.  Accordingly, it
is ordered that the action is dismissed with prejudice as to the
named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other Plaintiffs
and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to
restoration of the action to the calendar of the undersigned if
settlement is not achieved within 60 days of the date of the
Order.

If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within
which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application
before the 60-day period expires.

The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Order of Dismissal
is available at https://tinyurl.com/whhup2z6 from Leagle.com


BLACK KNIGHT: Fredericks FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Victor J. Fredericks, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated individuals v. Black Knight Security,
Inc., General Information Solutions, LLC, Case No. GD-21-01532 was
removed from the Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for
Western District of Pennsylvania on April 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-RJC to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Black Knight Security -- https://www.blackknightsecurity.com/ --
provides protection, safety and education for tenants, visitors,
and workers with a strict focus on preparedness, which is the key
to not only feeling safe, but actually being safer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 327-3016
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: ( (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marla N. Presley, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          Liberty Center
          1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 338-5148
          Fax: (412) 232-3441
          Email: marla.presley@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Connelly, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          501 Grant Street, Suite 300
          Union Trust Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 454-5025
          Email: michael.connelly@troutman.com


BLUE CROSS: Brent S. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT S. and ANGIE S.,
J.B., R.B., A.F., C.S. and H.S., individually and as
representatives of the class of similarly situated individuals, v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., and BLUE CROSS
AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, HMO BLUE INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-11569-ADB (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule
23(b)
      (1)(A), Rule 23(b)(1)(B), and Rule 23(b)(2);

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Sean K. Collins, Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Mala M.
      Rafik, Brian S. King, and Ex Kano S. Sams II as class
     counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gAKABq
at no extra charge.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is a state licensed
nonprofit private health insurance company under the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association with headquarters in Boston.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (855) 693-9256
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 357-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com

               - and -

          Mala M. Rafik, Esq.
          ROSENFELD & RAFIK, P.C.
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 723-7470
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: mmr@rosenfeld.com

               - and -

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          336 South 300 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
          E-mail brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Ex Kano S. Sams II (PHV), Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com

BOONE COUNTY INDEPENDENT: Farmer Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boone County
Independent Living, Inc. The case is styled as Misty Farmer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Boone County Independent Living, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03027-TLB
(W.D. Ark., April 21, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Boone County Independent Living -- https://www.i-living.org/ -- are
community-based, cross-disability, non-profit organizations that
are designed and operated by people with disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BRINKER INT'L: Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd in Data Incident Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy
J. Corrigan entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant Brinker's Motion to Exclude Expert
      Opinions and Testimony of Daniel J. Korczyk;

   2. granting in part and deferring in part the Plaintiffs' Motion

      for Class Certification;

      a. The Court certifies the following class for Plaintiffs'
         negligence claim only:

         "All persons residing in the United States who made a
         credit or debit card purchase at any affected Chili's
         location during the period of the Data Breach (March and
         April 2018) who: (1) had their data accessed by
         cybercriminals and, (2) incurred reasonable expenses or
         time spent in mitigation of the consequences of the Data
         Breach (the "Nationwide Class").

      b. The Court certifies the following class for all the
         California state Unfair Competition Law claims:

         "All persons residing in California who made a credit or
         debit card purchase at any affected Chili's location
         during the period of the Data Breach (March and April
         2018) who: (1) had their data accessed by cybercriminals
         and, (2) incurred reasonable expenses or time spent in
         mitigation of the consequences of the Data Breach (the
         "California Statewide Class").

      c. The Court defers ruling on class certification with
         respect to the Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract
         claim.

      d. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Shenika
         Theus, Michael Franklin, and Eric Steinmetz as Class
         Representatives, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint
         Federman & Sherwood, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation
         Group, and LippSmith LLP as Class Counsel.

   3. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue a Nationwide Class claim on
      their breach of implied contract theory, directing the
      Plaintiffs to file a trial plan no later than May 21, 2021;

      -- The trial plan should provide: (1) an extensive analysis
         of the commonalities and differences among state breach of

         implied contract laws; (2) a proposed method of grouping
         the laws so that the Court may apply the state laws
         effectively and efficiently if needed; and (3) an analysis

         of any other trial management issues associated with
         Plaintiffs’ breach of implied contract claim.

   4. No later than June 21, 2021, directing Brinker to file a
      response to the Plaintiffs' trial plan; and

   5. denying as moot Brinker's Motion to Strike.

Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant chains. Wikipedia

A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vfmi3Q at no extra charge.[CC]

BRINKER INT'L: M.D. Florida Certifies 2 Classes in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No.
3:18-cv-686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division:

    (i) denied Defendant Brinker's Motion to Exclude Expert
        Opinions and Testimony of Daniel J. Korczyk; and

   (ii) granted in part and deferred in part the Plaintiffs'
        Motion for Class Certification.

The data breach class action is again before the Court, this time
in the context of a motion for class certification and a related
motion to exclude expert opinions and testimony.  Three Named
Plaintiffs bring the class action after their payment card and
personal information was stolen from Brinker by hackers.

Brinker, the parent company that owns Chili's restaurants,
experienced a data breach where customers' personal and payment
card information was stolen.  Three Named Plaintiffs, Shenika
Theus, Michael Franklin, and Eric Steinmetz, seek to represent
themselves and those similarly situated in a class action against
Brinker.  The Plaintiffs seek compensation for the inability to use
payment cards, lost time, and other out-of-pocket expenses
associated with the breach.

In December 2017, hackers breached Brinker's back office systems
through a vulnerable access point earlier identified in an informal
risk assessment conducted by Brinker.  In March 2018, using the
previously breached access point, hackers placed malware on
Brinker's systems.  Between March 2018 and April 2018, hackers
stole both customer payment card data and personally identifiable
information.

Different Chili's restaurants were affected at different times.  In
May 2018, Brinker was notified that "card data had been leaked from
their corporate-owned Chili's restaurants and sold on Joker Stash,
a known marketplace for stolen payment card data."  The Plaintiffs
represent that all of the up to 4.5 million cards stolen from
Brinker were found on Joker Stash.

The Plaintiffs filed suit on May 24, 2018, after which the Court
consolidated two related cases on Oct. 30, 2018.  They filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which Brinker
moved to dismiss.  The Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Brinker's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, and Brinker moved
to dismiss the new claims and the Plaintiffs' requests for
injunctive relief.  The Court dismissed the new claims and again
affirmed that the Plaintiffs had standing but held that any future
injuries were too speculative; thus, it dismissed any requests for
injunctive relief.  The surviving claims include (1) breach of
implied contract, (2) negligence, (3) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") Unlawful Business Practices (for
alleged violations of the FTC Act and California Civil Code Section
1798.81.5), and (4) violation of California's UCL Unfair Business
Practices.

The case is now before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and Brinker's Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions
and Testimony of Daniel J. Korczyk.  On Feb. 25, 2021, the Court
held a hearing on the motions.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: (1) a Nationwide Class
for the breach of implied contract and negligence claims and (2) a
California Statewide Class for the California consumer protection
claims.

The Plaintiffs' proposed classes are:

   a. Nationwide Class: All persons residing in the United States
      who made a credit or debit card purchase at any affected
      Chili's location during the period of the Data Breach; and

   b. California Statewide Class: All persons residing in
      California who made a credit or debit card purchase at any
      affected Chili's location during the period of the Data
      Breach.

The Plaintiffs' expert, Korczyk, is offered to show that a common
method of calculating the class members' damages exists for
purposes of predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).  Brinker argues Korczyk has no expertise in this area
because he has only worked on data breach cases involving financial
institution plaintiffs.

Though the class action is not perfectly composed, on balance,
Judge Corrigan finds it to be an appropriate (and perhaps the only)
vehicle for adjudication of the claims of Chili's customers whose
personal data was stolen.  He acknowledges it may be the first to
certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class involving individual consumers
complaining of a data breach involving payment cards, but it is
also one of the first to consider the issue as many individual data
breach cases do not reach this point either due to settlement or
other disposition.  The Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the
requirements of Rule 23.

Accordingly, Judge Corrigan denied Defendant Brinker's Motion to
Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony of Daniel J. Korczyk.  He
granted in part and deferred in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

The Judge certified the following Nationwide Class for the
Plaintiffs' negligence claim only: "All persons residing in the
United States who made a credit or debit card purchase at any
affected Chili's location during the period of the Data Breach
(March and April 2018) who: (1) had their data accessed by
cybercriminals and, (2) incurred reasonable expenses or time spent
in mitigation of the consequences of the Data Breach."

The Judge also certified the following California Statewide Class
for all the California state Unfair Competition Law claims: "All
persons residing in California who made a credit or debit card
purchase at any affected Chili's location during the period of the
Data Breach (March and April 2018) who: (1) had their data accessed
by cybercriminals and, (2) incurred reasonable expenses or time
spent in mitigation of the consequences of the Data Breach."

The Judge deferred ruling on class certification with respect to
the Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract claim.

The Judge the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Shenika Theus, Michael
Franklin, and Eric Steinmetz as the Class Representatives, and
their Motion to Appoint Federman & Sherwood, Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, and LippSmith LLP as the Class Counsel.

If the Plaintiffs wish to pursue a Nationwide Class claim on their
breach of implied contract theory, they will file a trial plan no
later than May 21, 2021.  The trial plan should provide: (1) an
extensive analysis of the commonalities and differences among state
breach of implied contract laws; (2) a proposed method of grouping
the laws so that the Court may apply the state laws effectively and
efficiently if needed; and (3) an analysis of any other trial
management issues associated with the Plaintiffs' breach of implied
contract claim.

No later than June 21, 2021, Brinker may file a response to the
Plaintiffs' trial plan.

The Judge denied as moot Brinker's Motion to Strike Late-Filed
Exhibits.

No later than June 21, 2021, the parties will jointly file a Case
Management Report detailing how the Court should proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y253tvpu from Leagle.com.


BURKETT RESTAURANT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burkett Restaurant
Equipment. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Burkett Restaurant Equipment,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03470 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Burkett Restaurant Equipment and Supplies --
https://www.burkett.com/ -- is a leading national wholesale
supplier to the foodservice industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Concepcion v. CDCR Endorsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHELLE (aka MYCHAL) CONCEPCION, Plaintiff
v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-NONE-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommends that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.

The action stems from the denial of the Plaintiff's request for sex
reassignment surgery ("SRS") by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The Plaintiff's operative
claims are (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Diaz in his
official capacity as secretary of CDCR, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, (2) denial of equal protection of the law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Diaz in his
official capacity, pursuant to section 1983, and (3) violation of
the antidiscrimination provision of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act ("ACA") against Defendants CDCR and California
Correctional Health Care Services ("CCHCS").

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
(a) the Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against
Defendant Diaz in his official capacity, (b) the Plaintiff fails to
state a cognizable claim under the ACA, (c) the Plaintiff's
constitutional and ACA claims are moot, (d) the Plaintiff's request
for injunctive relief is barred by the class action of Plata, et
al. v. Newsom, et al., No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST (N.D. Cal.), and (e)
CDCR and CCHS are immune from suit.

In their reply to the Plaintiff's opposition, the Defendants raised
for the first time the "question of whether the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief." The Court requested supplemental briefing on the matter,
which the parties have now provided.

Judicial Notice

The Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the
following records: (1) a memorandum issued on October 3, 2016, by
the Headquarters Utilization Management Committee ("HUMC")
regarding Plaintiff's request for SRS; (2) a memorandum issued on
September 8, 2016, by the Sex Reassignment Surgery Review Committee
("SRSRC") regarding the Plaintiff's request for SRS; (3) an
institutional evaluation of the Plaintiff's request for SRS; (4)
the Supplement to CCHCS/DHCS Care Guide: Gender
Dysphoria--Guidelines for Review of Requests for Sex Reassignment
Surgery, issued in May of 2016; (5) the Supplement to CCHCS/DHCS
Care Guide: Gender Dysphoria--Guidelines for Review of Requests for
Gender Affirming Surgery, issued in December of 2018; (6) the First
Amended Complaint in Plata, filed on August 20, 2001; (7) the
Stipulation for Injunctive Relief in Plata, filed on June 13, 2002;
(8) the Order Appointing Receiver in Plata, filed on February 14,
2006; and (9) the Thirty-first Tri-Annual Report of the Federal
Receiver in Plata, filed on February 1, 2016.

The Plaintiff does not object to the request for judicial notice of
the CCHCS/DHCS guidelines or the Plata filings. The Court,
therefore, takes judicial notice of these records pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The Plaintiff objects to the request
for judicial notice of the HUMC memo, the SRSRC memo, and the
institutional evaluation of his request for SRS. He contends that
the "Defendants improperly seek judicial notice of these three
documents containing disputed facts in an improper effort to
present their own version of facts at the pleading stage." The
Court agrees that taking judicial notice of the facts that
Defendants seek to establish would be inappropriate.

Judge Thurston holds that the facts that the Defendants seek to
establish by reference to the HUMC memo, the SRSRC memo, and the
institutional evaluation are subject to reasonable dispute, and
they are strongly disputed in the present case. They are not facts
"that only an unreasonable person would insist on disputing," such
as a date in a calendar, a location on a map, or, as in Brown, a
policy in an agency manual, citing Walker, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 1022;
Brown, 422 F.3d at 933 n.7. Because the Defendants request judicial
notice of the HUMC memo, the SRSRC memo, and the institutional
evaluation for the purpose of establishing reasonably disputed
facts, the Court denies the request.

Incorporation by Reference

The Defendants also argue that the Court may consider the HUMC and
SRSRC memos and the institutional evaluation under the
incorporation-by-reference doctrine.

The Court does not find that incorporation of the HUMC memo, the
SRSRC memo, or the institutional evaluation is proper. First, the
Plaintiff does not refer to these documents "extensively." He
refers to the HUMC memo only once, quoting two sentences, and he
mentions the institutional evaluation only once. Second, the
Plaintiff's claims do not "necessarily depend" or rely on these
documents. His claims concern whether prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to his gender dysphoria, denied him equal
protection, and violated the ACA when they refused his request for
SRS.

Even if the Court were to consider the disputed documents, it could
not assume the truth of every statement therein without improperly
resolving factual disputes at the pleading stage. The Court,
therefore, declines to consider the HUMC and SRSRC memos and the
institutional evaluation in reviewing the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiff's Medical Treatment

The Plaintiff is a transgender man and suffers from gender
dysphoria. Since 2014, CDCR has provided him with hormone
replacement therapy in the form of testosterone injections to treat
his gender dysphoria. The therapy has caused serious side effects
that have aggravated his condition. These side effects have caused
the Plaintiff severe distress because his breast size and
menstruation are characteristics and bodily processes that do not
conform to his gender identify. Furthermore, "Plaintiff's
endocrinologist has opined that the testosterone may be converting
to estradiol, which is 'concerning.'"

For these reasons and others, according to the Plaintiff, "SRS is
medically necessary to treat his gender dysphoria." SRS is "widely
accepted as a necessary treatment for severe cases of gender
dysphoria, including by the state Medicaid program, the federal
Medicare program," and the World Professional Association for
Transgender Health (WPATH).

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

In their motion to dismiss, including their supplemental brief, the
Defendants argue that (1) the Plaintiff's claims are moot, (2) the
Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable official-capacity claim
against Defendant Diaz for either deliberate indifference or denial
of equal protection, (3) the Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable
claim under the ACA, (4) CDCR and CCHS are immune from suit, and
(5) the Plaintiff's request for systemic injunctive relief is
barred by the class action of Plata, et al. v. Newsom, et al., No.
4:01-cv-01351-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that dismissal is not warranted on any of these
grounds. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief has not become moot for the simple fact that his requested
relief has not been provided. Judge Thurston opines that nothing
before the Court indicates that he has received such surgery, or
that all necessary surgical procedures have been approved.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendants have not met their
"heavy" burden of showing that no effective relief remains.

In its screening order, the Court found that the Plaintiff states a
cognizable claim of deliberate indifference.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state
a cognizable official-capacity claim because CDCR's SRS policy was
not "a moving force behind any Eighth Amendment violation." The
Defendants' argument is based on factual assertions they glean from
the HUMC memo, the SRSRC memo, and the institutional evaluation.

Given that the Court has declined to consider these documents at
the pleading stage, the Defendants' argument fails, Judge Thurston
holds. The Plaintiff provides ample factual allegations in his
complaint to show that state regulations and CDCR policies were
moving forces behind the constitutional violations he allegedly
suffered. The Plaintiff also alleges that the voting members of the
SRSRC are not required to be competent in the diagnosis or
treatment of gender dysphoria." Judge Thurston holds that these
allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable official-capacity
claim.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a
cognizable equal protection claim because "a transgender man
seeking sex-reassignment surgery is not similarly situated to a
cisgender female inmate who is not being treated for gender
dysphoria and is requesting the same surgeries for other medical
conditions."

As an initial matter, Judge Thurston opines, the Plaintiff does not
contend that transgender inmates' requests for SRS require
identical medical determinations as cisgender inmates' requests for
the same surgeries. Rather, he contends that state policies require
officials to consider non-medical factors in reviewing transgender
inmates' requests for SRS, and to disregard the medical opinions of
their treating physicians or psychologists, while not requiring the
same for cisgender inmates' requests for similar surgical
procedures.

Judge Thurston adds, among other things, that a finding that
transgender men requesting SRS "must undergo a different medical
evaluation" than cisgender women seeking similar procedures would
require factual determinations that the Court is not prepared to
make at the pleading stage. Though the Court is not aware of
another case in this circuit that has specifically addressed the
issue of whether the groups are similarly situated, courts in this
circuit have repeatedly held that inmates suffering gender
dysphoria can state cognizable equal protection claims based on the
denial of SRS.

As described, the Plaintiff alleges that specific CDCR/CCHCS
policies and state regulations impose more burdensome requirements
on transgender inmates seeking SRS than on cisgender inmates
seeking similar surgeries. The Court finds that these allegations
state an equal protection claim that is plausible on its face.

Judge Thurston also holds, among other things, that the Plaintiff
states a cognizable claim of discrimination under the Affordable
Care Act.

Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to recommend dismissal
of the Plaintiff's claim for systemic relief at the pleading stage.
The Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the
Plaintiff's allegations and requested relief are duplicative of
Plata.

The Court does not, however, decide the matter conclusively. To
ensure that it avoids concurrent litigation and potentially
inconsistent results, the Court may revisit the matter if
appropriate and with a fuller record. Here, the Court only finds
that, based on the materials currently under its consideration,
i.e., the pleadings and the documents that it has judicially
noticed, the Plaintiff's claim for systemic relief appears to go
beyond the allegations and relief sought in Plata.

Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons set forth, the Court recommends that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied. These Findings and
Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1). Within 21 days of the date of service of these
Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned,
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated
April 15, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywdmzvha from
Leagle.com.


CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Seeks Final OK of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY JEAN JOHNSTON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CAMINO
NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02742-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Class Representative
Betty Jean Johnston asks the Court to enter an order for final
approval of the:

   1. proposed class action Settlement;

   2. Notice campaign; and

   3. proposed Initial Plan of Allocation

On November 30, 2020, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the set-tlement, approving the form of notice, and
setting a date of May 12, 2021, for the Final Fairness Hearing. The
Court also approved the Notices of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, one form for mailing and one for publication. The Court
ordered that Notice be given to the Class members in accordance
with the Plan of Notice, as outlined in the SA, and found that the
Notices being provided are "the best notice practicable under the
circumstances."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nhimN6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770

CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Lindsay Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD C. LINDSAY and
CARL E.W. ZEHNER, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and
HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. d/b/a HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00982-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class comprised of:

      "All persons in the United States, who sailed as passengers
      on the MS ZAANDAM cruise that departed from Buenos Aires,
      Argentina, on March 8, 2020;"

   2. appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class representatives;
and

   3. appointing the undersigned counsel as Class counsel.

This case arises from the common experience of more than 1,000
passengers aboard the MS Zaandam who were exposed to COVID-19
because of the Defendants' uniform misconduct.

The Plaintiffs' claims -- and the claims in the other five cases
filed in this District involving the same voyage -- turn on common
factual and legal questions concerning this experience and the
Defendants' conduct that created it, including whether the
Defendants had a duty to protect passengers against COVID-19
exposure; whether they breached that duty; whether their actions
constituted extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to establish
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to ensure the
Defendants implement reasonable safety measures to protect future
passengers, including Plaintiffs, from COVID-19.

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

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Telephone: 206.682.5600
          Facsimile: 206.682.2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
          Christopher E. Coleman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
                  kbyrd@lchb.com
                  ccoleman@lchb.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

CARRIER GLOBAL: Faces Onn Suit Over Defective Fire Extinguishers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ONN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION and WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE
EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-02188 (N.D. Calif., March 29,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for the manufacture
and sale of over 40 million plastic handle fire extinguishers and
push-button Pindicator fire extinguishers, all of which suffered
from the following defect in design: nozzles frequently becoming
detached, becoming clogged, or requiring excessive force to
discharge causing a failure to activate during a fire emergency.

According to the complaint, a fire extinguisher that fails to
function properly during an emergency poses a threat to the life,
safety, and property of the user and those in their immediate
surroundings. This Defect rendered the Products unsuitable for
their principal and intended purpose.

The Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated purchasers of
the Products for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) fraud;
unjust enrichment; breach of implied warranty; and (violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff Onn is and has been, a resident of Saratoga,
California. In autumn of 2017, the Plaintiff purchased two Kidde
model 10BC fire extinguishers with plastic handles for about $40.00
each from The Home Depot located in Cupertino, California.

The Defendant Carrier is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 13995 Pasteur Boulevard in Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida. In 2020, Carrier Global, parent to over 80 brands
across three sectors, including HVAC, refrigeration, and fire and
security, generated $17.5 billion in net sales, and employed
roughly 56,000 employees. The Defendant Walter Kidde Portable
Equipment, Inc. is one of Defendant Carrier Global’s brands. The
Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the Products
throughout the United States. The Defendant sells the Products on
its website and through third-party retailers such as Walmart, The
Home Depot, and Amazon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Blair E. Reed, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  breed@bursor.com
                  slitteral@bursor.com

CELLULAR SALES: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Holick FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cellular Sales of New York, LLC and Cellular Sales of
Knoxville, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-584, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York (Albany).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the named
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York State Labor Law against Cellular Sales of New York,
LLC and Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., asserting claims for
alleged violations of minimum wage and overtime requirements. The
Plaintiffs further allege NYLL violations related to the
Defendants': (1) failure to pay for compensable work; (2) unlawful
wage deductions; and (3) failure to timely pay wages.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their alleged employment
relationship with the Defendants prior to January 2012.
Essentially, they claim that the Defendants misclassified them as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees" as defined by the
FLSA and NYLL, thus depriving them of employee benefits required by
law.

The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and
Order dated March 15, 2021, holding that Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorney's fees is granted in part and denied in part and that
Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $576,870.30 in attorney's fees;
that Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs is granted in part and denied in
part and Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $14,227.63 in costs;
that Plaintiffs' Motion for post-judgment interest is granted; and
from the Court's Judgment dated May 29, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Holick v. Cellular Sales of New
York, LLC, Case No. 21-948, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on April 15, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Cellular Sales of New York, LLC and Cellular
Sales of Knoxville, Inc. are represented by:

          Charles Larry Carbo, III, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY
          1200 Smith Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 658-1818
          E-mail: Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jan P. Holick, Jr., Steven Moffitt, Justin
Moffitt, Gurwinder Singh, Jason Mack, Timothy M. Pratt, and William
Burrell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Ronald G. Dunn, Esq.
          GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 432-7511
          E-mail: rdunn@gdwo.net

CEREBELLY INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerebelly Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cerebelly Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03467
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Cerebelly -- https://cerebelly.com/ -- provides baby food intended
to promote healthy brain development in children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEFS' TOYS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chefs' Toys, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Chefs' Toys, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03469
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Chefs' Toys -- https://chefstoys.com/ -- provides food industry
trusted restaurant supplies and commercial kitchen equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHURCH FOR THE HEALTHY SELF: Pham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Church For The
Healthy Self, et al. The case is styled as Trinh Ngoc Pham, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Church For The
Healthy Self, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00298291-CU-FR-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 8, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Fraud."

The Church for the Healthy Self's investment program, CHS Trust,
promised investors tax-deductible, guaranteed, and insured returns
of at least 12%, through reinsurance investments and options
trading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. REDMOND, PC
          656 5th Ave., Ste. R.
          San Diego, CA 92101-6867
          Phone: (916) 444-8240
          Fax: (866) 476-9393
          Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com
          Website: www.markredmondlaw.com


CITIZENS DISABILITY: Thrower TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENE THROWER and ABANTE
ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CITIZENS DISABILITY, LLC, a Massachusetts
limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-10285-GAO (D. Mass.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of:

   "All persons in the United States who (1) received a text
   message call or telephone call by or on behalf of Defendant, (2)

   on his, her, or its cellular telephone, (3) from the last four
   years through the date notice is sent to the Class, (4) for the

   same purpose as Defendant (or its agent) placed the text message

   or telephone call to Plaintiffs, (5) using the same equipment
   that was used to call or text the Plaintiffs, and (6) for who
   the Defendant claims it obtained express consent to place the
   text message or telephone call in the same manner that Defendant

   contends it obtained express consent to call or text
   Plaintiffs."

Citizens is a company that offers services to assist disabled
persons in applying for Social Security Disability benefits in
exchange for a percentage of those benefits. In its zeal to gain an
advantage in this competitive space, Citizens turns to
telemarketing. Unfortunately, as the Plaintiffs allege, such
telemarketing efforts violate the  Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

This lawsuit challenges telemarketing phone calls and text messages
that Citizens placed to Plaintiffs. In Thrower's case, on March 13,
2019, Thrower received an unsolicited telemarketing call from the
number 339-209-1397. When Thrower answered the March 13, 2019 call,
Thrower said "Hello" and heard and pause and then a subsequent
click indicating that a live person was joining the line. This is a
telltale sign of an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS). Once
the live operator joined the call, she provided Thrower with a call
back number of 877-977-3443—this number, on information and
belief, is owned, operated, and/or controlled by the Defendant.

Thrower was then transferred to a second operator, who provided him
with the website of citzensdisability.com if he wished to learn
more. This website is owned, operated, and/or controlled by the
Defendant.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          J. Steven Foley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF J. STEVEN FOLEY
          100 Pleasant Street No. 100
          Worcester, MA 01609
          Telephone: (508) 754-1042
          Facsimile: (508) 739-4051

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Stephen A. Klein*
          Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  sklein@woodrowpeluso.com

CONTAINER STORE: Neal Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Samantha Neal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Case No.
CACE-21-004409 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 21, 2021, and assigned Case No.
0:21-cv-60853-XXXX.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the State Court
Action on March 2, 2021 alleging a single cause of action under the
Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.01,
et seq. ("FSCA"). The Plaintiff claims that her interactions with
TCS's own website are "communications" under the FSCA, and TCS's
alleged commercial use of the data derived from those interactions
through TCS's "use of tracking, recording, and/or 'session replay'
software," without her consent, violates her right to privacy under
the FSCA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Email: seth@epll.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allan R. Kelley, Esq.
          FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A.
          Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor
          1395 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Phone: (305) 789-9200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-9201
          Email: akelley@fowler-white.com


DIAMOND CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repossession Notice, Says Lundy  
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE LUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
210401154 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., April 15, 2021) is
a consumer class action brought against the Defendant, an
automobile lender, to redress systemic violations of Pennsylvania's
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
consumers with proper notice when repossessing and reselling a
financed vehicle as required by UCC for secured parties who utilize
self-help repossession. Because self-help repossession is conducted
without judicial authorization or oversight, the UCC requires a
secured creditor like Defendant to adhere strictly to the Code's
notice requirements, the suit adds.

Diamond Credit Union is a Pennsylvania-chartered credit union which
provides services and exclusive packages to its members and
employer partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com
                  jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com

DIAMOND SELECT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Select Toys &
Collectibles LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Diamond Select Toys &
Collectibles LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03463 (S.D.N.Y., April 20,
2021).

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

Diamond Select Toys -- https://www.diamondselecttoys.com/ -- was
founded in 1999 by sister company Diamond Comics Distributors to
create collectibles for adult collectors, and has since licensed a
variety of pop culture properties, including Marvel Comics, Star
Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, Ghostbusters, Halo, G.I.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES H. AND ISRAEL F.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00997-CJN (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the plaintiff class pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure Rule 23 and Local Civil Rule 23.1(b);

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

      Concerning Education for Students with Disabilities at the DC

      Jail complex;

   3. directing the defendants to immediately develop and implement

      adequate and effective policies and procedures to provide
      plaintiffs special education instruction and related
      services, including an extension of IDEA eligibility
      commensurate with the period over which defendants denied
      FAPE;

   4. directing the defendants, within 15 days of the issuance of
      this Order, to provide plaintiffs special education and
      related services in conformity with their Individualized
      Education Programs through the provision of direct
      instruction, via in-person and/or live videoconference
      classes or sessions;

   5. directing the defendants, within 15 days of the issuance of
      this Order, to convene IEP meetings for plaintiffs to discuss

      and identify all special education and related services
      missed since March 24, 2021, determine what services are
      needed and how they should be provided, and Plaintiffs,
      provide those services consistent with OSSE's March 2021
      Guidance concerning Recovery Planning and Compensatory
      Education; and

   6. directing the defendants to report to the Court at regular
      30-day intervals on the implementation of special education
      and related services for the plaintiffs, beginning no later
      than 15 days after the issuance of this Order.

The Defendants have allegedly failed to implement policies,
procedures, and practices to ensure that plaintiffs receive the
special education they are entitled to pursuant to the IDEA, the
Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and District of Columbia law. Without
this Court's swift intervention, the plaintiffs will continue to be
denied the education and related services to which they are
entitled, causing irreparable educational and social-emotional
harm.

Accordingly, this Court should issue a preliminary injunction
requiring defendants to immediately develop and implement adequate
and effective policies and procedures to provide plaintiffs direct,
specialized instruction and related services and provide plaintiffs
special education and related services in conformity with their
IEPs through the provision of in-person or live videoconference
classes and sessions, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathleen L. Millian, Esq.
          Zenia Sanchez Fuentes, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Madison, Esq.
          TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
          1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
          Washington, DC 20009-4422
          Telephone: (202) 682-2100
          E-mail: kmillian@tpmlaw.com
                  zsanchez@tpmlaw.com
                  smadison@tpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Ifetayo Belle, Esq.
          Sarah Comeau, Esq.
          SCHOOL JUSTICE PROJECT
          1805 7th Street, NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-3186
          Telephone: (202) 630-9969
          E-mail: tbelle@sjpdc.org
                  scomeau@sjpdc.org

               - and -

          Kaitlin R. Banner, Esq.
          Margaret F. Hart, Esq.
          Jonathan Smith, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
          RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
          E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
                  margaret_hart@washlaw.org
                  jonathan_smith@washlaw.org


EMULEX CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mutza's Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JERRY MUTZA, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. EMULEX CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-55339 (9th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's amended complaint.

Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc., made a tender
offer for all outstanding stock of Emulexn. After Emulex's
financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, opined that the offer was fair,
Emulex filed a statement advising shareholders to tender their
shares. The requisite majority of Emulex shareholders tendered
their shares, and the merger was consummated.

The putative class action by an Emulex shareholder alleges that
Emulex and its board of directors were negligent and violated
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
making the Recommendation.

The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding
that Section 14(e) requires scienter, citing Varjabedian v. Emulex
Corp., 152 F.Supp.3d 1226, 1232-34 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that Section 14(e) can be
satisfied by a showing of negligence, and remanded for the district
court to evaluate the complaint under that standard, citing
Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888 F.3d 399, 408 (9th Cir. 2018)).

On remand, the district court dismissed the operative amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  

The Ninth Circuit affirms.  It explains that Section 14(e)
prohibits only misleading and untrue statements, not statements
that are incomplete, citing Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp., 280
F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002)). An omission is, therefore,
actionable only if it "affirmatively creates an impression of a
state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that
actually exists," according to the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum. The
complaint must identify "each statement alleged to have been
misleading" and describe the specific "reason or reasons why the
statement is misleading."

The Plaintiff's Section 14(e) claim rests entirely on the failure
of the Recommendation to include a chart, provided by Goldman in
connection with its analysis of the tender offer, that documents
premiums over stock price received by shareholders in tender offers
for the stock of other semiconductor companies. The chart shows the
premium offered to Emulex shareholders (about 26% over market
value) was within industry norms but below average.

That chart, however, is consistent with the Recommendation's
summary of Goldman's analysis; among other things, the
Recommendation included Goldman's analysis showing that Emulex had
below-average performance. The chart is also consistent with the
Recommendation's identification of the 26% premium as a reason to
support the transaction; the Recommendation did not compare the
premium in the Avago offer to premiums offered in other
transactions or make any claims about the relative value of the
premium to other transactions.

Thus, no statements in the Recommendation were rendered misleading
by the omission of the chart. Although perhaps an interested
shareholder would find the chart of interest, its omission from the
Recommendation in this case does not violate Section 14(e), the
Ninth Circuit states.

The Ninth Circuit opines that Section 20(a) imposes control person
liability, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), and requires proof of an
independent securities law violation, citing In re NVIDIA Corp.
Sec. Litig., 768 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the
Plaintiff's Section 14(e) claim fails, so does his Section 20(a)
claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further
leave to amend, the Ninth Circuit holds. The Plaintiff identified
no additional facts he would have pleaded to remedy the
deficiencies in his operative complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated April 15, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yhbjjwnz from Leagle.com.


ERIE INSURANCE: Petty Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Insurance
Exchange. The case is styled as Alan Petty d/b/a IND., and on
behalf of all a class of similarly situated individuals v. Erie
Insurance Exchange, Case No. 210401765 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., April 21, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CLASS ACTION."

Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly
held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life
insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard R. Kupersmith, Esq.
          1835 Market St
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 419-6422


FIXD AUTOMOTIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fixd Automotive Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fixd Automotive Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03464 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Fixd -- https://www.fixd.com/ -- offers a comprehensive suite of
products dedicated to helping drivers save money and stay safe on
the road.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Larry W. Eubanks, Carolyn D. Eubanks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, XTO Entergy Inc., Case No.
71CV-21-00039 was removed from the Van Buren County Circuit Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on
April 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00329-LPR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Flywheel Energy -- http://www.flywheelenergy.com/-- creates
long-term value through data and technology-driven innovation and
decision making in the development of oil and gas assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          148 Court Street
          Clinton, AR 72031
          Phone: (501) 745-4044
          Fax: (501) 745-5358
          Email: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                 nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058
          Fax: (501) 374-2222
          Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                 willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
          Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Esq.
          M. Christine Dillard
          Samuel McLelland
          RPGMR LAW, PLLC
          Post Office Box 3446
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Phone: (501) 603-9000
          Fax: (501) 603-0556
          Email: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
                 julie@ppgmrlaw.com
                 christine@ppgmrlaw.com
                 sam@ppgmrlaw.com


FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Flowers, Debbie Flowers, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flywheel Energy
Production LLC, Merit Energy Company LLC, Riverbend Oil & Gas VII
LLC, Case No. 15CV-21-00060 was removed from the Conway County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas on April 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00330-KGB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Flywheel Energy -- http://www.flywheelenergy.com/-- creates
long-term value through data and technology-driven innovation and
decision making in the development of oil and gas assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          148 Court Street
          Clinton, AR 72031
          Phone: (501) 745-4044
          Fax: (501) 745-5358
          Email: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                 nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058
          Fax: (501) 374-2222
          Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                 willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
          Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Esq.
          M. Christine Dillard
          Samuel McLelland
          RPGMR LAW, PLLC
          Post Office Box 3446
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Phone: (501) 603-9000
          Fax: (501) 603-0556
          Email: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
                 julie@ppgmrlaw.com
                 christine@ppgmrlaw.com
                 sam@ppgmrlaw.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Wallace Sues Over Toxic Heavy Metals in Baby Food
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Wallace and Vanessa Gallucci, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-09980 (D.N.J., April 21, 2021), is brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants with regard to inappropriate and
harmful levels of toxic heavy metals found in their products.

The complaint alleges that Defendant does not list heavy metals as
an ingredient on its products' labels nor does Gerber warn of the
potential presence of heavy metals in the products. Unbeknownst to
the Plaintiffs, and contrary to the representations on its products
labels, Gerber's Baby Food Products contain heavy metals, including
inorganic arsenic, cadmium, and lead at levels well above what is
considered safe amounts for babies to ingest, which, if disclosed
to the Plaintiff prior to purchased, would have cause the
Plaintiffs to not purchase, consumer, or use as food for their
babies, these baby food products. As a result, the Defendant's
labeling is deceptive and misleading.

The Plaintiffs continuously purchased products around May 2020
through the present.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells Gerber Baby Food Products throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, New Jersey 07645
          Phone: 201-391-7000
          Fax: 201-308-845-356-4335
          Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977
          Phone: 845-356-2570
          Fax: 845-356-4335
          Email: memert@kgglaw.com


GOBBLE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gobble, Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Gobble, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03473
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Gobble -- https://www.gobble.com/ -- is a weekly dinner kit
delivery service that helps busy people cook dinner in just 10
minutes with 1 pan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOYARD SF: Hearing on Brooks' Bid to Strike Continued to June 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOYARD SF, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01761-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the
hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
from May 4, 2021, to June 8, 2021.

On Aug. 31, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant. On Dec. 30, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(f), Plaintiff Brooks and Defendant
Goyard, by and through their counsel, stipulate to apply to the
Court for an order continuing the May 4, 2021 hearing regarding the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses until June 8,
2021. Additionally, the parties also apply to the Court for an
order continuing the filing dates for the Opposition briefs and
Reply briefs due on April 20, 2021, and April 27, 2021
respectively.

The parties agree that the Defendant's deadline to file and serve
its Opposition papers will be continued from April 20, 2021, to May
25, 2021, and the Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve its Reply
papers will be continued from April 27, 2021 to June 1, 2021.

The parties are currently engaged in ongoing settlement
negotiations and the parties seek additional time to further
evaluate the prospects for early resolution, which would conserve
party and judicial resources. They have conferred and agreed that a
continuance of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike hearing until June 8,
2021, will benefit both parties and preserve this Court's judicial
resources.

The Court, having reviewed the Amended Joint Stipulation of the
Parties and finding good cause, issues an Order to:

   1. continue the hearing on Plaintiff Valerie Brooks' Motion to
      Strike Affirmative Defenses from May 4, 2021, to June 8,
      2021;

   2. continue the Defendant's deadline to file and serve its
      Opposition papers from April 20, 2021, to May 25, 2021;

   3. continue the Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve its
      Reply papers from April 27, 2021, to June 1, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 15, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bn3fwdwh from Leagle.com.

THIAGO M. COELHO -- thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com -- JASMINE BEHROOZAN
-- jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com -- WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC, in Los
Angeles, California, Attorney for Plaintiff VALERIE BROOKS and the
PUTATIVE CLASS.

COLIN P. CALVERT -- ccalvert@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER &
PHILLIPS LLP, Irvine, California, KEVIN L. QUAN --
kquan@fisherphillips.com -- in San Francisco, California, Attorneys
for Defendant GOYARD SF, LLC.


GREEN DOT: Boardman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Dot
Corporation. The case is styled as Amanda Boardman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Green Dot
Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00174 (W.D.N.C., April 20, 2021).

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

The Green Dot Corporation -- https://www.greendot.com/ -- is an
American financial technology and bank holding company
headquartered in Pasadena, California. It is the world's largest
prepaid debit card company by market capitalization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802-7376
          Phone: (828) 258-2991
          Fax: (828) 257-2767
          Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Foot Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff PODIATRY FOOT & ANKLE INSTITUTE PA filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled PODIATRY FOOT & ANKLE
INSTITUTE P.A., individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Case No. 2-20-cv-20057,
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 6, 2021, the
suit alleges that the Defendants wrongfully failed to fulfill its
contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay,
Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses
resulting from the suspension of their operations due to COVID-19.

According to the complaint, the actions of the Defendants in
improperly denying PF&AI's claim were in complete disregard of
PF&AI's contractual rights, resulting in a material breach of
Defendants' duties and obligation owed under the commercial
insurance policy, depriving PF&AI of the benefit of its bargain,
and causing serious financial damages to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Opinion and Order,
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Podiatry Foot & Ankle Institute
v. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., et al., Case No.
21-1736, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on April 15, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PODIATRY FOOT & ANKLE INSTITUTE PA,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Defendants-Appellees HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC. and
HARTFORD INSURANCE MIDWEST are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Freiman, Esq.
          Shai Silverman, Esq.  
          WIGGIN & DANA
          One Century Tower
          265 Church Street
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 498-4400
          E-mail: jfreiman@wiggin.com
                  ssilverman@wiggin.com

HAWTHORNE FOOD: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawthorne Food
Company. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Hawthorne Food Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03466 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Hawthorne Food Company is a food and beverage provider with a large
number of food and drinks to provide worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEIDI WASHINGTON: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify MDOC Inmate Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MOORE II v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13616-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of composed of:

   "Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) inmates who
   previously were subjected to MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.150
   (before it was updated on February 22, 2021) who were prohibited

   to wear their kufis at all times in prison, beyond just
   attending religious services or while in their cells."

This proposed class contains approximately 7,118 Muslim, Moorish
Science Temple, Melanics, and Nation of Islam inmates incarcerated
with MDOC. Specifically, the class will be composed of Muslim men
whose sincere religious beliefs requires them to wear kufis at all
times. Not all Muslim men wear kufis, but the majority do. The
inmates that do wear a kufi can be easily identified by records
MDOC maintains in its ordinary course of business because MDOC
requires inmates. This number was provided by MDOC in discovery and
is current as of March 3, 2021.

The Defendants in this case are expected to raise common defenses
to the claims in this case, including denying that their actions
violated the law.  Whether Defendants have a compelling
governmental interest for MDOC policy or whether they used the
least restrictive means to further that interest is another common
question of law and fact for the Court to decide.

The Defendants in this action are named as violating the
Plaintiff's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons
Act (RLUIPA).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy V. Doukoure, Esq.
          CAIR MICHIGAN
          1905 S. Haggerty Rd., Ste 105
          Canton, MI 48188
          Telephone: (248) 559-2247
          E-mail: adoukoure@cair.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Manville, Esq.
          DIRECTOR, MSU CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          P.O. Box 1570
          East Lansing, MI 48826
          Telephone: (517) 432-6866
          E-mail: manvilld@law.msu.edu

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Thurber, Esq.
          MI. DEPARTMENT OF A.G.
          MDOC DIVISON
          P.O. Box 30217
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 335-3055
          E-mail: thurberj@michigan.gov

HELLA BASICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hella Basics, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hella Basics, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03475 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Hella Basics, Inc. doing business as Get Basic --
https://www.getbasic.com/ -- offers a new set of high-quality
basics each month containing a matching shirt, a pair of underwear,
and socks that are super soft and made from natural and sustainable
fabrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERON FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heron Financial
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Heron Financial
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03557 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021).

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

Heron Financial Group, LLC -- https://heronwealth.com/ -- provides
investment advisory services.[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: michael@gottlieb.legal


HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN HARTSTEIN, in her
representative capacity and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04874-DSF-JPR (C.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiff will move Court on May 10, 2021 to enter an
order:

   1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      Class

      "All individuals who were employed by Defendant Hyatt
      Corporation (Defendant) in the State of California at any
      time during the period from April 24, 2016 up to the
      deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by
      which class members may opt-out after being provided with
      notice of class certification and who fall within the
      definition of one or more of the following Subclasses;"

      Vacation Pay Subclass

      All members of the Class whose employment 15 was terminated
      (irrespective of the label ascribed to it by Defendant, such

      as a "temporary layoff" or "furlough") on or after March 12,

      2020, but who were not paid for accrued or vested vacation
      time, paid time off, and/or floating holidays immediately
      upon termination of their employment.

      Hotel Room Bonus Subclass

      "All members of the Class whose employment was terminated
      (including, without limitation, temporarily laid off, laid
      off, or "furloughed") and who were not paid for vested non-
      discretionary hotel room bonuses immediately upon termination

      of their employment within the Class Period;" and

      Regular Rate Subclass

      "All non-union, hourly-paid and/or non-exempt members of the

      Class who worked overtime hours and who earned non-
      discretionary hotel room bonuses during the Class Period;"

   2. appointing Karen Hartstein as the class representative;


   3. appointing Jonathan M. Genish, Matthew W. Dietz,
      and Jill J. Parker of Blackstone Law, APC as class counsel;

   4. requiring the Defendant to provide to Plaintiff's counsel a
      list of all potential class members, including their names,
      last four digits of their social security numbers, last known

      telephone numbers (including mobile), last known e-mail
      addresses, and last known residential and mailing addresses,

      within 30 days following the date the Court grants class
      certification; and

   5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel
      promptly meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the
      class and submit either an agreed-upon form or their
      respective proposed forms to this Court within 10 days
      following this Court's order granting certification.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, commonly known as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts,
is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in
the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises
luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dGbtC2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          Matthew W. Dietz, Esq.
          Jill J. Parker, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 622-4278
          E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                  mdietz@blackstonepc.com
                  jparker@blackstonepc.com

KEYCITY CAPITAL: Starling Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Starling, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KeyCity Capital, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00818-S (N.D.
Tex., April 9, 2021), arises out of the Defendant's practice of
making prerecorded telemarketing calls to individuals on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express written consent
(or any consent whatsoever), in violation of two separate
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
provisions of the Texas Business & Commerce Code.

The Plaintiff has done no business with the Defendant and has never
provided the Defendant prior express written consent to call her
telephone with prerecorded messages. The Plaintiff's telephone
number was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the
time of the calls, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Southlake, Texas.

The Defendant is a Texas corporation headquartered in Southlake,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, Texas 76092-4322
          Phone: 817-416-5060
          Fax: 817-416-5062
          Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
                 eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com


KIND LAB: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kind Lab Inc. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Kind Lab Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03471 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

The Kind Lab Inc. -- https://kindlab.co/ -- offers
ethically-sourced CBD products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Crooks Files Suit in Western District Court
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Louisiana,
et al. The case is styled as Steve Crooks, Era Lea Crooks,
individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated persons v. State of Louisiana, LA Dept of Natural
Resources, Case No. 1:21-cv-00932-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La., April 8,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Louisiana -- https://www.louisiana.gov/ -- is a southeastern U.S.
state on the Gulf of Mexico. Its history as a melting pot of
French, African, American and French-Canadian cultures is reflected
in its Creole and Cajun cultures.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L Carroll, Esq.
          MIXON CARROLL & FRAZIER
          P O Drawer 1619
          Columbia, LA 71418
          Phone: (318) 649-9284
          Fax: (318) 649-0277
          Email: jcarroll@mixoncarroll.com


M7 BUILDERS: Vazquez Files Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M7 Builders, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Jonathan Mario Vazquez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M7 Builders, LLC,
Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00298320-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., April 9, 2021).

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

M7 Builders -- https://m7buildersllc.net/ -- is a contractor
offering construction needs from new construction to remodel,
commercial or residential project in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Edwards Securities Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George C. Hanks, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, MIRIAM EDWARDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-4330 (S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan is the Lead
Plaintiff in the securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Defendant McDermott between Dec.
18, 2017, and Sept. 17, 2019.  McDermott provides technology,
engineering, and construction services to the energy industry.

Nova Scotia has pled claims against McDermott and two of its
executives, President and CEO David Dickson and Executive VP and
CFO Stuart Spence, under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  It has also
pled claims of control person liability against Dickson and Spence
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nova Scotia alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the
financial health of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., N.V. ("CB&I") to
investors in order to facilitate a risky merger between McDermott
and CB&I that guaranteed considerable financial benefits to Dickson
and Spence but was disastrous for McDermott shareholders,
bankrupting the company and leading to ongoing SEC and federal
grand jury investigations.

When McDermott and CB&I merged, CB&I's contractual backlog included
four large construction projects in the United States dubbed "the
Focus Projects."  The Focus Projects consisted of two gas turbine
projects, known as the Calpine Gas Turbine Power Project and the
IPL Project, and two liquefied natural gas export facility
projects, known as the Freeport LNG Project and the Cameron LNG
Project.

Nova Scotia alleges that, before the merger, it was already
internally apparent that the Four Focus Projects were gravely
behind schedule and over budget and, as such, would vastly
underperform their contracts.  The undisclosed risks and costs and
improper accounting alleged in Nova Scotia's complaint largely
revolve around the Focus Projects.

Nova Scotia alleges that McDermott's financial fortunes plummeted
because the Defendants concealed the true risks of merging with
CB&I rather than merely acquiring the Technology Business.  Dickson
and Spence concealed the risks for financial reasons.  The
acquisition of CB&I elevated McDermott into a different Performance
Peer Group of companies, leading to Defendants Dickson and Spence
receiving increases in their base and incentive compensation.

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by the Defendants. In their motion to
dismiss, the Defendants argue that Nova Scotia's Section 10(b)
claims must be dismissed because: (1) all of the statements relied
on by Nova Scotia are either puffery or non-actionable opinions;
and (2) Nova Scotia's allegations do not give rise to the requisite
strong inference of scienter.

Judge Hanks disagrees.  He opines that Nova Scotia has sufficiently
pled facts showing that the Defendants made statements regarding
the Focus Projects that, in context, were material, misleading, and
made with at least severe recklessness.  He finds that Nova Scotia
has pled sufficient facts to establish that the Defendants'
repeated assurances regarding the Focus Projects before and after
the merger were material and misleading.  It has also alleged
sufficient facts to establish that Dickson and Spence behaved in a
manner that was, at a minimum, severely reckless.  It has also
alleged that Dickson and Spence stood to, and did, benefit greatly
from staving off the takeover by Subsea 7 and closing the merger
with CB&I.

Under the circumstances, Judge Hanks concludes that Nova Scotia has
established an entitlement to further discovery in the case.  He
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Discovery in the case
may proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wdmuunpj from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2542: Ill. & Fla. AGs May Intervene in Keurig Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Concerns All Related Actions,
Case No. 14-md-2542 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the motion to intervene filed by the Illinois and Florida
Attorneys General.

The multidistrict litigation consists of direct purchaser class
actions, indirect purchaser class actions, and individual actions
by certain competitors against Defendant Keurig.  On Sept. 30, 2020
-- after the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") filed their
Third Amended Complaint, and they and the Defendant had engaged in
some discovery -- the IPPs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of their proposed $31 million settlement with
the Defendant.

On Dec. 16, 2020, Judge Broderick granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, an order he later clarified on Dec. 29, 2020.

Included in the proposed settlement is a Plan of Allocation that
sets forth a formula to determine the value of a class member's
claim that depends on 1) the product purchase price in the
jurisdiction where the member bought the product, and 2) the
quality of proof of purchase presented by the class member.  Most
relevant in the matter, the Plan of Allocation creates three
categories of states where indirect purchasers purchased their
Keurig products to determine level of recovery.

First, there are the "Repealer States and Territories," referring
to states that passed laws that repealed the holding in Illinois v.
Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and thus grant standing to
indirect purchasers bringing antitrust claims.  Second, there are
the "Non-Repealer States," where the holding in Illinois Brick
remains good law.  The IPPs argue that such a distinction "must be
considered because a claim from a non-Illinois Brick repealer
jurisdiction carries a higher degree of risk than a claim from a
jurisdiction that has repealed Illinois Brick."  Third, there are
Florida and Illinois, which the IPPs claim have "unique provisions
in the[ir] antitrust laws" such that "potential recovery in those
states is less than the potential recovery of the residents of all
other repealer states."  Thus, even though Illinois and Florida are
repealer states, under the Plan of Allocation, purchasers in those
two states would receive less recovery for the same purchase than
would purchasers in other repealer states.

On Feb. 26, 2021, the Intervenors brought the instant motion to
intervene or, in the alternative, to object to the Plan of
Allocation, along with a memorandum of law.  On March 2, 2021,
Judge Broderick directed the IPPs and/or Defendant to file any
response to the Intervenors' motion by March 29, 2021.

On March 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a letter stating that it did
not oppose the motion to intervene and took no position on the
substance of the dispute at issue because the Intervenors objected
solely to the Plan of Allocation and not to the settlement amount
or any other terms in the proposed settlement.  Also on that date,
the IPPs filed a letter stating that they did not oppose the motion
to intervene, but that they sought to reserve their right to argue
that the Intervenors "should have intervened before receiving
notice of the settlement under the Class Action Fairness Act."

To establish intervention as a matter of right, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a movant must: (1) timely file an
application, (2) show an interest in the action, (3) demonstrate
that the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action,
and (4) show that the interest is not protected adequately by the
parties to the action.

Judge Broderick opines that the Intervenors have satisfied the four
Rule 24(a)(2) factors as outlined by the Second Circuit such that
they are entitled to intervene as a matter of right.  First, the
Judge finds that given that the Intervenors engaged in what appear
to be good faith negotiations with the IPPs about amending the Plan
of Allocation before moving to intervene, and given that they filed
their motion less than two months after the IPPs informed them
about their final decision as to the Plan of Allocation, the
Intervenors' motion is timely.  Second, the Intervenors have
demonstrated a clear interest here in protecting the economic
well-being of their citizens.  Third, there is no question that
absent intervention, the parties are highly unlikely to change the
Plan of Allocation in the way that Intervenors advocate --
potentially harming the Intervenors' citizens and impairing their
interest in the litigation.  Lastly, there is clear evidence of
adversity of interest: The parties were given the opportunity to
amend the Plan of Allocation and elected not to, putting their
interests squarely at odds with those of the Intervenors.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brocerick granted the the motion
to intervene.  The Clerk's office is directed to terminate the open
motion at Document 1247.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wueufpde from Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Vance's BIPA Claim Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN VANCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C20-1082JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge
James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part the two
remaining portions of Microsoft's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs are Illinois residents who uploaded photos of
themselves to the photo-sharing website Flickr.  Both were in
Illinois when uploading the photos.  Unbeknownst to them, Flickr,
through its parent company Yahoo!, compiled their photos along with
hundreds of millions of other photographs posted on the platform
into a dataset that it made publicly available for those developing
facial recognition technology.

International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM") created facial scans
from the photographs in the Flickr dataset to create a new dataset
called Diversity in Faces, which contained facial scans of the
Plaintiffs and other Illinois residents.  Microsoft obtained the
Diversity in Faces dataset, including the Plaintiffs' facial scans,
from IBM.  No company in this chain of events -- Flickr, Yahoo!,
IBM, or Microsoft -- informed or obtained permission from the
Plaintiffs for the use of their photographs or facial scans.

Microsoft used the Diversity in Faces dataset to improve "the
fairness and accuracy of its facial recognition products," which
"improved the effectiveness of its facial recognition technology on
a diverse array of faces" and in turn made those products "more
valuable in the commercial marketplace."  Its facial recognition
products include its Cognitive Service Face Application Program
Interface and its Face Artificial Intelligence service that
"allowed customers to embed facial recognition into their apps
without having to have any machine learning expertise."

Microsoft additionally conducts "extensive business within
Illinois" related to facial recognition, including selling its
facial recognition products through an Illinois-based vendor;
working with an Illinois-based business to build new applications
for facial recognition technology; and working with Illinois
entities to build a "digital transformation institute that
accelerates the use of artificial intelligence throughout
society."

The Plaintiffs assert various claims in their class action suit
against Microsoft.  Relevant in the matter are two of those claims:
(1) violation of Section 15(c) of Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"); and (2) unjust
enrichment.

Before the Court are two remaining portions of Defendant
Microsoft's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs Steven Vance and Tim
Janecyk oppose Microsoft's motion.

The Court, in its March 15, 2021 order, found that additional
briefing from the parties would be beneficial, as neither party
meaningfully analyzed critical legal questions behind both claims
in their original briefing.  Specifically, it ordered the parties
to file supplemental briefing on (1) "the definition of 'otherwise
profit from' in the context of Section 15(c)"; and (2) "which state
law should govern the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under
Washington's 'most significant relationship' test."

The parties subsequently filed their supplemental briefing to
address (1) the interpretation of "otherwise profit from" in
Section 15(c) of BIPA; and (2) whether Washington or Illinois law
should govern Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Robart has considered the motion, the supplemental briefing,
the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.  He
additionally held oral arguments on April 13, 2021.

Judge Robart holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that
Microsoft "otherwise profited" from their biometric data as that
term is used in Section 15(c).  He finds that the Plaintiffs allege
that Microsoft used the biometric data to "improve its facial
recognition products and technologies," which "improved the
effectiveness" of those products and made them "more valuable in
the commercial marketplace."

While these allegations support the inference that Microsoft may
have received some benefit from increased sales of its improved
products, the Judge says these allegations do not establish that
Microsoft disseminated or shared access to biometric data through
its products.  The Plaintiffs do not allege that Microsoft directly
sold biometric data.  They have not alleged that the biometric data
is itself so incorporated into Microsoft's product that by
marketing the product, it is commercially disseminating the
biometric data.  Because the Plaintiffs' factual allegations do not
allow the Court to reasonably infer that Microsoft is sharing
access to the biometric data, the court dismisses their claim under
Section 15(c) without prejudice and with leave to amend.

Judge Robart also determines that Illinois has the most significant
relationship with the occurrence under both the contacts analysis
laid out in Restatement Section 221 and the general principles
listed in Section 6.  Moreover, even if the contacts were balanced,
Illinois has the greater interest in determining this particular
issue.  Applying Illinois law, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently pleaded their unjust enrichment claim, and
Microsoft's remaining arguments are unavailing.  Thus, he denies
Microsoft's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart grants in part and denies
in part the remainder of Microsoft's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' BIPA Section 15(c) is dismissed with
leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, if
any, alleging facts that resolve the issues stated, no later than
14 days from the filing date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2r3h9smk from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Crook Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cynthia Crook,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC, John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00772-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., April 20, 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:

          Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jarray Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-00770-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., April 20, 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:

          Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MOON INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moon, Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Moon, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03474 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2021).

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

Moon Inc. -- https://mooninc.global/ -- is a platform that allows
major cryptocurrencies to be used to make purchases at any online
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MV TRANSPORTATION: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00349-LY
(W.D. Tex., April 21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee and is paid on an hourly
basis. Throughout his employment, the Defendant would shave or
reduce the Plaintiff's reported hours. This resulted in
underpayment of both the Plaintiff's regular and overtime hours.
The Defendant willfully committed violations of the FLSA by shaving
or reducing the hours of its hourly, non-exempt bus drivers. This
action was taken by the Defendant to minimize or eliminate its
obligations to pay such employees overtime compensation when they
worked over forty hours in a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Smith was employed by MVTI as a bus driver.

MVTI contracts with Capital Metro in Austin, Texas to provide
services to Capital Metro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberley, Texas 78676
          Phone: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Zhang Investor Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on March 31 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Neptune Wellness
Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT) between July 24, 2019 and February
16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=neptune-wellness-solutions-inc&id=2676
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the May 17, 2021 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that- the cost of Neptune's integration of the assets and
operations acquired in the SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger
than Neptune had acknowledged, placing significant strain on
Neptune's capital reserves; accordingly, it was reasonably
foreseeable that Neptune would need to conduct additional stock
offerings to raise more capital; and as a result, Neptune's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Roberson Appeals Ruling in Bergamaschi Prisoners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Frederick Roberson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Michael Bergamaschi and Frederick
Roberson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York
State, in his official capacity and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson
of the New York State Board of Parole, in her official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2817, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the mandatory
detention of people accused of parole violations pending their
final hearing, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and the due process clause of New York State
Constitution.

Bergamaschi and Roberson are jailed at Rikers Island on parole
warrants since March 11, 2020. Due to the state-wide COVID-19
lockdown, hearings in the parole revocation process have been all
been suspended. The COVID-19 rate of infection at Riker's Island is
seven times as high as the infection rate in New York City thus
threatening the incarcerated population, especially those aged 50
and above and those with underlying medical issues. Frederick
Roberson is fifty-eight-years old.

Mr. Roberson seeks a review of the Court's Decision and Order dated
March 10, 2021 and Judgment dated March 10, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs'
cross motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Bergamaschi v. Cuomo, Case No.
21-877, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Frederick Roberson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Molly Biklen, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3380
          E-mail: mbiklen@nyclu.org   

Defendants-Appellees Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York, in his
official capacity; and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson of the New
York State Board of Parole, in her official capacity, are
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-8433
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov

NEWREZ LLC: Maldonado Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NewRez LLC. The case
is styled as Matthew Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. NewRez LLC doing business as: Shellpoint
Mortgage, Case No. 5:21-cv-00642-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal., April 9,
2021).

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

NewRez -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a national wholesale
mortgage lender that offers agency and non-agency lending solutions
to brokers and community banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM LLC
          1900 South Norfolk Street Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Phone: (301) 620-1016
          Fax: (310) 620-1018
          Email: scott@borisonfirm.com


ONEBLADE INC: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. ONEBLADE, INC.,, Case No.
1:21-cv-01927-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.onebladeshave.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. The
Plaintiff asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law
against the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

The Defendant is an online retailer of razors for men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, New York 10017-6705
          Phone: 212.392.4772
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com


OREGON: Terrill Files ADA Suit in District Court
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Oregon, et
al. The case is styled as Donald Terrill, individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. State of Oregon,
Colette Peters, in her official capacity as Director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections, Case No. 6:21-cv-00588-AA (D. Ore.,
April 20, 2021).

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

Oregon -- https://www.oregon.gov/ -- is a state in the Pacific
Northwest region of the Western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn S. Walsh, Esq.
          610 SW Alder Street, #415
          Portland, OR 97205
          Phone: (503) 790-2772
          Fax: (503) 766-6354
          Email: walsh@europa.com


PARMA, OH: State Sues Over Invasion of Property
-----------------------------------------------
THE STATE ex rel. JOSEPH AND DIANE FRADETTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PARMA and
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. CV 21 946688 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga Cty., April 21, 2021), is arises out of the flooding and
invasion of the Plaintiffs' property by sewage, pollutants, water,
feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors on or around March 29, 2020,
which caused, and continues to cause, material injury to the
Plaintiffs' person and property through trespass, nuisance,
negligence and/or gross negligence, and an unconstitutional taking
of property.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' operation, maintenance,
and upkeep of the Sewer System is a proprietary function for which
they are liable for losses to person or property caused by the
negligent performance of acts by their employees. The Defendants,
and their employees responsible for operating, maintaining, and
repairing the Sewer System, failed to exercise reasonable care in
the operation, maintenance, and upkeep of the Sewer System, so as
to prevent the flooding and taking of the Plaintiffs' property.

This action is necessary to protect the property rights of the
Plaintiffs, who have been deprived of their right to exclusive
possession of private property, have had their private property
unreasonably interfered with, and have incurred substantial
property and financial losses and/or property destruction as a
result of the Defendants' intentional actions and negligent actions
and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs Joseph and Diane Fradette are citizens of the State
of Ohio.

The Defendant City of Parma is a municipal corporation that
exercised jurisdiction over and engages in the proprietary function
of the operation, maintenance, and upkeep of the sanitary sewer
system within, the geographical area consisting of the City of
Parma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel P. Petrov, Esq.
          THORMAN PETROV GROUP CO., LPA
          50 E. Washington St.
          Cleveland, OH 44022
          Phone: (216) 621-3500
          Fax: (216) 621-3422
          Email: DPetrov@tpgfirm.com

               - and -

          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Phone: (313)392-0015


PETE AND GERRY'S: Mogull Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Mogull, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PETE AND GERRY'S ORGANICS, LLC, Case No.
7:21-cv-03521 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021), is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Nellie's Free Range Eggs in the United States who
asserts claims for fraud, breach of express warranty, and
violations the consumer protection laws of the state of New York
with regard to their false and deceptive marketing of their eggs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, the distributor of the
Eggs, falsely markets them as being "Free Range" eggs from hens
raised in humane living conditions. In fact, while boasting about
the living conditions of Nellies' hens, the Defendant goes as far
as to draw a contrast between its farms with other farms with
purportedly less humane conditions

These representations led the Plaintiff and other reasonable
consumers to understand that Defendant's hens had space to move
around both indoors and outdoors, that the hens in fact spent time
outdoors, and that Defendant's hens have better lives than other
hens because they have more access to the outdoors.

The Plaintiff purchased the Eggs on many occasions throughout 2018
and 2019 from Stop and Shop in Larchmont, New York.

The Defendants sell Nellie's eggs in more than 9,600 retailers
across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: scott@bursor.com
                 ykopel@bursor.com


PLANTSHED 87: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plantshed 87 Corp.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Plantshed 87 Corp., Case
No. 1:21-cv-02176 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021).

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

Plantshed -- https://www.plantshed.com/ -- hand delivers flower
arrangements and plants in New York City for more than 35
years.[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: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Plug Power Inc.
(NASDAQ:PLUG). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased PLUG stock or other securities between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower to submit their information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.

The case alleges that Plug Power and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
Plug Power would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; and (2) Plug Power was reasonably likely to report
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting.

Interested Plug Power investors have until May 7, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower [GN]


PODS ENTERPRISES: Rogers Files Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PODS Enterprises,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Chris Rogers, an individual on
his own behalf and in his representative capacity, on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. PODS Enterprises, LLC a Florida
limited liability company, Does 1-25, Case No.
34-2021-00298372-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
9, 2021).

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

PODS, or Portable On Demand Storage -- https://www.pods.com/ -- is
a moving and storage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan Higday, Esq.
          WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
          7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 930
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 674-4922
          Email: mhigday@jnwpc.com


RAJAN PATEL: Smith Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patel, et al. The
case is styled as Torin Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rajan Patel, Bhavin Investments, Inc.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-04035-SOH (W.D. Ark., April 21, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Rajan Patel is the President and Director of Bhavin Investments,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW, PLLC
          1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 255-7577
          Fax: (501) 222-3027
          Email: chris@wh.law


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management LLC. The case is styled as Ricardo M. Brown,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00513
(E.D. Wis., April 21, 2021).

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

Receivables Performance Management also known as RPM --
http://www.receivablesperformance.com/-- is a national leader in
accounts receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


REHAB AMERICA: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Therapy Assistant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINGER BUCKLEY and RHONDA
PERRIGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. REHAB AMERICA, INC., and TRUADVANTAGE MISSOURI LLC, the
Representative Plaintiffs Ginger Buckley and Rhonda Perrigo ask the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this case as a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
on behalf of:

   "All current and former full-time occupational and physical
   therapy assistants who worked uncompensated overtime for
   Defendants from April 12, 2018 through the present."

Specifically, the named Plaintiffs and all of the putative opt-in
plaintiffs are current and/or former full-time occupational and
physical therapy assistants who work or have worked at
Defendants’ skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities at any
time since April 12, 2018, and were subject to the Defendants'
common policy of failing to pay overtime for hours worked over 40
in a workweek.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sQ5KO4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Class
are:

          Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          Joshua Burgener, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244.6538
          Facsimile: (844) 670.6009
          E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
          jburgener@dickinsonwright.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Flowers FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jamie Flowers, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated consumers v. Resurgent Capital
Services LP, Case No. 01-cv-21-900842 was removed from the
Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Alabama on April 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00561-RDP to the
proceeding.

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

Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a
manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt
portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 928-1423
          Fax: (866) 317-2674
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Denzel Efemena Okinedo, Esq.
          R Frank Springfield, Esq.
          BURR AND FORMAN
          420 20th Street No., Ste. 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 458-8278
          Fax: (205) 458-5100
          Email: dokinedo@burr.com
                 fspringf@burr.com


RT PIZZA: Joint Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HURT, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. RT PIZZA, INC.
d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA and RICKY TEEL, Case No. 7:20-cv-00057-WLS
(M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
joint motion for agreed order of conditional certification and stay
of further deadlines.

The Plaintiff filed this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action on behalf of herself and on behalf of a
similarly-situated group of current or former employees who were
employed by Defendants as pizza delivery drivers.

Plaintiffs file a motion asking the Court to conditionally certify
a collective action under the FLSA and seeking Court authorization
to send a notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs informing them of
the pending action and their right to opt into the action. In
accordance with local rules, the Parties conferred and have agreed
upon certification and a notice process. Specifically, the Parties
have agreed to: (1) the Consent Order of Conditional Certification;
(2) the issuance of the Notice; and (3) the Consent form.

The Parties further request that the Court stay this case for a
period of 90 days to give the parties the opportunity to send the
notice, determine who joins the case, and discuss potential
resolution of their claims following notice.

The Parties reserve all rights as to any current or additional
claims, defenses, or amendments to the pleadings in this action.
Defendants deny any liability with respect to the claims asserted
in the Plaintiff's Complaint and reserves the right to challenge
final certification of the collective action, if necessary, after
the parties complete certification discovery.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue –Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2069
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew R. Simpson, Esq.
          JonVieve D. Hill, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          E-mail: msimpson@fisherphillips.com
                  jhill@fisherphillips.com

SICHUAN GOURMET: Xiao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wenlin Xiao, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SICHUAN GOURMET LLC d/b/a Sichuan Gourmet; SICHUAN
GOURMET II LLC d/b/a Sichuan Gourmet; LOTUS FOOD INC d/b/a Lotus
Food Company; OC PARTNERS LLC d/b/a Lotus Food Company; WEIXIANG
YOU a/k/a Wei Xiang You, YONGJUN ZHANG a/k/a Yong Jun Zhang,
YONGPENG XIA a/k/a Yong Peng Xia, ZHONG ZHUANG, KUOHWA WANG a/k/a
Kuo Hwa Wang, and TAIMEI WANG a/k/a Tai Mei Wang, Case No.
2:21-cv-00482-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 9, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968; and Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law, arising from the Defendants'
various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and
practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and PAMWA and WPCL by engaging in
pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA and the PAMWA,
that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum
wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and/or attorney's fees and cost, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a fry wok
chef.

The Defendants operate a restaurant in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.D. Thomas, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


SILVERCREST ASSET: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silvercrest Asset
Management Group LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03559
(S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021).

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

Silvercrest Asset Management Group --
http://www.silvercrestgroup.com/-- is a registered investment
advisor that provides asset management and family office services
to families and select institutional investors.[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: michael@gottlieb.legal


SPECIALTY INSURANCE: Sharfman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialty Insurance
Services Inc. The case is styled as Marc Irwin Sharfman, M.D., P.A.
, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Specialty Insurance Services Inc. d/b/a Nexus Insurance Services,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00709 (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2021).

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

Nexus -- https://www.nexus-insurance.net/ -- is a medical
malpractice insurance broker that helps Physician, Doctors, Plastic
Surgeon, Weight Loss Centers, X-ray and Imaging Center, Surgeon,
Urgent Health Care, Anesthesiologist, Neurosurgeon, Medical and
Foreign Students to get premium insurance at affordable
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON AND WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd Ste 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: (847) 368-1500
          Fax: (847) 368-1501
          Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


STATOIL USA: Bid to Exclude Rescigno's Untimely Reply Brief Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANGELO R. RESCIGNO, SR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF CHERYL B. CANFIELD, Plaintiff v. STATOIL USA ONSHORE
PROPERTIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-85 (M.D. Pa.), District
Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania denied:

   (1) motion to exclude Plaintiff Angelo R. Rescigno's untimely
       reply brief filed by Alan Marbaker, Carol Marbaker, and
       Jerry L. Cavalier ("Objectors"); and

   (2) motion to clarify the Court's December 8, 2020 order.

On July 8, 2020, the Court issued an order, among other things,
establishing the date for a final fairness hearing, as well as
dates for various prehearing submissions. Pertinent now, the Order
provided that the deadline to file replies in support of the
settlement, plan of administration, and/or any attorneys' fees and
expenses" is "seven (7) days prior to the settlement hearing."

On July 10, 2020, the Objectors filed an appeal of the Court's
order denying their motion to intervene. They also filed a motion
to stay the proceedings pending their appeal.

As a result of the tight timeframe, the Court issued an order
setting an expedited briefing schedule regarding the motion to stay
and modified its prior scheduling order by extending all deadlines
by 14 days.

On September 24, 2020, Rescigno filed a motion for final approval
of the class action settlement. Rescigno filed a brief in support
the same day. The Objectors' filed objections to the motion for
final approval.

On November 4, 2020, the Objectors filed a motion to exclude any
untimely reply brief in support of final approval from Rescigno.
The Objectors filed a brief in support of their motion the same
day. Rescigno filed a brief in opposition, and the Objectors filed
a reply brief.

On December 8, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order in which
it continued the previously scheduled final approval hearing to
February 3, 2021. In light of restrictions on in-person hearings,
it ultimately continued the hearing to April 22, 2021.

The Objectors then filed the present motion to clarify the December
8 Order, and a brief in support. Rescigno filed a brief in
opposition, and the Objectors filed a reply brief.

In their motion to exclude, the Objectors seek to preemptively
exclude any reply brief Plaintiff Rescigno might file. The
Objectors assert that October 23, 2020, was the deadline for him to
file his reply, pursuant to the court's July 8, 2020 order, as
modified by the Court's July 16, 2020 order. Although the Objectors
note that Rescigno obtained an exception to the page limitation,
they argue Rescigno did not seek or obtain an extension of time to
file.

In their motion to clarify, the Objectors "seek clarification that
the Court's December 8 Order is not intended to resolve Objectors'
Motion to Bar Plaintiff from Filing an Untimely Reply in Support of
Final Approval or condone Plaintiff's ongoing delay in filing a
reply brief that he has repeatedly represented he is ready to
file."

Mr. Rescigno states it is complying with the court's July 8, 2020
order, which specifically provides that the reply brief is due
seven days prior to the hearing. The Court agrees. In light of the
clear language of the order and the fact that the hearing is
scheduled for April 22, 2021, Rescigno's brief is not due until
April 15, 2021. Accordingly, the motion to exclude Rescigno's reply
brief, and the motion to clarify is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated April 15, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ed6ehms from Leagle.com.


TEKSYSTEMS INC: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Thomas, Maria Conyers-Jordan, Austin Sherman, and Lynda
Alexandra Maher, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00460-WSS (W.D. Pa.,
April 9, 2021), is brought against the Defendant arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees overtime wages.

In more workweeks during the last three years, the Plaintiffs
worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendant classified the
Plaintiffs as exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did
not pay them overtime when they worked over 40 hours in one or more
individual workweeks. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs as
exempt from state and federal overtime laws. The Plaintiffs bring
their FLSA claims as a collective action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as recruiters and held the
following job titles: Technical Recruiter and Digital & Creative
Recruiter.

The Defendant is a professional staffing agency that provides
staffing services to its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000,
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax: (617) 994-580
          Email: ssb@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Phone: (202)744-1407
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          Email: msalas@flsalaw.com


TIEDEMANN WEALTH: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiedemann Wealth
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tiedemann
Wealth Management, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03560 (S.D.N.Y., April 21,
2021).

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

Tiedemann Advisors, LLC -- https://tiedemannadvisors.com/ --
operates as an investment management firm. The Firm offers wealth
management and consulting services to families, trusts, endowments,
and foundations.[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: michael@gottlieb.legal


TOTAL MERCHANT: Abante Rooter TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABANTE ROOTER AND
PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TOTAL MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 3:19-cv-05711-EMC (N.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on June 10, 2021 to enter an order
certifying the following proposed class of similarly situated
individuals:

   "All persons in the United States who (1) on or after November
    2, 2018 through July 17, 2020, (2) received a call from Triumph

    Merchant Solutions, LLC, (3) on their cellular telephone, (4)
    for the purpose of promoting TMS's products or services, or
    that could have resulted in the purchase of a TMS product or
    service, (5) who were called using Triumph's Vicidial System,
    and (6) who TMS and Triumph contend consented in the same way
    as Plaintiff, or for whom TMS and Triumph have no record of
    prior express written consent."

Total Merchant is a merchant processing company that sells point of
sale software and equipment to enable businesses to accept credit
card payments from consumers. Rather than conduct its telemarketing
in-house, TMS utilizes thousands of sales representatives to
conduct telemarketing on its behalf. TMS supplies its
representatives with training, marketing materials, and leads, and
then pretends to turn a blind eye as its telemarketers place tens
of thousands of illegal robocalls to cell phones without any prior
express written consent -- all in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

According to the complaint, one of TMS's marketers, Triumph
Merchant Solutions, LLC, placed unlawful robocalls to Plaintiff
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. and more than 35,000 other
cellphone users in an effort to sell TMS's merchant processing
services. In the process, TMS accepted all the benefits of
Triumph's telemarketing while supposedly ignoring Triumph's
conduct. To hear TMS tell it, this supposed hands-off approach to
monitoring its agents shields it from liability for any violations
of the TCPA that Triumph may have committed. That is of course
untrue: as will be explained at the appropriate time, the TCPA
expressly prohibits companies like TMS from avoiding liability by
hiring third parties to make calls on their behalf.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QofH8k
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard T. Drury, Esq.
          Rebecca Davis, Esq.
          LOZEAU DRURY LLP
          1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 836-4200
          Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
          E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com
                  rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 90210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrwopeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com

TS2 HOSPITALITY: Najera Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL NAJERA, SWATI LAPERRE, and VICTOR TRINIDAD on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v.
TS2 HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a THE SMITH, TS3 HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a
THE SMITH, TS4 HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a THE SMITH, 3RD AVENUE
HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a THE SMITH, TS5 HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a THE
SMITH, TS6 HOSPITALITY LLC, d/b/a THE SMITH TS7 HOSPITALITY LLC,
d/b/a THE SMITH, and JEFFREY LEFCOURT, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03322 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) seeks to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages for off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime,
minimum wages due to invalid tip credit, unpaid spread of hours
premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt
employees (including delivery persons, servers, bussers, food
runners, baristas, food preparers, line cooks, dishwashers,
bartenders, hostesses and barbacks, among others) employed by the
Defendants' restaurants in New York, Washington, D.C. and
Illinois.

The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise throughout New York
State, Washington, D.C., and State of Illinois under the trade name
"The Smith." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Singh Seeks to Certify Rideshare Driver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASWINDER SINGH,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-03044-FLW-DE (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or in the
      alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) or Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)
      (3), a single-issue Rule 23(c)(4) class, consisting of:

      "Uber rideshare drivers who worked in New Jersey at any time

      since Defendant began operations in New Jersey (around
      November of 2013) to the present, to resolve the single issue

      of whether the class to which such drivers belong engages in

      interstate commerce such that their contracts with Uber are
      exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act pursuant to 9 U.S.C.

      section 1;"

   2. Alternately, certifying pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1),

      a single-issue Rule 23(c)(4) class, consisting of:

      "Uber rideshare drivers who worked in the United States since

      2010, to resolve the single issue of whether the class to
      which such drivers belong engages in interstate commerce such

      that their contracts with Uber are exempt from the Federal
      Arbitration Act pursuant to 9 U.S.C. section 1;"

   3. appointing the Plaintiff Singh as the class representative;
      and

   4. appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC, Justin Swidler, Richard
      Swartz, Matthew Miller, Joshua Boyette, and Travis
      Martindale-Jarvis as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          William J. Simmons, Esq.
          LITTLE MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Samuel Eckman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

UNITED STATES: Kevin's Bid to File Amended Complaint Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit styled
KEVIN & KELLI ALLARD, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 19-774L (Fed. Cl.).

The case was brought as a class action by dozens of owners of
property in Fulton County, Illinois, who allege that a portion of
their property has been taken by the federal government by
operation of the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. Section
1247(d). As the government acknowledges, the complaint and the
motion for class certification were filed one day before the
six-year statute of limitations period would have expired, when
calculated from the date of the issuance of the Notice of Interim
Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU).

Less than four months later, while the motion for class
certification remained pending, the Plaintiffs moved under Rule
15(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
(RCFC) for leave to file an amended complaint--which would add the
claims of three additional putative class members and remove three
claims, which were previously dismissed without prejudice.

Normally, such an amendment would not pose any statute of
limitations problems, courtesy of the American Pipe class action
tolling doctrine, see Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538,
553-54 (1974).

As the Federal Circuit has squarely held in Bright v. United
States, 603 F.3d 1273, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010), "when, as here, a
class action complaint is filed within the six-year limitations
period of 28 U.S.C. Section 2501 as to one named plaintiff,
putative class members are permitted to opt in under RCFC 23 after
expiration of the limitations period, when class certification is
sought prior to expiration of the period, but the complaint is not
amended to add other named plaintiffs as putative class members
until after expiration of the period. The statute of limitations is
tolled during the period the Court of Federal Claims allows
putative class members to opt in to the class."

To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek to add additional putative
class members, however, the government opposes the motion to amend
the complaint on futility grounds, invoking the "anti-stacking
rule" to argue that the statute of limitations may not be tolled in
these circumstances.

According to the Defendant, American Pipe tolling is not
appropriate in the case, because there is an earlier-filed case in
the Court concerning the same NITU in which the parties had
stipulated to the certification of a class.

But the government misunderstands the anti-stacking rule, which
applies when an otherwise untimely class action is "filed during
the extended limitations period once the suspension is lifted" that
had tolled the statute of limitations in another case, Senior Judge
Victor J. Wolski opines, citing Askins v. United States, 113 Fed.
Cl. at 287 (2013).

The rule has nothing to do with cases like this, in which a class
action complaint and a class certification motion are filed before
the original statute of limitations period has expired, Judge
Wolski holds. The American Pipe tolling that is nullified by the
anti-stacking rule is the stoppage time resulting from
earlier-filed suits, not the tolling that occurs in a timely-filed
class action such as this one.

According to the Order, the Plaintiffs are not seeking to benefit
from the suspension of the running of the limitations period due to
the Balagna suit, and, thus, are not improperly "stacking" or
"piggybacking" their case upon the earlier-filed one (citing
Balagna v. United States, No. 14-21L (Fed. Cl. filed Jan. 8,
2014)). The problem the anti-stacking rule addresses--the
"limitless" deadline if the tolling periods of multiple prior
lawsuits are added together--is not posed by the application of
American Pipe tolling within one, timely-filed case, which has a
"finite" deadline.

Under Rule 15(a), the Court "should freely give leave when justice
so requires," RCFC 15(a)(2). As explained, the government's only
basis for opposing the amendment--its futility due to the
expiration of the statute of limitations--is incorrect as a matter
of law, Judge Wolski opines. No other reason for denying the
amendment, such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the opposing
party, is apparent.

Accordingly, as the Court's rules liberally provide for amendments
of the complaint, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended complaint is granted. The Clerk will file the proposed
document as the amended complaint in this case.

Additionally, the joint request to stay filing of the Joint
Preliminary Status Report until two weeks following the resolution
of the motion for class certification is also granted. Chambers
will contact counsel to schedule oral argument on the class
certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 15, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9ry77anj from Leagle.com.

Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II -- Thor@TrueNorthLawGroup.com -- True
North Law, LLC, with whom was Stephen S. Davis --
sdavis@truenorthlawgroup.com -- both of St. Louis, Missouri, for
the Plaintiffs.

Gregory Cumming -- gregory.cumming@usdoj.gov -- Trial Attorney,
Natural Resources Section, Environment & Natural Resources
Division, Department of Justice, with whom was Prerak Shah --
pshah@jmd.usdoj.gov -- Deputy Assistant Attorney General, both of
Washington, D.C., for the Defendant.


VERITA TELECOM: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIP GREEN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. VERITA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02872-PAG (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditionally
certifying this case as a collective action of:

   "All current and former hourly employees who were employed by
   the Defendant in the field who were not paid overtime
   compensation at a rate of time and a half of their regular rate

   of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek for the
   period of December 31, 2017 to the present."

On December 31, 2020, the Plaintiff Kip Green initiated this
collective action against Verita Telecommunications Corporation as
a result of the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying
its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, in violation of the FLSA. Specifically, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees were not paid for work performed
before and after their scheduled start and stop times, and for work
performed during a designated lunch period.

Verita Telecommunications Corporation is a premier source for the
design and construction services of tomorrow's communications
infrastructure today.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sI3DMn
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Steiner, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  david@lazzarolawfirm.com

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Tirado Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE TIRADO, on behalf of herself and the Class members,
Plaintiffs v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC and L BRANDS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00636-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., April 15,
2021) is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to pay
minimum wage and liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties;
failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements;
and unlawful business practices.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this class action against the Defendants on behalf
of individuals who have worked for Defendants as non-exempt hourly
employees and have been subject to Defendants' wage and hours and
COVID-19 health protocols policies and practices. Throughout the
relevant time period, Plaintiff and similarly situated workers have
been allegedly denied payment for all hours worked and have been
forced to undergo temperature screenings while off-the-clock. This
case implicates Defendants' longstanding policies and practices,
which fail to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work
performed while "off-the-clock," the suit asserts.

The Defendants operate a chain of lingerie, clothing, and beauty
retail stores throughout the United States and California. The
Defendants employ thousands of hourly non-exempt workers similarly
situated to Plaintiff across these facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@scheniderwallace.com
                  pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James I. Reyes, and other similarly situated individuals v.
VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS INC., KOSMAS KALAS, and THOMAS BILLANTE, Case
No. 0:21-cv-60858-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2021), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under
the laws of the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant failed to comply in that the Plaintiff worked in
excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision
was made by the Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time
and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty 40 per
workweek as provided in the Act. In addition, the Defendant did not
take appropriate measures to make sure the Plaintiff was paid all
of his minimum wages when he worked over 40 hours per week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida and is a
covered employee for purposes of the Act.

VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS INC., KOSMAS KALAS, and THOMAS BILLANTE, are a
Florida company and Florida residents, respectively.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                 asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                 msaenz@saenzanderson.com


WARDEN SYNDER: Powell Seeks OK of Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as La Marquis Powell v.
Warden Synder, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00298-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting his motion for class certification; and

   2. appointing lawyers to represent the class.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32Fsp5h
at no extra charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


WELLS FARGO: Award of Attorney's Fees in Shareholder Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION. FIRE & POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO; THE CITY
OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
EDWARD W. COCHRAN, Objector-Appellant v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15898 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's award of attorney's fees in the shareholder derivative
action brought on behalf of Wells Fargo against the company's
management.

The district court revised downwards from a 25% benchmark to grant
attorney's fees of 22% ($52 million) after considering the results
achieved, risk and burden endured, and similar cases, then
performed a lodestar cross-check for reasonableness.

Objector-Appellant Cochran argues that the district court
erroneously anchored its fee award to the Circuit's 25% benchmark
and Co-Lead Counsel's 28.33% request.  Instead, he says the court
should have used a lower percentage as a benchmark, such as around
11% or 17.5%.

Mr. Cochran bases his 11% benchmark on a 2016 document in an
unrelated case that purportedly showed how much the rejected
counsel candidate charged ex ante in 2005 in yet another case.
Because there was no competitive fee-based bidding process, Optical
Disk Drive's benchmark requirement does not apply here and
Cochran's 11% benchmark is inapt. Cochran proposes a 17.5%
benchmark based on a study reflecting that the mean percentage of
recovery in connection with settlements of this size is 17.9%.

But the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court had already
reasonably considered this study (and others) in analyzing the
circumstances and found they "weighed in favor of" a slightly
reduced award.  The district court considered the circumstances --
including the results achieved, the risk and burden endured, and
similar cases -- in reaching a reasonable percentage.  Thne Ninth
Circuit holds that it has affirmed fee awards totaling a far
greater percentage of the recovery than the fees, including fees of
28% and 33%.  It finds no abuse of discretion.  Accordingly, it
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3fhnp7ck from Leagle.com.


WORLDWIDE INSURANCE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Insurance
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Worldwide
Insurance Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03558 (S.D.N.Y., April
21, 2021).

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

Worldwide Insurance Services, Inc. -- https://www.hthworldwide.com/
-- was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes
providing insurance agent and broker services for a range of
insurance types.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Braulio Thorne
          150 E. 18th Street
          New York, NY 10003
          c/o Gottlieb & Associates
          PRO SE

               - and -

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


ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Siegel Suit Over Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA LEVING SIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02032 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2021) aims to put an end to the
Defendant's unlawful practice of using the names and identities of
Illinois residents, including the Plaintiff, without their consent
in order to promote its service.

According to the complaint, ZoomInfo encourages prospective
customers to perform a free people search on its website to market
its service. When consumers perform a free search for an individual
-- by typing the individual's first and last name into the search
bar -- ZoomInfo displays a preview page featuring the searched
individual's full name alongside certain uniquely identifying
information, including, location, work history, job title, and
partial phone number and email address. Allegedly, ZoomInfo does
not offer to sell information about the individuals searched on its
website, but rather, uses their identities to sell a membership to
its paid service.

By using Illinois residents' full names in its advertisements
without their consent and for its own commercial gain, ZoomInfo
violated, and continues to violate, the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act (IRPA), the suit asserts.

ZoomInfo owns and operates a website that sells paid access to "the
world's leading business database."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          Albert J. Plawinski, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  aplawinski@edelson.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***