---

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

              Tuesday, April 27, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 78

                            Headlines

3B INSPECTION: Pardue Sues Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
AC SURE PLAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kamil Suit Says
ACDELCO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive "Made In USA" Labels
ACTION URGENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abing Suit Alleges
AETNA LIFE: Wolff Bid for Class Cert. Withdrawn w/o Prejudice

AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Oh et al. Suit Over Alleged Retaliation
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 27 Deadline
ALTER NATIVE: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Bookstore Files Price Fixing Conspiracy Class Suit

AMAZON.COM INC: Warehouse Worker's Break Class Action Pending
AMAZON.COM INC: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Vance Class Suit
AMDOCS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
AMDOCS LIMITED: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
AMERICAN ICE: Mero Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

AMPLER PIZZA: Underpays General Managers, Breazeale Suit Alleges
APACHE CORPORATION: Improperly Pays Gas Royalties, Fitzgerald Says
ASSIGNMENT DESK: Court Certifies Conditional Class in Cockman Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ASTROTECH CORP: Stein Balks at Wrong Stockholder Vote Tabulation

AXOGEN INC: Detroit Police Retirement System Appeals Case Dismissal
BIG THINK: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Cunningham Claims
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Class Certification Order in Bugliaro Suit Reversed
BOBBY RUSSELL: Ross Bid to Certify Class Tossed
BOSLEY INC: Bowden Sues Over Stolen Information of Customers

BROWN'S MOVING: Liles, et al. Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA
CANAAN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CANADA: Construction Cos. Build Indigenous Relations Departments
CANADA: Residential School Class Action Settlement Concluded
CANAL BARGE: Tilley et al. Sue Over Shore Tankermen's Unpaid OT

CANOO INC: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline

CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES: Fischer Sues Over Stolen Financial Data
CHEVRON USA INC: Improperly Pays Gas Royalties, Fitzgerald Says
CHIFA RESTAURANT: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CHSLD HERRON: Settles COVID-19 Class Action for $5.5 Million

CLEVELAND, OH: Court Refuses to Hear Class Action Ruling Appeal
CLIENT SERVICES: Rhee FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
CLOSE RANGE: Fails to Pay Wages Upon Termination, Suit Alleges
CLOVER HEALTH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
CMRE FINANCIAL: George Sues Over Unwanted Debt Collection Calls

COLUMBUS BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
COMCAST CABLE: Credit Check Class Action Moved to Arbitration
CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
CORELOGIC INC: Morgan Balks at Merger Deal With Stone Point
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Vacates Bid to Deny Class Certification
CYTODYN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
D AND A COFFEE: Azueta Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims

DOLPHIN TERMITE: Sanabria FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EASTLAND MALL: Final Certification of Collective Class Sought
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: The Gross Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
ELEFTHERIA REST: Lazaro Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EVERCORE WEALTH: Thorne Seeks Website Access for Blind Consumers

FAST AUTO: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in UCL Class Action
FIBROGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: The Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Faces Ali Suit Over Drop in Share Price

FUBOTV INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
FUND LIQUIDATION: 2nd Circuit Revives Antitrust Class Action
FYRE FESTIVAL: Discloses Festival Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
GEICO CASUALTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Rebates
GEODIS USA: Garner Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics

GEORGE DEUTSCH: Smith Seeks Electronics Technicians' Unpaid OT
GERBER PRODUCTS: Cantor Sues Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels
GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Baker Suit Alleges
GOOGLE LLC: Farwell BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
GREENVILLE COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Alleges

GUIDED DISCOVERIES: Two Law Firms File Wage Class Action Lawsuit
HILTON GRAND: Blackburn Sues Over Omitted Share Issuance Statements
HOME CITY: Pansiera Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
HORIZON NUT: Faces Hernandez Suit in California State Court
HUDAPACK METAL: Joint Bid for Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought

INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Suit Over Drop in Share Price
IRELAND: Faces Class Action Over Northern Ireland Protocol Terms
J.E. BERKOWITZ: Violates WARN Act, Wojnar Class Suit Alleges
JEFFERSON PERFORMING: Brommer Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT
JELD-WEN: Judge Grants Class Certification to Investors

JET SET SPORTS: Caruso Seeks Olympic Ticket Refunds Due to COVID
JUUL LABS: Faces Altizer Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing
JUUL LABS: Faces Kelly RICO Suit in Northern District of Calif.
JUUL LABS: Ind. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Parker Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
KADMON HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KADMON HOLDINGS: Holzer & Holzer Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline

KAMIL KNAP: Faces Bell Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters
KANGMEI PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
KDK LLC: Underpays Restaurant Cooks, Gil FLSA Suit Claims
KOHL BUILDING: Gatica Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
LEAF GROUP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims Class Suit

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline
LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
LIFE TIME FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reulbach Claims
LIFEMD INC: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
LIFEMD INC: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Roby FLSA Suit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Another Investor Class Action Lawsuit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Ellis Seeks Operations Managers' Unpaid Overtime
MAGNITE INC: Faces Class Actions, Business Growth Risks
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Ferjani et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime OT Wages
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Faces Suit For Misbranding OxyContin Drugs

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Suit Sues Over Market and Sale of OxyContin
MEDCIPHERS LLC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
MEMPHIS, TN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Trash Services
MERCEDES-BENZ: Judge Refuses to Certify Transmission Class Action
MICHELS CORPORATION: Faces Beyer Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis.

MICROSOFT CORP: Controller Drift Class Lawsuit Enters Arbitration
MOGONYE LAND: Ixmata Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONSANTO CO: Suit Seeks to Strike Coffee's Class Declaration
MURRAY GOULBURN: Court Rules Against AIG in Dairy Class Action

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Can Compel Arbitration in Vasquez FDCPA Suit
NATIONAL RIFLE: InfoCision's Bid to Dismiss McEwen TCPA Suit Okayed
NCAA: Supreme Court Hears Student-Athletes' Class Action Lawsuit
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 17 Deadline

NETFLIX INC: Certification of Class of Ohio Municipalities Sought
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Transmission Problems
NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod Wins Class Certification Bid
NORTH AMERICAN: Advance Trust Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
OKONITE COMPANY: Walter Parrish Seeks to Certify Class

ONTRAK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
OPTUM GOVERNMENT: Fails to Reimburse & Pay Wages, Hatch et al. Say
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Renewed Bid for Conditional Cert. Filed
PAYCOR INC: Class Certification of BIPA Claims Sought
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Albright Sues Over Treadmill's Risk to Kids

PLUG POWER: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Faces Securities Class Action for Misleading Investors
PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline

PLUG POWER: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
POST FOODS: May 19 Claims Submission Deadline Set
PRIMESOURCE BUILDING: Hodgens Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
PSD FREEPORT: Class in Taveras Labor Suit Conditionally Certified
PUBLIX SUPER: Baked Goods Lack Nutrition Labels, Copeland Suit Says

QUTOUTIAO INC: Roche Freedman Provides Update on Securities Suit
REPRO MED: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE: Miller Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kadin Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Fla.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Stock Market Trading, Best Suit Says

ROCHESTER, NY: Police Dep't Sued Over Excessive Force Claims
ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach

RT PIZZA: Court OKs Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action
SANTA CLARA: Judge Tosses COVID Tuition Refund Class Action
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline

SHIFTKEY LLC: Fails to Pay Travel Nurses' OT, Brown Suit Claims
SHIRBIT INSURANCE: Faces Class Actions Over Security Breach Issue
SNAP FINANCE: Wesley TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
SO3ALPHA CORP: Faces Callejas Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 1 Deadline

SOS LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Baker's Bid for Class Action Status
SOUTH DAKOTA: Class Action Over Abandoned Mines Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Allows COVID Class Action to Proceed
ST. LOUIS, MO: Earnings Tax Refunds Class Action Not Unreasonable

ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Earnings Tax Refunds
STATE FARM: Class Certification Denial in Van Tassel Suit Affirmed
STRATEGIC CAPITAL: Face Hoover Suit Over Tax-Savings Strategy
SUB ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Hernandez Suit Claims
SUNLAND TRADING: Faces Henry's Bullfrog Suit Over Fake Honey Scheme

SUZUKI HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Claims
SYMETRA LIFE: Davis Sues Over Unauthorized Cash Value Deductions
TAMIAMI CENTRAL: Casco Sues Over Maintenance Workers' Unpaid OT
TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
THE SOURCE WATER: Pelaez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

TK FOOD CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardenas Suit Says
TRANS EXPRESS: Court OKs Preliminary Settlement Approval in Pulliam
TRANS WORLD: Final Approval of Settlement OK’d in Spack FLSA Suit
TRANSUNION: High Court Hears Oral Arguments in FCRA Class Action
TROUSDALE COUNTY, TN: Court Denies Wildburs' Bid for Class Status

TRUSTEE VACATION: Missouri Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Barban Suit
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Decertify Class of Senior Consultants
UNITED STATES: Baylor University Students File Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Devos Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in Sweet Suit
UNITED STATES: Former BYU Students File Title IX Class Action Suit

UNITED STATES: Landlords Sue After CDC Extends Ban on Evictions
UNITED STATES: LGBTQ+ Students Suffered Abuses, Hunter Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Liberty University Student Files Class Action Suit
UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Faces Willis Tort Suit in N.D. Illinois
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Securities Class Action in California

VELODYNE LIDAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VIRGIN SCENT: Faces Class Action Over Benzene Level in Products
VIZIO INC: May 17 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
VOLVO CARS: Laurens Suit Seeks Class Certification
VROOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline

VROOM INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
WAKEFERN FOOD: Quarles Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Almondmilk
WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
WALGREEN BOOTS: Lowe Sues Over Gender-Based Pricing Bias
WALMART INC: Class Action Seeks COVID-19 Screening Time Back Pay

WARDEN CARR: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert.
WELL PET: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Bush Suit W/o Prejudice
WEST TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Says
WESTIN DIA: Joint Bid to Certify Settlement Class Filed
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Guevara Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations

WOODBRIDGE INVESTMENTS: Baker, et al. Seek Class Certification
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORLD WRESTLING: June 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
XL FLEET: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline

XL FLEET: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XPO LOGISTICS: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
XTO ENERGY: Cook Children's Sues Over Improper Royalty Fee Payment

YOUTUBE INC: Musician Files Copyright Infringement Class Action
[*] Ballard Spahr Attorney Discusses GAO Arbitration Report
[*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Arbitration, Waivers
[*] MinterEllisonRuddWatts Discusses Opt-in, Opt-Out Class Suits
[*] Mintz Discusses Click-Through, URL Terms Enforceability


                            *********

3B INSPECTION: Pardue Sues Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM PARDUE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3B INSPECTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00020
(W.D. Tex., April 7, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an Inspector from
approximately October 2019 until January 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated
inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, the
Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the
FLSA for all hours they worked in excess of 40. Instead, the
Defendant paid them a flat amount for each day worked.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed to him and other similarly situate inspectors.

3B Inspection, LLC provides inspection and integrity services
across the U.S. and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


AC SURE PLAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kamil Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDI KAMIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AC SURE PLAN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00016534-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., April 14, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Kamil was employed by the Defendants as aircon
installer.

AC Sure Plan is a full service heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          Ethan C. Surls, Esq.
          STANSBURY BROWN LAW
          2610 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (323) 207-5925
          E-mail: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com
                  esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com


ACDELCO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive "Made In USA" Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Bell, writing for Carscoops, reports that General Motors
parts distributor ACDelco might find itself in hot water over
allegedly misleading labeling.

A recently filed class action lawsuit discovered by Car Complaints
alleges that ACDelco parts labeled as "Made in USA" do not live up
to the standards for such branding as set out by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC).

The plaintiff alleges that they bought an automatic transmission
fluid filter with "Made in USA" printed on the box only to discover
that the part had a "Made in China" label etched into it. The
plaintiff says that they chose to buy the part from ACDelco instead
of a less expensive third-party brand specifically because of the
promise that it had been manufactured in America.

Although one part of the filter was etched with the "Made in China"
label, no other parts featured a label. Even if the other parts had
been made in America, though, the suit alleges that the product
does not satisfy "Made in USA" labeling requirements.

"Even if the "Made in China" inscription on the surface of
Plaintiff's transmission filter applied only to the single plastic
housing piece that bears the inscription, the "Made in USA" claim
still fails the "All or Virtually All" standard and is unlawful,
deceptive, and misleading," the lawsuit writes.

According to the FTC, for a product to qualify for the label, "all
significant parts and processing that go into the product are of
U.S. origin, i.e., where there is only a de minimis, or a
negligible amount of foreign content."

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Ohio, seeks to find
redress for the plaintiffs and to stop GM's "unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful acts or practices." [GN]


ACTION URGENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abing Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE ABING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ACTION URGENT CARE, INC. DBA ACTION URGENT
CARE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21CV379923 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 16, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Abing was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Action Urgent Care Inc. is a health care company that specializes
in a great alternative to emergency rooms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

               -and-

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


AETNA LIFE: Wolff Bid for Class Cert. Withdrawn w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE WOLFF, individually
and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01596-MWB (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is deemed
      withdrawn, without prejudice and with leave to renew.

   2. The Plaintiff shall conduct any discovery necessary for class

      certification and submit a new motion for class
      certification, as well as a brief in support of the motion
      for class certification, no later than July 15, 2021.

   3. The Defendant may submit a brief in opposition to class
      certification no later than July 29, 2021.

   4. The Plaintiff may submit a reply brief in further support of

      class certification no later than August 12, 2021.

Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other
plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xp37Xf at no extra charge.[CC]

AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Oh et al. Suit Over Alleged Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
YOON HEE OH and YOON JUNG YIM, Plaintiffs v. AGAPE HEALTH
MANAGEMENT INC., and SUN OK LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00435
(E.D. Va., April 7, 2021) bring this complaint on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful conduct that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked as personal care aides for the
Defendants, claim that Defendant Sun Ok Lee came to their aunt's
house uninvited and started yelling at her at around noon in April
6, 2021. Defendant Lee practically threatened the Plaintiffs and
their family and sweared retaliation.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged retaliatory adverse action,
the Plaintiffs have suffered economic damages. Thus, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs
seek an injunction of the Defendants not to contact the family
members and relatives of the Plaintiffs or any other claimants, as
well as reasonable attorney's fees, punitive damages, and other
reliefs as the Court finds just and equitable.

Agape Health Management Inc. provides adult home care services. Sun
Ok Lee is the owner and CEO of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
          RYU & RYU, PLC
          301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
          Vienna, VA 22180
          Tel: (703) 319-0001
          Fax: (703) 562-0787


AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX),
Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA), MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE:
MPLN), and AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX)

Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021

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

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

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

For more information on the Ebix class action case go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/EBIX

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA)

Class Period: September 7, 2016 to March 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

The Class Period begins on September 7, 2016, when Apache, while
under immense pressure to show results from its new strategy and
reverse its lagging share price, announced the discovery of a new
resource play called Alpine High.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants claimed that Alpine
High had valuable oil and gas reserves and promoted Alpine High as
the centerpiece of its development business.

The truth about Alpine High and its lack of viability emerged in a
series of disclosures between April 2019 and March 2020 that caused
Apache's stock price to decline over 83% from its Class Period
high.

Most recently, on March 16, 2020, a Seeking Alpha article published
pre-market explained that Apache was particularly challenged
amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among
large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and
noted that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and
its "financial health isn't great." The article emphasized Apache's
"weak balance sheet marked by high levels of debt" of over $8
billion in 2019, "which translates into a lofty debt-to-equity
ratio of almost 250% - the highest among all large-cap independent
oil producers." Regarding Alpine High, the article observed that
low gas prices "forced Apache to shift capital away from the
wet-gas rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's
production growth." The article also noted that "Apache also
reduced Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion."

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

For more information on the Apache class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/APA

Multiplan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN)

Class Period: Securities purchased between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders
of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which was
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan,
a healthcare cost specialist.

In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry.

The Multiplan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.

On November 11, 2020 -- only one month after the close of the
Merger -- Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.

As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

For more information on the Multiplan class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MPLN

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS)

Class Period: September 3, 2019 to February 18, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021

On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not."

On this news, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AgEagle did not have a
partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship with
Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's understanding about a
partnership with Amazon, defendants were actively contributing to
the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about AgEagle's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

For more information on the AgEagle class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/UAVS

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE American: UAVS)
("AgEagle") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired AgEagle
securities between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
AgEagle securities during the Class Period may, no later than April
27, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/ageagle-aerial-systems-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eagle

AgEagle is a commercial drone company that is engaged in the
design, engineering, and manufacturing of commercial drones, as
well as in providing drone services and solutions to the
agriculture industry.

Throughout the Class Period, AgEagle signaled to investors that
AgEagle had partnered with Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") to
manufacture and assemble drones for the delivery of consumer
goods.

However, on October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not." The article reported that AgEagle was not partnering with
Amazon.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon
and in fact never had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than
correct the public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon,
the defendants were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle
had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

AgEagle investors may, no later than April 27, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


ALTER NATIVE: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAY RODRIGUEZ, and all others similarly situated pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. ALTER NATIVE RETAIL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and ELYAKIM BOYMELGREEM, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21331-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful payroll
practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants, brings this
complaint as a collective action asserting that the Defendants
denied him and other similarly situated employees overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times of their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff specifically requests liquidated damages in an amount
equal to double the unpaid overtime time and a half that is due and
owing, as well as all reasonable attorney's fees and litigation
costs from the Defendants, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.

Alter Native Retail, LLC operates business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Elyakim Boymelgreem is the corporate officer
and/or owner and/or manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          633 S. Andrews Ave.,
          Litigation Building, Ste. 500
          Tel: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com



AMAZON.COM INC: Bookstore Files Price Fixing Conspiracy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Meadows, writing for Patch, reports that an independent
Evanston bookstore has filed a federal class action lawsuit against
Amazon, accusing the dominant online retailer of conspiring with
the nation's largest publishers to monopolize the market for
books.

Bookends & Beginnings, 1712 Sherman Ave., is the lead plaintiff in
the suit filed in the Southern District of New York. It alleges
that Amazon colluded with the "Big Five" publishers -- Hachette,
HarperCollins, MacMillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster -- in an
illegal price-fixing scheme.

According to the complaint, the five publishers named as defendants
produce 80 percent of the non-textbook, non-reference books sold in
the United States, and Amazon now accounts for more than half of
all retail print book sales, including about 90 percent of those
sold online.

Since the mid-1990s, the number of independent bookstores has
fallen from about 4,000 to fewer than 2,000 today, according to
statistics cited in the suit.

Bookends & Beginnings owner Nina Barrett, who opened the shop in
2014 following the closure of Bookman's Alley in the same location,
said independent bookstores provide communities with much more than
Amazon.

"Most independent bookstores are deeply embedded in the communities
they serve. They match readers with books that enrich their lives,"
Barrett said, in a statement announcing the suit. "They help teach
kids to love reading. They build communities around talking about
books and ideas. They give gift cards to local fundraisers and
reach out to populations where just owning a book might be a
luxury. And they do it because they care, not because they're
trying to sell you a commodity."

Amazon's alleged scheme relies in part on a series of agreements
with publishers that include "most favored nation," or MFN,
provisions. According to the lawsuit, the clauses ensure Amazon
gets the lowest price and best terms available, which prevents
anyone from competing with the multinational firm on price or
availability.

"Authorities in the United States and Europe have launched multiple
investigations into [Amazon and the Big Five's] conduct in book
sales and have found their agency agreements with MFNs to be
anticompetitive," according to the suit. "The House Antitrust
Commission and the [European Commission's Directorate General for
Competition] also found at the the conclusion of their respective
investigations into Amazon's MFN and similar anticompetitive
provisions in its agreements with the Big Five, that Amazon's
agreements harm consumers and competition in the retail sale of
books."

The suit argues that it would be in the best interests of major
publishers to have the option of offering exclusive early releases
or lower wholesale prices to competitors of Amazon. That would
allow smaller booksellers to gain market share and increase and
increase the publishers' distribution, it said. But instead, the
contracts prevent any retailer from competing with Amazon on book
price or other promotions.

"I've been involved in bookselling since the early 1990s, and I've
watched Amazon grow into the juggernaut it's become," Barrett said.
"I've experienced first-hand the devastation to publishing,
bookselling, and to local brick-and-mortar shopping that's
resulted. Indie bookstores like mine battle every day to survive on
a commercial playing field that is anything but level, and I'm
proud to do whatever I can to help remedy that."

"We've had a lot of great feedback from customers who are rooting
for us, and from other bookstores who are signing up to be part of
the class action," Barrett told Patch in an email. "For people who
are wondering how they can support us and our fellow bookstores,
it's by deciding to buy all your books from a local store you love.
Those dollars make all the difference for us, and also have a great
ripple effect in your local community!"

The Bookends & Beginnings owner said 67 percent of money spent at a
local store remains in that community, and every dollar spent at a
small business leads to an additional 50 cents in local business
activity. She said every independent bookstore in the country faces
the same challenge from the giant online retailer.

"We know that individually, there's really nothing we can do about
it," she said in the store's April newsletter. "It needs to be a
collective action, led by exceptional legal firepower."

Barrett is represented by two firms with extensive antitrust
experience and a track record of taking on Amazon: Seattle-based
Hagens Berman and Chicago-based Sperling & Slater, where the lead
attorneys are Joseph Vanek and Eamon Kelly, Evanston's Democratic
Party committeperson.

"I am proud to represent Nina and her great store in this important
case," Kelly told Patch in an email.

"We believe we have uncovered a classic antitrust price-fixing
scheme akin to exactly what Amazon and the Big Five book publishers
have been accused of in the past," said Steve Berman, managing
partner at Hagens Berman and one of Barrett's attorneys, announcing
the suit. "The Big Five and Amazon have sought to squeeze every
penny they can from online and retail booksellers through a complex
and restrictive set of agreements, and we intend to put an end to
this anticompetitive behavior."

Berman and his firm sued Apple and the five dominant publishers in
2011 over the price of e-books. The class action suit went to the
U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in a $400 million settlement from
Apple and millions more from the publishers. Jointly litigated by
the U.S. Justice Department and the attorneys general of 33 states
or territories, the case represented one of the most successful
recoveries of damages from an antitrust suit in U.S. history,
according to the firm.

And earlier this year, Hagens Berman filed another class action
suit against Amazon and the same group of publishers alleging
continuing price-fixing in the e-book market. The lead plaintiffs
in that case include residents of Arizona, Iowa, Florida, New York
and Texas who have purchased e-books from Apple Books and Barnes &
Noble.

Patch has requested comment from Amazon representatives. Any
response received will be added here.

The 48-page class action complaint asks a judge to certify retail
and online booksellers as classes, to find that Amazon and the
publishers violated the Sherman Antitrust Act through
monopolization and unlawful restraints of trade and to order them
to stop their "abusive, unlawful, and anti-competitive practices."
It also seeks damages, penalties and legal fees. [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Warehouse Worker's Break Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Streitfeld, writing for The New York Times, reports that it
has been Day 1 at Amazon ever since the company began more than a
quarter-century ago. Day 1 is Amazon shorthand for staying hungry,
making bold decisions and never forgetting about the customer. This
start-up mentality -- underdogs against the world -- has been
extremely good for Amazon's shoppers and shareholders.

Day 1 holds less appeal for some of Amazon's employees, especially
those doing the physical work in the warehouses. A growing number
feel the company is pushing them past their limits and risking
their health. They would like Amazon to usher in a more benign Day
2.

The clash between the desire for Day 1 and Day 2 has been unfolding
in Alabama, where Amazon warehouse workers in the community of
Bessemer have voted on whether to form a union. Government labor
regulators are getting ready to sort through the votes in the
closely watched election. If the union gains a foothold, it will be
the first in the company's history.

Attention has been focused on Bessemer, but the struggle between
Day 1 and Day 2 is increasingly playing out everywhere in Amazon's
world. At its heart, the conflict is about control. To maintain Day
1, the company needs to lower labor costs and increase
productivity, which requires measuring and tweaking every moment of
a worker's existence.

That kind of control is at the heart of the Amazon enterprise. The
idea of surrendering it is the company's greatest horror. Jeff
Bezos, Amazon's founder, wrote in his 2016 shareholder letter: "Day
2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by excruciating,
painful decline. Followed by death. And that is why it is always
Day 1.

For many years, Amazon has managed to maintain control and keep Day
1 going by dazzling with delivery and counted on the media,
regulators and politicians to ignore everything unpleasant. The few
stories about workers rarely got traction.

But it is now the second-largest private employer in the country.
There is widespread pro-worker sentiment in the United States and a
pro-union president. In Bessemer, many of the pro-union workers are
Black, which makes this a civil rights story as well.

So the costs associated with Day 1 are finally coming into view.
And it is showing up not only in Alabama, but in the form of
lawsuits, restive workers at other warehouses, Congressional
oversight, scrutiny from labor regulators and, most noisily, on
Twitter.

In recent weeks, a heated discussion about whether Amazon's workers
must urinate in bottles because they have no time to go to the
bathroom -- a level of control that few modern corporations would
dare exercise -- has raged on Twitter.

"Amazon is reorganizing the very nature of retail work -- something
that traditionally is physically undemanding and has a large amount
of downtime -- into something more akin to a factory, which never
lets up," said Spencer Cox, a former Amazon worker who is writing
his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Minnesota about how the
company is transforming labor. "For Amazon, this isn't about money.
This is about control of workers' bodies and every possible moment
of their time."

Amazon did not have a comment for this article.

Signs that Amazon is facing more pushback against its control have
started to pile up. In February, Lovenia Scott, a former warehouse
worker for the company in Vacaville, Calif., accused Amazon in a
lawsuit of having such an "immense volume of work to be completed"
that she and her colleagues did not get any breaks. Ms. Scott is
seeking class-action status.

Last month, the California Labor Commissioner said 718 delivery
drivers who worked for Green Messengers, a Southern California
contractor for Amazon, were owed $5 million in wages that never
made it to their wallets. The drivers were paid for 10-hour days,
the labor commissioner said, but the volume of packages was so
great that they often had to work 11 or more hours and through
breaks.

Amazon said it no longer worked with Green Messengers and would
appeal the decision. Green Messengers could not be reached for
comment.

An Amazon warehouse in the Canadian province of Ontario showed
rapid spread of Covid-19 in March. "Our investigation determined a
closure was required to break the chain of transmission," said Dr.
Lawrence Loh, the regional medical officer. "We provided our
recommendation to Amazon." The company, he said, "did not answer."
The health officials ordered the workers to self-isolate,
effectively shutting the facility for two weeks.

And five U.S. senators wrote a letter to the company demanding more
information about why it was equipping its delivery vans with
surveillance cameras that constantly monitor the driver. The
technology, the senators wrote, "raises important privacy and
worker oversight questions Amazon must answer."

Amazon has presented a different opinion of what Day 1 means for
workers. The first thing it mentions in its official statement on
Bessemer is the starting pay of $15.30 per hour, double the federal
minimum wage.

Mr. Cox, who worked in an Amazon warehouse in Washington State,
said the higher pay had paradoxically fueled the discontent. The
pay "is better than working at a gas station, so people naturally
want to keep these jobs," he said. "That's why they want them to be
fair. I saw a lot of depression and anxiety when I worked for
Amazon."

(Mr. Cox said he was fired by Amazon in 2018 for organizing. Amazon
told him that he had violated safety protocol.)

The confrontation between Day 1 and Day 2 has been sharpest over
bladders.

The topic erupted last month when Representative Mark Pocan,
Democrat of Wisconsin, tweeted at the company, "Paying workers
$15/hr doesn't make you a ‘progressive workplace' when you
union-bust & make workers urinate in water bottles."

Amazon's social media account fired back: "You don't really believe
the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody
would work for us."

This isn't the way corporations usually talk to members of
Congress, even on Twitter. On April 2, after days of being pummeled
on the issue, Amazon apologized to Representative Pocan, saying:
"The tweet was incorrect. It did not contemplate our large driver
population and instead wrongly focused only on our fulfillment
centers." Amazon blamed Covid and "traffic," not its punishing
schedules.

Representative Pocan responded on April 4 with a sigh. "This is not
about me, this is about your workers -- who you don't treat with
enough respect or dignity," he wrote.

The bathroom question is one on which the company has long been
vulnerable. Enforcement files from regulators in Amazon's home
state of Washington indicate that questions about whether the
company had an appropriate number of bathrooms in its Seattle
headquarters have arisen over the past dozen years.

The company has "insufficient lavatory facilities for male
employees," according to a 2012 complaint received by the state's
Department of Labor and Industries. "Employees routinely traverse
multiple buildings in search of available facilities."

A 2014 complaint filed by an Amazon employee to the same department
said employees got 12 minutes a day for "bathroom, getting water,
personal calls, etc." outside of normally scheduled breaks. Those
who needed further toilet time had to provide a doctor's note
"explaining why the need to void more than usual."

The complaints went beyond Amazon's white-collar offices. A
warehouse worker told Labor and Industries in 2009 that a manager
and a human resources representative had told her that "there would
be disciplinary action against me if I continue to use the bathroom
on company time" -- she meant unscheduled breaks. The employee
added that the H.R. representative told her that "it was not fair
to the company that I was getting paid when I'm not working because
I'm in the bathroom."

Amazon did not respond to questions about the enforcement reports.
A spokesman for the Department of Labor and Industries declined to
comment, except to note that outside of Amazon, "we really don't
get a lot of bathroom-related complaints."

Other technology companies have prided themselves on overriding
mere bodily needs. Marissa Mayer, an early Google employee,
attributed the search company's success to working 130 hours a week
-- entirely possible, she said in a 2016 interview with Bloomberg
Businessweek, "if you're strategic about when you sleep, when you
shower and how often you go to the bathroom."

When Google was a start-up, the notion was that you gave up
everything -- family, sleep, diversion -- so you might become
successful and rich. But former workers at Amazon warehouses said
that under the Day 1 philosophy, they suffered merely to stay
employed.

"I believe many employees have indirectly lost their job for going
to the bathroom. You're like, can I hold it to break time?" said
John Burgett, who blogged for several years about working in an
Amazon warehouse in Indiana.

His conclusion on his last entry, in 2016: Amazon was "testing the
limits of human beings as a technical tool." [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Vance Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN VANCE, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C20-1084JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, denies the two remaining portions of Amazon'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
Plaintiffs and other Illinois residents.  Amazon obtained the
Diversity in Faces dataset, including Plaintiffs' facial scans,
from IBM.  No company in this chain of events -- Flickr, Yahoo!,
IBM, or Amazon -- informed or obtained permission from the
Plaintiffs for the use of their photographs or facial scans.

Amazon 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."

Amazon 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 Amazon.  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 Amazon's
motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk oppose
Amazon'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.

The Plaintiffs allege that amongst its many uses of facial
recognition technology, Amazon's Rekognition "allows users to match
new images of faces with existing, known facial images 'based on
their visual geometry.'"  Rekognition, and its face-matching
feature, is then incorporated into many other Amazon products.
Amazon's customers, including law enforcement agencies, utilize
Rekognition to "monitor individuals they consider 'people of
interest'" in their criminal investigations.

Judge Robart holds that these allegations support the inference
that the biometric data is itself so incorporated into Amazon's
product that by marketing the product, it is commercially
disseminating the biometric data.  These allegations he says also
support the inference that Amazon received some benefit from the
biometric data through increased sales of its improved products.
It is certainly possible that with further factual development, it
is discovered that Amazon does not so integrate biometric data, or
the Diversity in Faces database in particular, into its products.

But at this stage, because the Plaintiffs' factual allegations
allow for the reasonable inference that selling Amazon's products
necessarily shares access to the underlying biometric data in
exchange for some benefit to Amazon, the Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under Section 15(c).

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
Amazon's remaining arguments are unavailing.  Thus, he denies
Amazon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart denies the remainder of
Amazon's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/rwyscn4 from Leagle.com.


AMDOCS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ: DOX) between December 13,
2016 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Amdocs securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Amdocs class action, go to
[url="]http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-2071.html[/url]
or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Amdocs overstated its profits,
cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (2) Amdocs
concealed its large borrowing; (3) while Amdocs' reported results
showed that its North American business was stable, that business
was actually deteriorating annually, in part because Amdocs was
losing AT&T as a customer; and (4) as a result, defendants' 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.

To join the Amdocs class action, go to
[url="]http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-2071.html[/url]
or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. [GN]

AMDOCS LIMITED: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Amdocs Limited
(NASDAQ:DOX). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased DOX stock or other securities between
December 13, 2016 and March 30, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Amdocs to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

The complaint alleges that Amdocs and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and liquidity, while
understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs concealed its large borrowing;
and (iii) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its North
American business was stable, that business was actually
deteriorating annually, in part because Amdocs was losing AT&T as a
customer.

Interested Amdocs investors have until June 8, 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.

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/Amdocs [GN]


AMERICAN ICE: Mero Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. AMERICAN ICE PRODUCTS II, INC., d/b/a
AMERICAN PARTY ICE, and AMERICAN PARTY ICE INC. d/b/a AMERICAN
PARTY ICE, and RAFAEL TINEO, individually, and JERRY TINEO,
individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-01684 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) is
a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon
violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by the overtime and minimum provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants -- two corporations that
operate as a single enterprise to run a Brooklyn-based ice
wholesale business, as well as the entities' Chief Executive
Officer and day-to-day manager, both of whom served as Plaintiff's
direct supervisors -- as a helper from approximately 2010 until
June 8, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
him the overtime and minimum wages lawfully due to him under the
FLSA and the NYLL. Allegeldy, throughout the Relevant Period, the
Defendants required him to work in excess of 40  hours per week, or
virtually each week, but the Defendants failed to pay him at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of at least one and one-half
times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage,
if greater, for any hours that he worked in excess of 40 in a week,
and failed to pay him at least at the statutorily-required minimum
wage rate for all hours worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle E. Mietus, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

AMPLER PIZZA: Underpays General Managers, Breazeale Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSIE BREAZEALE and RHONDA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMPLER PIZZA II, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00181-D (E.D.N.C., April 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff Breazeale has been employed as a general manager at the
Defendant's Little Caesar's Pizza restaurant locations since
approximately May of 2018.

Plaintiff Gardner was employed as a general manager at the
Defendant's Little Caesar's Pizza restaurant locations from
approximately September of 2019 through March 9, 2021.

Ampler Pizza II, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator,
headquartered at 4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400, Raleigh,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
              
         Adam A. Smith, Esq.
         RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
         P.O. Box 11050
         Goldsboro, NC 27532
         Telephone: (919) 778-9700
         Facsimile: (919) 778-1938
         E-mail: AAS@justicecounts.com

                - and –

         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
         E-mail: KimD@forthepeople.com

APACHE CORPORATION: Improperly Pays Gas Royalties, Fitzgerald Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY NASH FITZGERALD, as TRUSTEE OF THE JACKSON FAMILY MINERAL
TRUST, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01306 (S.D. Tex., April 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of lease.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to comply with its
express duties under the leases to pay royalties to the Plaintiff
and Class members for natural gas used off the lease premises. The
Defendant allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of
royalty from the Plaintiff and Class members by falsely
representing on the check stubs provided monthly to them that the
Defendant was paying royalty on the full volume and value of
production from their wells, when in fact, it was not.

Apache Corporation is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration,
with its principal place of business located at 2000 Post Oak
Boulevard, Suite 100, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
         Allison B. Waters, Esq.
         SHARP LAW, LLP
         5301 West 75th Street
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 awaters@midwest-law.com

ASSIGNMENT DESK: Court Certifies Conditional Class in Cockman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cockman v. Assignment Desk
Works LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03082 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
entered Bruce Howe Hendricks an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification;

   2. denying as moot the defendants' motion for relief from
      mediation;

   3. granting motion for summary judgment as to Patrick Bryant;

   4. denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment;

   5. granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
      for summary judgment; and

   6. denying the defendants' motion to strike and/or deny
      plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and/or award

      sanctions to the defendants.[CC]

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 31
announced it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of AstraZeneca plc (NASDAQ: AZN) resulting from
allegations that AstraZeneca may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2062.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 23, 2021, National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) released a statement on
AstraZenaca's COVID-19 vaccine information which stated, "the Data
and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and
AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by
AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical
trial." The statement continued, "The DSMB expressed concern that
AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial,
which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data."

On this news, AstraZenaca's American Depositary Share (ADS) price
fell in pre-market trading on March 23, 2021, damaging investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contact Information:

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


ASTROTECH CORP: Stein Balks at Wrong Stockholder Vote Tabulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of ASTROTECH CORPORATION,
Plaintiff v. THOMAS B. PICKENS III, DANIEL T. RUSSLER, JR., RONALD
W. CANTWELL, TOM WILKINSON, MARK ADAMS, RAJ MELLACHERUVU, and ERIC
STOBER Defendants, and ASTROTECH CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2021-0322 (Del. Ct. Chan.,
April 15, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of the stockholders of Astrotech Corporation, against
Astrotech's board of directors (a) to remedy the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty, (b) for relief under 8 Del. C. Section
225(b) concerning the purported voting results at Astrotech's June
29, 2020 annual stockholder meeting, (c) for equitable and
injunctive relief to enjoin Astrotech's scheduled May 26, 2021
annual stockholder meeting owing to materially incorrect statements
in the Company's proxy soliciting materials and other irreparable
harm, and (d) for unjust enrichment owing to their receipt of
unauthorized shares of the Company's common stock.

The lawsuit seeks to remedy the substantial fallout from the
Board's incorrect tabulation of stockholder votes at the 2020
Annual Meeting on an amendment to Astrotech's Certificate of
Incorporation, which was proposed at that meeting, to increase the
number of authorized shares of common stock by 35,000,000 shares,
from 15,000,000 to 50,000,000 shares of common stock (the "2020
Certificate Amendment"). The Company and the Board reported that
the 2020 Certificate Amendment had been approved on the affirmative
votes of the holders of a majority of the Company's outstanding
common stock. However, Astrotech stockholders did not approve the
2020 Certificate Amendment, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been at all times relevant,
a stockholder of the Company.

Based in Austin, Texas, Astrotech Corporation is a technology
company that funds, manages, and sells start-up companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 652-8400
          E-mail: DAJ@skjlaw.com
                  MCW@skjlaw.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sadams@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500
          E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com
                  ckupka@fksfirm.com
                  sshukurov@fksfirm.com

AXOGEN INC: Detroit Police Retirement System Appeals Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. AXOGEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00069-TPB-AAS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 31, 2021, Judge
Tom Barber of the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in this case.

Axogen develops and markets surgical products used to treat
peripheral nerve injuries. Beginning in November 2017, Axogen
sought to raise capital from investors by conducting a secondary
public offering of its common stock. In Axogen's offering materials
and in other statements to investors, Axogen provided estimates of
the size of the market for its products, which it stated were based
on information in a United States Department of Health and Human
Services report, an article by Kurt Brattain, M.D., and an article
by James Noble.

On Dec. 18, 2018, Seligman Investments, a "short seller," which
stood to gain by a drop in the price of Axogen stock, released a
report criticizing Axogen's statements and concluding that the
market for Axogen's products was a fraction of what Axogen
estimated. Following release of the Seligman report, Axogen's stock
price declined more than 38 percent over a short period of
trading.

The Plaintiff, a retirement system with over $3 billion in assets
under management, brought the putative class action on behalf of
itself and other purchasers against Axogen, certain of its
officers, and other Defendants, alleging that the Defendants'
statements violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff pointed to the Seligman
analysis, an analysis by an expert consulting firm, and statements
of a confidential witness, identified as "CW1," as demonstrating
that Defendants' representations relating to the size of the market
were false. In its claims under the 1934 Act, the Plaintiff alleged
that the Defendants acted with actual knowledge of the
representations' falsity or recklessly.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of Judge Barber's Order
dismissing the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit v. AxoGen, Inc., et al., Case No.
21-11246, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, filed on April 15, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before April 29, 2021 as to Appellant Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before May 13, 2021 as to Appellees AxoGen, Inc. and Leerink
Partners LLC. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY
OF DETROIT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Park, Esq.  
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          485 Lexington Ave Fl 29
          New York, NY 10017-2631
          Telephone: (646) 722-8512
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
                  jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  jpark@gelaw.com  

               - and -

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Adam David Warden, Esq.
          Joseph Edward White, III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE, PA
          7777 Glades Rd Ste 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
                  awarden@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com    

               - and -

          John C. Kairis, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.  
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          123 Justison St
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1165
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

Defendants-Appellees AXOGEN, INC., KAREN ZADEREJ, PETER J. MARIANI,
GREGORY G. FREITAG, JAMIE M. GROOMS, ROBERT J. RUDELIUS, MARK GOLD,
GUIDO NEELS, AMY WENDELL, and LEERINK PARTNERS LLC are represented
by:

          Elan Abraham Gershoni, Esq.
          DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
          200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 322-7370

               - and -

          Caryn G. Schechtman, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          E-mail: caryn.schechtman@dlapiper.com  

               - and -

          Marc Alan Silverman, Esq.
          FRANK WEINBERG & BLACK, PA
          7805 SW 6th Ct
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 474-8000
          E-mail: marc.silverman@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Fredrick H. L. McClure, Esq.
          Amy Lea Drushal, Esq.
          TRENAM LAW
          101 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7474
          E-mail: fredrick.mcclure@dlapiper.com   

               - and -

          Katherine L. Dacey, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          100 Northern Ave
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000

               - and -

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          Daniel P. Roeser, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          620 8th Ave
          New York, NY 10018-1618
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800

BIG THINK: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Cunningham Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG THINK CAPITAL INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02162 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made at least one call to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using a pre-recorded or
artificial voice to advertise its goods and/or services without
prior express consent. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiff suffered harm including invasion of his
privacy, annoyance, used up his cellphone battery and wasted his
time.

Big Think Capital Inc. is a financial services broker located in
Melville, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
         BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
         50 Main Street, Suite 1000
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Telephone: (914) 358-5345
         Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
         E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

BJ'S WHOLESALE: Class Certification Order in Bugliaro Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., and State of Florida
Department of Revenue, Appellants v. Laura Bugliaro, et al.,
Appellees, Case No. 3D20-686, the District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Third District, reversed the trial court's non-final order
granting Bugliaro's motion to certify a (b)(2) class seeking
injunctive relief under Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In the case, Bugliaro is challenging the method to determine the
taxable sales price of products sold to consumers with discounts
funded in part by the merchant and in part by the manufacturer.
Bugliaro has brought her challenge as a claim against the merchant
to enjoin an unfair trade practice under the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Sections 501.201-.213, Fla.
Stat. Both BJ's and the State of Florida Department of Revenue as
an intervenor argue that such a challenge must be brought instead
against the State under the various administrative and legal
avenues established by the Legislature for taxpayers to challenge
the collection of sales taxes.

BJ's is a membership-only retail club chain that sells consumer
goods.  Bugliaro is a Florida resident and a member of BJ's.  As
part of its membership perks, BJ's offers promotional discounts in
the form of "clipless coupons."  The dispute at issue arose during
a 2014 Black Friday sales event when Bugliaro purchased two
televisions at separate BJ's club stores using coupons provided by
BJ's.  At the time of purchase, Bugliaro noticed that BJ's assessed
Florida sales tax on the original undiscounted price of each
television and not on the discounted price.

Ms. Bugliaro decided to check how much the televisions would cost
on BJ's' online store.  There she discovered that BJ's assessed a
different sales tax amount on the same television she had purchased
at the club store.  In its online store, BJ's applied the sales tax
to the discounted price of the television and not the full retail
price Bugliaro had been charged at the club store.

Ms. Bugliaro contacted a BJ's district manager to understand the
discrepancy in sales tax.  The district manager apologized,
explained that it was BJ's' policy to charge Florida sales tax on
the full, undiscounted retail amount of the product, and offered a
one-time courtesy refund of the additional sales tax she had paid
at the store.  Bugliaro, however, declined the refund and sued BJ's
instead.

On March 17, 2015, Bugliaro initially filed a class action against
BJ's seeking damages in the form of a tax refund.  She also sought
prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to end BJ's' alleged
practice of overcharging sales tax on products purchased with
split-funded discounts in violation of FDUTPA and rule 12A-1.018 of
Florida's Administrative Code.  The Department of Revenue was
granted the right to intervene pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.230 as an interested party because the action involved
a sales tax dispute and the Department is statutorily charged with
ensuring the "fair and consistent application of the tax laws of
the state.

On Sept. 9, 2016, Bugliaro moved to certify a rule 1.220(b)(2)
class on her injunctive relief claim under FDUTPA.  After the trial
court certified the class, BJ's appealed.  The Court reversed the
first certification order because (1) the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction since Bugliaro had failed to exhaust
her administrative remedies, and (2) the class was not
ascertainable.  On remand, Bugliaro filed her fourth amended class
action complaint which removed any claim for a refund and sought
only prospective injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Nov. 27, 2019, Bugliaro moved for re-certification of the
following class for prospective injunctive relief under Count I
(FDUTPA): "All non-tax exempt members of BJ's Wholesale Club who
reside in Florida, who will make in-store purchases at one of BJ's
31 Florida stores, and who will purchase products with a discount
funded in part by BJ's, within the statutory period(s)."

The trial court concluded that Bugliaro "demonstrated by competent,
substantial evidence that this action meets all the requirements
for class certification under Rule 1.220."  It appointed Bugliaro
as the class representative and Bugliaro's attorneys as the co-lead
class counsel.  The trial court's order did not set forth an
express definition of the class being certified, but Bugliaro
contends a definition can easily be inferred.

BJ's appealed the certification order and the Department of Revenue
joined in the appeal.

The before the Court is whether Bugliaro has a cause of action
under FDUTPA against BJ's for an injunction over her claim
regarding the method to determine the taxable sales price in these
situations involving mixed merchant-manufacturer discounts.

The District Court of Appeal opines that a class should be
certified under (b)(2) for an injunction only where an injunction
is an available remedy.  It concludes, in these circumstances, the
taxpayer does not have a cause of action against the merchant for
an injunction against an unfair trade practice.  Where a merchant
has collected and remitted sales taxes to the State in apparent
good faith reliance on the tax laws without any improper attempt to
obtain a competitive advantage, Florida law provides that the
taxpayer must seek its remedy against the State and leave the
merchant out of the middle of its tax dispute.  For this reason,
the District Court of Appeal reversed the order certifying a (b)(2)
class for an injunction.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5f5nh558 from Leagle.com.

Foley & Lardner LLP, and James A. McKee -- jmckee@foley.com --
(Tallahassee), Kevin A. Reck -- kreck@foley.com -- and Christina M.
Kennedy -- ckennedy@foley.com -- (Orlando), for appellant BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc.; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and J.
Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, (Tallahassee), for appellant State of
Florida Department of Revenue.

Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen and Levine, P.L., and Alan J.
Kluger -- akluger@klugerkaplan.com -- Steve I. Silverman --
ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com -- and Erin E. Bohannon --
ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com; VM Diaz & Partners, LLC, and Victor M.
Diaz, Jr., for appellees.


BOBBY RUSSELL: Ross Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERCELL L. ROSS, v.
SUPERINTENDANT BOBBY RUSSELL, et al., Case No.
7:20-cv-00774-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth K.
Dillon entered an order denying Ross' motions for counsel and to
certify a class:

   -- Mr. Ross request to file an amended complaint or to engage
in
      discovery related to identifying certain individuals is
      denied without prejudice.

   -- If Ross wants to file an amended complaint, he should file a

      motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint attached,
      which may include John Doe defendants with descriptors.

   -- His proposed amended complaint must be a new pleading that
      stands by itself without reference to his original complaint,

      attachments, or other documents already filed.

   -- Ross's filings to date will not be treated as part of his
      complaint by the court and should not be incorporated by
      reference by him in any amended complaint.

A copy of the Court's order:dated April 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njus8J at no extra charge.[CC]

BOSLEY INC: Bowden Sues Over Stolen Information of Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BOWDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSLEY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-03357 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment, bailment, breach of implied contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach
of confidence, and violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California Consumer Records Act, and the New York General
Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
safeguard the confidential information of its customers and
employees, including the Plaintiff, following a ransomware attack
that caused data breach in 2020. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged omissions, the confidential personal and financial
information of its customers were accessed by a third party without
authorization and stolen. The Defendant also failed to provide
timely notification of the data breach to affected customers, added
the suit.

Bosley, Inc. is a company that offers hair transplant procedures,
with its principal place of business located at 9100 Wilshire
Boulevard, East Tower Penthouse, Beverly Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

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

                 - and -

         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8297
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

BROWN'S MOVING: Liles, et al. Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA LILES, SAMUEL LUNNIE, DIMITRIOS STUBBLEFIELD, JUSTIN THOMAS,
STEVEN CALDWELL, JOSEPH WYSOCKI and SCOTT BRYAN, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROWN'S MOVING &
STORAGE, INC., Case No. No. 4:21-323-DPM (E.D. Ark., April 20,
2021) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs
seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, including a reasonable attorney's
fee.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as drivers and helpers out
of the Defendant's location in Little Rock.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs
and other Drivers and Helpers a lawful minimum wage and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Brown's Moving & Storage, Inc., is a for-profit corporation created
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Arkansas, providing moving, packing and delivery services under the
name Blue Truck Moving & Delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CANAAN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 14, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Canaan Inc. (NasdaqGM:
CAN), if they purchased the Company's American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADRs of Canaan and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
[url="]https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ksfcounsel.com%2Fcases%2Fnasdaqgm-can%2F[/url]
to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this
class action, you must petition the Court by June 14, 2021.

                     About the Lawsuit

Canaan and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On April 12, 2021, pre-market, the Company disclosed dismal 4Q20
and FY20 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020,
including a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and
net revenues for the quarter, a stark contrast to the Company's
prior positive statements touting its business metrics and
financial prospects.

On this news, ADRs of Canaan plummeted nearly 30%, from a close of
$18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14 on April 12,
2021, on unusually high volume.

The case is Denny v. Canaan Inc., No. 21-cv-03299.


                     About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]



CANADA: Construction Cos. Build Indigenous Relations Departments
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Burke, writing for CBC News, reports that a growing number of
construction companies across Canada are putting time and money
into starting their own Indigenous relations departments to help
improve how they work with Indigenous communities and possibly
address a coming labour shortage.    

While the duties of each department vary from company to company,
many look to employ Indigenous workers, hire Indigenous
subcontractors, and collaborate with Indigenous leaders to plan
construction projects.   

There are no hard numbers on how many companies have started these
departments, but many large construction firms have, according to
Mary Van Buren, president of the Canadian Construction Association.


"It's becoming more a part of doing business," she said.

Van Buren's association represents 20,000 construction firms across
Canada.

Construction companies have been gradually building Indigenous
relations departments over the last few years, but recently more
emphasis has been put on them, according to Duncan Williams,
president and CEO of the Construction Association of Nova Scotia.

Hiring staff specifically to work with Indigenous groups impresses
Paul Prosper, a regional chief with the Assembly of First Nations.
He represents Nova Scotia along with Newfoundland and Labrador.

Prosper said it's important that companies understand the dynamics
that exist in Indigenous communities and work to establish open and
trustworthy relationships with them before they start construction
projects on Indigenous land.  

"I think it's certainly a good thing to see that concerted effort
and that emphasis on, you know, engagement within Aboriginal and
Mi'kmaw communities. I certainly commend that approach," he said.  


Attracting new workers
Many companies are "attempting all kinds of different strategies to
attract Indigenous and underrepresented groups into the industry,"
said Van Buren.

Attracting new workers is incredibly important right now because of
the mass retirement of baby boomers expected over the next decade.
Canada's construction industry will need to recruit, train, and
retain 309,000 new workers as we move into 2030, according to a
national report from BuildForce Canada.

BuildForce is an organization that studies the construction
industry and assembles long-term labour forecasts.

In Nova Scotia alone it's expected that 8,000 to 9,000 new workers
will need to be recruited by 2030, said the Construction
Association of Nova Scotia's Duncan Williams.

"Diversity breeds creativity," said Williams. "The more we can tap
into that untapped talent, the better. It brings about creativity,
it brings about innovation, but it also addresses a very dire need
for labour."

Indigenous youth could help solve that labour shortage, according
to Tim Laronde, a member of the Nipissing First Nation in Ontario
and national director of Indigenous strategies with Chandos
Construction.

He said the fastest-growing demographic in Canada right now is
Indigenous youth. If those young people take an interest in
construction, it would be a win-win for the industry and Indigenous
communities, he said.

"Ultimately the end result would be creating economic wealth for
these communities and for these individuals. I think it's great the
construction industry is embracing that," said Laronde.

He believes many companies are setting up departments like his
because of the calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission. The commission was set up as a requirement of the
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest
class-action settlement in Canadian History.

The commission made a detailed account of what happened to
Indigenous children who were physically and mentally abused in
Canada's residential school system. Part of that final report were
94 calls to action to repair the harm caused by residential
schools. Number 92 on that list was a call for businesses in Canada
to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.

"It's really an opportunity to try to work more closely with
Indigenous communities, so I think a lot of corporations are kind
of looking at their own vision and mission and they decided that
this is a tremendous opportunity to help a group of people who have
been disadvantaged," said Laronde.     

Chandos Construction is doing that by hiring Indigenous workers and
working on business development programs to create joint ventures
with Indigenous communities. The company is also examining ways to
hire more Indigenous subcontracting companies.  

'Renew that relationship'
Bird Construction has been doing similar things across the country.


It has put in policies and programs to try and positively
contribute to the overall well being of the Indigenous people the
company comes into contact with.

"How can we create opportunity to allow these Indigenous people to
grow and to thrive? That's just a cultural philosophy we have at
Bird," said Jeff Provost, Indigenous business relations manager for
Bird Construction and a Métis from Manitoba.

Besides just hiring Indigenous workers, Provost believes employing
Indigenous businesses as subcontractors is one of the best ways to
get and keep money in Indigenous communities.

In the northern B.C. community of Kitimat, Bird is building housing
for workers at a liquefied natural gas plant. One third of all of
Bird's subcontractors on that project were Indigenous companies.
Provost estimates on that job $148 million will be paid out to
indigenous businesses.

Another project to build a recreational centre at Red Sucker Lake
First Nation in Manitoba saw the company put $391,000 into the
community by hiring seven local workers, along with paying for
local equipment and materials. Provost said that money represents
8.9 per cent of the total value of the project.

"We understand that we're probably still at the beginning of our
economic reconciliation journey," said Provost.

"I really do encourage companies out there to take this seriously .
. . this is a gauntlet that's thrown down for everyone in Canada to
again renew that relationship with Indigenous people. It can be
better. " [GN]


CANADA: Residential School Class Action Settlement Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
The Conversation reports that March 31 marks the conclusion of the
largest class action settlement in Canada's history. After 14
years, the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) -- a compensation
process established to resolve claims of serious physical, sexual
or emotional abuse suffered at Indian residential schools -- is
officially over.

Despite the fact that it collected claims from more than 38,000
Indian residential school survivors, the IAP remains relatively
unknown.

The court-ordered destruction of IAP testimonies and records, the
biased and superficial mainstream news media reports and the
continued emphasis on compensation and costs ensure that if it is
remembered, it will be through a colonial gaze.

This gaze represents the perspective through which the process is
framed, what is explicitly valued or absent, and whose story is
remembered: the colonial narrative is privileged and the Indigenous
voice limited.

Our national study seeks to understand perspectives and the framing
of the IAP to create public knowledge, in the wake of the
destruction of records. The study analyzes government documents
(Hansard Index, the traditional name of the transcripts of
Parliamentary debates), national and Indigenous media, along with
transcripts produced through interviews and focus groups with
survivors, health support workers, adjudicators, judges and
lawyers. The results presented here are preliminary.

A bit of background
Of the 38,000 survivors who applied to the IAP, almost 27,000
attended adjudications -- an out-of-court process. The adjudication
gave survivors the opportunity to tell their story of abuse to an
adjudicator and government representative, with optional supports
including a lawyer, health support worker, elder, translator or
family. The fate of the records and testimonies from these hearings
-- 800,000 documents -- was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada
in 2017.

The court upheld the position of the Indian Residential School
Adjudication Secretariat, the body responsible for administering
the IAP, that the testimonies would be destroyed unless individual
survivors decided to claim or share their records. Currently only a
handful of survivors have requested their transcripts or offered to
make (sometimes redacted) versions publicly accessible through the
National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR). In 2027, any
remaining survivor testimonies and records will be destroyed.

In January 2020 an Ontario Superior Court ruling blocked the
creation of static reports. These included information the
secretariat gathered during the IAP about variables like the
child's age and sex, particularities of residential schools, types
of abuses and community impacts. The case was appealed by the NCTR
and the Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment is pending.

Coverage of the IAP: Colonial and wanting
Media coverage of the IAP is sparse. Preliminary results of our
study reveal a focus on the trials and tribulations of a
bureaucratic process that attempted to combine class action law
with reconciliation-based gestures. Lost in this narrative is the
survivors' lived experiences within the IAP and a critical
evaluation of the IAP's overarching goals: healing and
reconciliation.

Through our study, "Reconciling Perspectives and Building Public
Memory: Learning from the Independent Assessment Process," we
established factors that played key roles in healing: giving
testimony, and supporting, believing and validating the survivors.
This perspective was largely forgotten by the media and instead
reports often focused on the credibility of survivors' claims of
abuse, financial compensations and court cases. It was, however,
acknowledged in the IAP's final report.

The dominant narrative conflated success of the IAP with
compensation. For example, the secretariat reported success when
the claimant garnered a cash settlement (89 per cent success rate
with an average of $91,000 in compensation). And although
compensation metrics are certainly one indicator of success, the
experiences of survivors telling their stories are key to
considering the IAP's larger goals.

The defensive posture of the federal government recently surfaced.
An independent review of claims (specifically those from St. Anne's
Indian Residential School) was recently announced following
critiques by survivors and public officials like former senator
Murray Sinclair and MP Charlie Angus.

Elected officials in the House of Commons had an opportunity to
contribute to public memory based on meaningful reconciliation, but
it was largely swept away in partisan politics. Looking at Hansard
Index debates from 2004-19, we found the IAP was discussed only 28
times.

The significance of Indian residential school abuses, the damage
the system did to families and communities, the litigation and
compensation settlements that came after the IAP can only be fully
comprehended within Canada's long history of denial of Indigenous
human and gender rights.

The move from explicit systems of violence to concealed structures
of domination cannot be mistaken for reconciliation. We must
examine the ways in which Indigenous rights are both explicitly and
implicitly advanced or denied: this was highlighted in an earlier
IAP study that found that although residential schools taught girls
domestic tasks, unpaid work caring for children was not
acknowledged or compensated in the IAP model.

Remembering for a common future
We fear additional tragedies are inevitable without abundant data
regarding abuse factors, or intergenerational and community
impacts. These data add a quantifiable dimension to the horrors of
residential schools and remind us of the consequences of racist
public policy. Such policy is not just about the individuals
impacted; it affects the consciousness of collectives and
communities.

Public records are valuable for understanding how public memory is
created, and who is directing its narrative. Unless attention is
paid to the ways in which the media and Canada continue to decentre
Indigenous voices and experiences the colonial gaze will endure.

How residential schools and the IAP are remembered is not only
relevant to Canada's identity but for government-Indigenous and
public-Indigenous relations, now and into the future. [GN]


CANAL BARGE: Tilley et al. Sue Over Shore Tankermen's Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. TILLEY, J.S. FOSTER, B.C. MILLER, and K.P. MCNABB, Plaintiffs
v. CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01150
(S.D. Tex., April 8, 2021) brings this collective action complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as shore tankermen to
perform loading and unloading of cargo between barge and dock as
their primary duties.

The Plaintiffs assert that although they routinely worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 per week. Specifically,
the Defendant did not compensate them and other similarly situated
shore tankermen for the time they spent performing document
preparation at home and shift transition, and did not keep track of
the time spent performing those tasks, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid back wages, liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, litigation costs and attorneys'
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

Canal Barge Company, Inc. is a marine transportation company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry V. O'Brien, Esq.
          O'BRIEN LAW FIRM
          1011 Westlake Drive
          Austin, TX 78746
          Tel: (512) 410-1960
          Fax: (512) 410-6171
          E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com


CANOO INC: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ:GOEV) ("Canoo"), formerly
known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ:HCAC)
("Hennessy Capital"), on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired GOEV or HCAC securities between August 18, 2020 and March
29, 2021 (the "Class Period").

Canoo investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/canoo-inc/, for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and options.

On August 18, 2020, Hennessy Capital, a publicly traded Special
Purpose Acquisition Company, announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement to merge with Canoo. According to the
complaint, in connection with and following the Hennessey Capital -
Canoo merger, defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements to investors, and failed to disclose that (i) Canoo had
decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers
through a subscription model; (ii) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (iii) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On March 29, 2021, Canoo held an earning conference call with
investors to discuss the Company's Fourth Quarter 2020 financial
and operational results. During the call, defendant Tony Aquila - a
director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger - revealed that
Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering services line. Also
on March 29, 2021, Canoo reported that defendant Paul Balciunas,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), had resigned.
Following this news, shares of Canoo's stock fell over 21% in
value, to close on March 30, 2021 at $9.30 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Canoo's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. Canoo
investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this opportunity
to actively participate in the action.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]

CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 5
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW) ("Canoo")
f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAW: HCAC; HCACW;
HCACU) ("Hennessy Capital") on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canoo securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 1,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/canoo-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Canoo

Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle
("EV") company that touted a "unique business model that defies
traditional ownership to put customers first." It announced a
delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in
2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying
technological platform. Hennessy Capital was a special purpose
acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination. On or about
December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger
with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named Canoo (the
"Merger").

The Class Period commences on August 18, 2020, when Hennessy
Capital and Canoo Holdings issued a joint press release announcing
the Merger. In its press release, Canoo Holdings touted its
engineering services line and the Hyundai partnership for the
co-development of a future EV platform.

On September 18, 2020, Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a
Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The Registration Statement was subsequently amended on October 23,
2020 and November 27, 2020. Canoo also filed its Prospectus on a
Form 424b3 with the SEC on December 4, 2020. On December 21, 2020,
stockholders voted at a special meeting to approve the Merger.

On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo held a conference
call in connection with its fourth quarter 2020 financial results
which were released the same day. During the call, defendant, Tony
Aquila, a director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger,
revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering
services line. The same day, Canoo also announced that Paul
Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo
following the close of the Merger, had resigned, effective April 2,
2021. Following this news, Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or
21.19%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had
decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers
through a subscription model; (2) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (3) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Canoo investors may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW) ("Canoo") f/k/a
Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ: HCAC; HCACW; HCACU)
("Hennessy Capital") that a securities fraud class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canoo securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 1,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/canoo-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Canoo

Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle
("EV") company that touted a "unique business model that defies
traditional ownership to put customers first." It announced a
delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in
2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying
technological platform. Hennessy Capital was a special purpose
acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination. On or about
December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger
with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named Canoo (the
"Merger").

The Class Period commences on August 18, 2020, when Hennessy
Capital and Canoo Holdings issued a joint press release announcing
the Merger. In its press release, Canoo Holdings touted its
engineering services line and the Hyundai partnership for the
co-development of a future EV platform.

On September 18, 2020, Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a
Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The Registration Statement was subsequently amended on October 23,
2020 and November 27, 2020. Canoo also filed its Prospectus on a
Form 424b3 with the SEC on December 4, 2020. On December 21, 2020,
stockholders voted at a special meeting to approve the Merger.

On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo held a conference
call in connection with its fourth quarter 2020 financial results
which were released the same day. During the call, defendant, Tony
Aquila, a director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger,
revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering
services line. The same day, Canoo also announced that Paul
Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo
following the close of the Merger, had resigned, effective April 2,
2021. Following this news, Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or
21.19%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had
decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers
through a subscription model; (2) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (3) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Canoo investors may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]


CANOO INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on April 6 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Canoo Inc. ("Canoo" or the "Company") f/k/a Hennessy Capital
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: GOEV) securities during the period from
August 18, 2020 through March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until June 1, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Canoo had decreased its
focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a
subscription model; (2) that Canoo would de-emphasize its
engineering services business; (3) that, contrary to prior
statements, Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle
company that touted a "unique business model that defies
traditional ownership to put customers first." It has announced a
delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in
2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying
technological platform. The Company was formed by a business
combination between Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (a
special purpose acquisition (SPAC) company) and Canoo Holdings
Limited in December 2020.

On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo revealed that the
Company would no longer focus on its engineering services line,
which had been touted in the SPAC merger documents just three
months earlier and formed the basis of Canoo's growth story. On
this news, the price of Canoo shares declined by $2.50 per share,
or approximately 21.19%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you acquired Canoo securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

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

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

Contacts:

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


CANOO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Canoo Inc. ("Canoo") (NASDAQ: GOEV) between August
18, 2020 and March 29, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/canoo-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14793&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's engineering services was not a
viable business, would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021, and
would not reduce operational risk; (ii) the Company would no longer
be focused on its subscription-based business model; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Canoo you have until June 1, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Canoo Inc.
("Canoo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 18,
2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Canoo shifted away from its previous
focus on selling vehicles using a subscription model. The Company's
engineering services would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021,
or reduce operational risk. As a result, the Company would shift
its focus away from the engineering services business as well. The
Company did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and was not engaging in its previously
announced partnership with Hyundai. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Canoo, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES: Fischer Sues Over Stolen Financial Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-60856-RAR (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of
confidence.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
safeguard the confidential information of its customers, including
the Plaintiff, following a data breach on its payment software,
Click2Gov. As a result of the alleged data breach, the payment card
information of its customers was accessed by a third party without
authorization and stolen. The Defendant also failed to provide
timely notification of the data breach to affected customers. The
Plaintiff and Class members suffered fraudulent charges, had their
payment cards canceled, lost use of their funds, lost time
contesting charges and frantically trying to claw back funds stolen
from their bank accounts, driving to and from banks and credit
unions, and some have even canceled accounts, the suit adds.

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC is a software company headquartered
at 1000 Business Center Dr., Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

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

                 - and -

         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 N. Pennsylvania
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
         E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                 tjb@federmanlaw.com

CHEVRON USA INC: Improperly Pays Gas Royalties, Fitzgerald Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY NASH FITZGERALD, as Trustee of THE JACKSON FAMILY MINERAL
TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-02650 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2021) seeks to remedy the
Defendant's systematic breach of express duties under the leases to
pay royalties to the Plaintiff and members of the Class for natural
gas "used off the lease."

According to the complaint, the on-lease free use clause expressly
allows gas to be used only on the lease premises, so royalty must
be paid for gas used off the lease premises ("Off Lease Use of Gas"
or "OLUG"). Although the Lease and the members of the Class's
leases expressly provide for the payment of royalty on OLUG, the
Defendant does not do so, the suit adds.

The Defendant allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of
royalty from the Plaintiff and the members of the Class by falsely
representing on the check stubs provided monthly to the Plaintiff
and the members of the Class that Defendant was paying royalty on
the full volume and value of production from their wells, when in
fact, it was not.

Chevron USA, Inc. provides energy services. The Company offers
fuels, motor oil, fuel additives, base oils, chemicals, natural
gas, lubricants, and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith A. Robinson, Esq.
          2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (310) 849-3135
          Facsimile: (818) 279-0604
          E-mail: keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com

               -and-

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          W. Greg Wright, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  gwright@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com


CHIFA RESTAURANT: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
ELMER HERNANDEZ and MARCO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIFA RESTAURANT INC.
d/b/a CHIFA RESTAURANT; WEI JIAN ZHOU; and TZE WAY SZE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02163 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wage rate, failure to compensate overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and failure to record
all worked hours of employees.

Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Perez worked for the Defendants as waiters
from approximately 2011 through March 2021 and from approximately
2012 through December 2016, respectively.

Chifa Restaurant Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
located at 73-20 Northern Blvd, Jackson Heights, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                                   
   
         
         Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
         225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 323-6980
         E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

CHSLD HERRON: Settles COVID-19 Class Action for $5.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!News reports that a $5.5-million settlement has been reached
for residents of CHSLD Herron and their family members in relation
to care and services at the private seniors' residence, where many
died in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Arthur Wechsler, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs,
called the settlement "extremely reasonable" and said he hoped it
would result in "other settlements in other class actions for
residents of CHSLDs."

The class-action lawsuit names as defendants the Herron home
itself, a numbered Ontario company, Katasa Group Inc. and Katasa
Development Inc.

The agreement, which Wechsler said was concluded in the last few
days, must still be approved at a Superior Court of Quebec hearing
on April 30.

Wechsler said although the situation took place within the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic, it served to expose conditions that had
already existed. The lawsuit "wasn't based on COVID," he said. "It
was based on what we allege was the negligent treatment provided to
the most frail and vulnerable in these residences."

Dozens of residents died at the home in the first weeks of the
pandemic. Staff shortages there meant many residents were left
undernourished, neglected and stranded in soiled beds.

The settlement applies to people who were residents of the
long-term care home between March 13 and May 31, 2020, liquidators
of the estates of those who died during that period, and surviving
spouses and children.

Wechsler said he was hopeful that payments could be made by the end
of this year.

Moira Davis, whose father Stanley Pinnell died at CHSLD Herron in
April 2020, said the settlement amount was inadequate and that
"there's not enough money in the world" to compensate for what her
father experienced.

"He was in his mid 90s, he had a host of health issues, but he sure
as heck didn't deserve to die like that or to suffer during that
time."

She said she still holds local health authorities and the
provincial government responsible in addition to the home's
owners.

"I still think that there should be class action lawsuits against
the various levels of the Quebec government, because I don't think
they're going to change," she said.

In November 2020, CHSLD Herron's owners announced they were closing
the home and that the remaining residents would be relocated.

In February, the coroner presiding over a public inquiry into CHSLD
deaths during the pandemic delayed hearings related to CHSLD Herron
until the fall.

The lawyer for the owners had argued that if the inquiry went ahead
as planned, it would be unfair to her clients, given that Quebec's
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPC) hasn't made a
decision on whether to file criminal charges against them. [GN]


CLEVELAND, OH: Court Refuses to Hear Class Action Ruling Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Grzegorek, writing for Cleveland Scene, reports that the Ohio
Supreme Court declined to hear the city of Cleveland's appeal of a
lower court's ruling that a possible $188-million class action
lawsuit filed in 2015 against Cleveland Public Power over the
utility's use of "environmental and ecological adjustment" charges
can proceed.

Cleveland filed the appeal earlier this year asking the state's
highest court to take jurisdiction of the issue. An appeals court
overturned an earlier Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court ruling
last year that had thrown out the suit. The 8th District, in its
ruling, said that the city ordinance at question, which was written
in the 1970s at the height of environmental concerns, didn't give
Cleveland Public Power free reign to recoup any expense it wished
via charges to customer bills.

The city had argued the ordinance allowed it to "recover a portion
of the costs it incurred for purchase and installation of power
supply apparatus necessitated by its growth."

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue, and will now be allowed to
continue their argument back in Cuyahoga County after the city's
last appeal efforts failed, that CPP improperly charged customers
$188 million to generate cash and stay competitive with FirstEnergy
using the environmental charge as a cover without hewing to its
guidelines that it be used only to recover costs associated with
environmental protection. [GN]


CLIENT SERVICES: Rhee FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hieseok Rhee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Client Services,
Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-12253-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff Class defined
as follows:

   "All consumers in the State of New Jersey to whom Defendant
sent
   a Debt Collection Letter which either (i) contained multiple
   addresses for the sending of validation dispute or (ii)
   contained a page labeled "Debt Validation Notice" which was
   blank, sent between May 7, 2017 and May 28, 2018."

The Class intends to pursue a common Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) claim against the Defendant under 15 U.S.C.section
1692e, 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(2), 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(8), and
15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10).

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) statutory
damage class.

The Defendant is a debt collector that regularly collects debts on
behalf of third-party creditors.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CLOSE RANGE: Fails to Pay Wages Upon Termination, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMANE TYREE GRIFFIN, an individual and California resident v.
CLOSE RANGE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation, and Does
1 through 10, Case No. 21STCV12296 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 30, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated alleging that the Defendant willfully
failed to compensate the Plaintiff for wages at the termination of
their employment with the Defendant, including unpaid commissions.


As a result of this alleged conduct, the Defendant has engaged in
unfair competition and unlawful business practices, suit says.

The Plaintiff says that she will conduct discovery as to other
similarly-situated workers and reserves her right to amend this
complaint and act as a class representative.

Ms. Griffin is an individual and resident of this County. The
Plaintiff was employed in this County by the defendant employer.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to: work without being paid
for all hours at the appropriate overtime rate; work without being
provided meal periods; and work without being provided rest
periods.

Defendant Close Range is a security company located at 311 N.
Robertson Boulevard, Suite 523, Beverly Hills, California. The
Defendant provides diversified security services and licensed
training. As to the Plaintiffs employment experience, she is
familiar that services are provided to city parks, the police
academy, jails, animal shelters, city museums, and they also
provide private security to talent (e.g., celebrities).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gaurav Bobby Kalra, Esq.
          177 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: (213) 435-3469
          Facsimile: (213) 559-8386
          E-mail: bobbv@gbkattorney.com

CLOVER HEALTH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV)

Investors Affected: October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Clover Health Investments, Corp. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a
Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's
sales are driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only
failed to disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii)
Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=14358&from=1

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGI)

Investors Affected: May 3, 2018 - February 25, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to failures in the diesel
additive system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to
certain loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's
customers; (2) as a result, Renewable Energy was not the proper
claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between
January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020; (3) as a result, Renewable
Energy's revenue and net income were overstated for certain
periods; (4) there was a material weakness in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting related to the purchase
and use of the petroleum diesel gallons when blending with
biodiesel; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/renewable-energy-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14358&from=1

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LDOS)

Investors Affected: May 4, 2020 - February 23, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Leidos Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos' products suffered from
numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection
systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/leidos-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14358&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


CMRE FINANCIAL: George Sues Over Unwanted Debt Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
DINA ST. GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00748 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of contacting individuals' cellular telephones, including
the Plaintiff, using an automatic telephone dialing system for the
purpose of debt collection even after it is made aware, or should
know, that it is placing calls to the wrong person and telephone
number. Allegedly, the Defendant is also engaged in the conduct of
harassing, oppressing, or abusing consumers in connection with the
collection of debts.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a medical debt servicing and
collections company, with its headquarters located at 3075 East
Imperial Highway, Ste. 200, Brea, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         William Litvak, Esq.
         DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
         11500 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 550
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 477-5575
         E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com

                - and –

         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

COLUMBUS BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARINO CASTANEDA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS BAKERY LLC D/B/A H&H
BAGELS; and MIGUEL FLORES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03195
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer,
porter and delivery worker.

Columbus Bakery LLC owns, operates, or controls a bagel shop,
located at 526 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10024 under the name
"H&H Bagels". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMCAST CABLE: Credit Check Class Action Moved to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Comcast Cable
Communications LLC might be entitled to get a customer's potential
class action accusing the company of pulling his credit information
without permission moved to arbitration under the terms of the
customer's subscriber agreement, even though the agreement was
terminated before the credit check, the Eleventh Circuit said on
April 5.

Michael Hearn in 2016 signed a subscriber agreement containing a
default arbitration provision purportedly covering any dispute with
Comcast, including claims arising after the termination of the
agreement. Hearn ended his Comcast services in 2017. [GN]



CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONVERSE ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01830-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendant as warehouse
associate.

Converse Electric, Inc. provides electrical contracting services.
The Company offers value engineering, new construction, remodels
and additions, design-build, lighting control, repairing,
installation, and emergency services. Converse Electric serves
commercial, industrial, and residential sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               -and-

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


CORELOGIC INC: Morgan Balks at Merger Deal With Stone Point
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MORGAN v. CORELOGIC, INC., FRANK MARTELL, W. STEVE
ALBRECHT, DOUGLAS C. CURLING, JOHN C. DORMAN, PAUL F. FOLINO, WENDY
LANE, CLAUDIA FAN MUNCE, PAMELA H. PATENAUDE, VIKRANT RAINA, J.
MICHAEL SHEPHERD, JAYNIE MILLER STUDENMUND, and HENRY W. WINSHIP,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00581 (C.D. Cal., March 29, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated asserting
claims against CoreLogic and the members of CoreLogic's Board of
Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the
vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which CoreLogic will be
acquired by funds managed by Stone Point Capital and Insight
Partners through their subsidiaries Celestial-Saturn Parent Inc.
(Parent) and Celestial-Saturn Merger Sub Inc. (Acquisition Sub).

On February 4, 2021, CoreLogic issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
February 4, 2021. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
CoreLogic stockholder will be entitled to receive $80.00 in cash
for each share of CoreLogic common stock they own. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $6 billion.

On March 1, 2021, CoreLogic filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which 1 recommends
that CoreLogic stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information
concerning the Company's financial projections and the financial
analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided by the Board's
financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In short, unless
remedied, CoreLogic's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

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

CoreLogic is a leading provider of property insights and solutions.
CoreLogic's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "CLGX." The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI 2100641, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00716 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores, headquartered in Issaquah, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         David D. Kadue, Esq.
         David D. Jacobson, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                 djacobson@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Helen McFarland, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         999 Third Avenue, Ste. 4700
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Telephone: (206) 946-4923
         Facsimile: (206) 299-9974
         E-mail: hmcfarland@seyfarth.com

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Vacates Bid to Deny Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christone Feltzs v. Cox
Communications Cal., LLC et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02002-JVS-JDE
(C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order
striking and vacating the motion set for May 3, 2021.

The motion include to deny class certification filed by the
Defendants Cox Communication Cal., LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc., and
Cox Communications. Local Rule 7-3 requires that the parties "meet
and confer" in advance of filing such motion "to discuss
thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated
motion and any potential resolution." The conference must occur at
least seven days prior to the filing of the motion. In the notice
of the motion, the moving party must include a statement to the
effect: "This motion is made following the conference of counsel
pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took place on [date]."

The motions (or motion, if the parties decide that there need not
be two separate motions filed) may be re-noticed for a new date,
provided the renewed motions are accompanied by a declaration that
establishes compliance with Local Rule 7-3.

The Court notes that if the parties had conferred as required by
the Local Rules, then there would likely be no need for two motions
on substantially the same issue to be before the Court.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QueWdW at no extra charge.[CC]


CYTODYN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds CytoDyn
Inc. (OTCMKTS: CYDY) ("CytoDyn") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against CytoDyn on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired CytoDyn common stock
between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

Website: https://www.ktmc.com/cytodyn-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=cytodyn
   
Contact:  James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
  Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
  Toll free (844) 887-9500

CytoDyn is a biotechnology company that has focused on the
development and commercialization of a drug named "Leronlimab"
which has long been promoted as a potential therapy for HIV
patients. Since the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
CytoDyn began aggressively touting Leronlimab as a treatment for
COVID-19.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that CytoDyn's development and marketing of Leronlimab as
a treatment for COVID-19 was not commercially viable.

CytoDyn investors may, no later than May 17, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


CYTODYN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of CytoDyn Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

CytoDyn Inc. (OTC PINK:CYDY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cytodyn-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14805&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Class Period: March 27, 2020 - March 9, 2021

Allegations against CYDY include that: CytoDyn securities were
actively traded over the counter (OTC) in the United States. While
the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this
time and can be ascertained only through appropriate discovery,
Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members
in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class
may be identified from records maintained by CytoDyn or its
transfer agent and/or OTC Markets and may be notified of the
pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar
to that customarily used in securities class actions.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]



D AND A COFFEE: Azueta Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCIO AZUETA and TELESFORO REYES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D AND A COFFEE LLC
(DBA 12 Chairs Cafe) and RONEN GRADY, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03523 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay at the required
minimum wage rate, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread
of hours premium, and failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
worked hours.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery workers and
cooks from 2017 until 2019.

D and A Coffee LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under
the name 12 Chairs Cafe located at 56 MacDougal St. in New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         Aygul Charles, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, PC
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 832-1000
         Facsimile: (212) 203-9115

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Danimer Scientific
Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR) investors concerning
the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Danimer investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/danimer-scientific-inc/.You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On March 20, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not
Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer's
claims that Nodax, a plant-based plastic that Danimer markets,
breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The article
alleges that according to several experts on biodegradable
plastics, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading."
According to the article, Jason Locklin, the expert who co-authored
the study touted by Danimer as validating its material, stated that
Danimer's marketing is "sensationalized" and that making broad
claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not accurate" and is
"greenwashing."

On this news, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or
roughly 13%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Danimer should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                            About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


DOLPHIN TERMITE: Sanabria FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE AVIN SANCHEZ SANABRIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOLPHIN TERMITE
SERVICES, INC. and JAVIER GARCIA, Case No. 2021-007976-CA-01, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21528 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged overtime violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dolphin Termite Services, Inc. is a pest control service provider
in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Carmen Rodriguez, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
         Palmetto Bay Centre
         15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411
         Palmetto Bay, FL 33157
         Telephone: (305) 254-6101
         Facsimile: (305) 254-6048
         E-mail: crpa@crlaborlawfirm.com

EASTLAND MALL: Final Certification of Collective Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEJUANA BEAVER, et al. for
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EASTLAND MALL
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00485-EAS-CM (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) granting final
certification of the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective class.

This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act OMFWSA, filed as a
collective and class action. The Plaintiffs filed this action on
January 28, 2020, alleging that their employers, the Defendants
Eastland Mall Holdings, LLC, and Group 7 Staffing, LLC, failed to
pay them and similarly situated individuals for all wages earned,
including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their respective regular rates for the hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2S4SbOk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
          Mansell Law, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com

EBANG INTERNATIONAL: The Gross Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Ebang International
Holdings Inc..

Shareholders who purchased shares of EBON during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ebang-international-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14809&from=5

CLASS PERIOD : June 26, 2020 to April 5, 2021

ALLEGATIONS :The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the proceeds from Ebang's
public offerings had been directed to an low yield, long term bonds
to an underwriter and to related parties rather than used to
develop the Company's operations; (2) Ebang's sales were declining
and the Company had inflated reported sales, including through the
sale of defective units; (3) Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) Ebang's purported crytocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


ELEFTHERIA REST: Lazaro Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LAZARO on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, v. ELEFTHERIA REST CORP. d/b/a DON COQUI ASTORIA, DC 115
CEDAR NR, LLC d/b/a GET SOUL, DC ON THE HUDSON LLC d/b/a DON COQUI
DC WHITE PLAINS LLC d/b/a DON COQUI, SCF CEDAR LLC d/b/a SALSA CON
FUEGO, DIMITRIOS MITSIOS, JAIME RODRIGUEZ a/k/a JIMMY RODRIGUEZ,
JALEENE RODRIGUEZ, JEWELLE RODRIGUEZ, JOHN MANGAN, EDWARD KOBUS,
ANGEL ORTEGA, RENE RODRIGUEZ, and JOSEPH D. NIEVES, Case No.
7:21-cv-02666 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by
the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the
filing of the Complaint in this case.

The Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to
the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them the proper minimum wage and
the proper overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times
the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that from the start of his employment with
the Defendants until December 2014, he was regularly scheduled to
work 63 hours per week from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for seven days a
week. From January 2015 until the end of his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked 54 hours per week from 700 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. for six days a week. He adds that throughout his entire
employment with Defendants, he was paid below the New York State
minimum wage.

The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise at the following
locations with the following tradenames:

   a. 28-18 31st Street, Astoria, NY 11102 (Don Coqui Astoria);

   b. 115 Cedar Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801 (Don Coqui New
      Rochelle);

   c. 16 Front Street, Haverstraw, NY 10927 (Don Coqui on the
      Hudson);

   d. 107 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 (Don Coqui
      White Plains); and

   e. 2297 Cedar Avenue, Bronx, NY 10468 (Salsa Con Fuego).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

EVERCORE WEALTH: Thorne Seeks Website Access for Blind Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERCORE WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03555-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
https://www.evercorewealthandtrust.com/, allegedly contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
general public through the Website. These access barriers include,
but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2)
empty links, (3) redundant links, and (4) linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Evercore Wealth Management, LLC, is a financial services company,
with its principal executive office located at 55 East 52nd Street,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

FAST AUTO: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in UCL Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Fourth Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial
court's order denying the defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiffs' complaint and
prayer for relief did not limit the requested remedies to only
class members, but rather encompassed all consumers and members of
the public, and that requiring consumers to waive their right to
pursue public injunctive relief violates the rule described in
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017).

A copy of the opinion in Maldonado v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc. is
available at: Link to Opinion at
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G058645.PDF.

In a putative class action, the plaintiffs claimed that the
defendant charged unconscionable interest rates on loans in
violation of California Financial Code sections 22302 and 22303.
The first amended complaint alleged (1) violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, Sec. 17200 et
seq.), and (2) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA; Civ. Code, Sec. 1750 et seq.).

In their prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested that the trial
court certify the lawsuit as a class action, determine that the
defendant violated consumer protection statutory claims, and issue
"a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order for injunctive
relief requiring [the defendant] to: (i) cease charging an unlawful
interest rate on its loans exceeding $2,500; (ii) and institute
corrective advertising and provide written notice to the public of
the unlawfully charged interest rate on prior loans[.]" The
complaint also sought a disgorgement of the defendant's revenue to
pay restitution to the class members.

The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the
action pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the
plaintiffs' loan agreements. One paragraph of the clause stated a
party could reject the arbitration provision if he or she mailed a
written rejection notice following specific instructions. Another
one noted that the arbitration provision was governed by the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the agreement involved
interstate commerce.

Relevant to this appeal, paragraph 14(d) stated that the parties
must arbitrate any claim (with a few exceptions) "that in any way
arises from or relates to this Agreement or the Motor Vehicle
securing this Agreement." Paragraph 14(h), titled "Class Action
Waiver" provided that the consumer had no right to participate in
or join "a class action, private attorney general action, or other
representative action[.]"

Paragraph 14(h) also contained a "poison pill" provision stating:
"[t]he parties acknowledge that the Class Action Waiver is material
and essential to the arbitration of any disputes between them and
is non-severable from this Arbitration Provision. If the Class
Action Waiver is limited, voided or found unenforceable, then this
Arbitration Provision (except for this sentence) shall be null and
void with respect to such proceedings, subject to the right to
appeal the limitation or invalidation of the Class Action Waiver.
The parties acknowledge and agree that under no circumstances will
a class action be arbitrated."

Additionally, paragraph 14(n), titled "Severability and Survival"
provided: "[i]f any part of this Arbitration Provision, other than
the Class Action Waiver, is deemed or found to be unenforceable for
any reason, the remainder shall be enforceable."

In short, the arbitration clause required the plaintiffs to agree
to individual, non-class arbitration.

The defendant asserted that the arbitration clause was broadly
written to cover all the plaintiffs' claims. In addition, the
defendant urged the trial court to enforce the agreement's class
waiver provision, which requires arbitration to only take place on
an individual basis.

The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the class
waiver provision was invalid and unenforceable because it required
consumers to waive their right to pursue public injunctive relief,
a rule described in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945.
Therefore, the entire arbitration clause was deemed invalid and
unenforceable because the "poison pill" provision did not allow the
class waiver provision to be severed. On appeal, the defendant
argued that the "McGill rule" did not apply, but even if it did,
other claims were subject to arbitration. Alternatively, the
defendant contended that the McGill rule was preempted by the FAA.

The Fourth District noted that in McGill, the California Supreme
Court held that the arbitration provision in that case was "invalid
and unenforceable under California law" because "it purport[ed] to
waive the plaintiff's statutory right to seek public injunctive
relief." McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at p. 961. In explaining its
conclusion, the California Supreme Court cited Civil Code section
3513, which provides, in pertinent part, that "a law established
for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement."
Id. at p. 962. In other words, a statutory right created to serve a
public purpose is unwaivable.

In Mejia v. DACM Inc., 54 Cal.App.5th 691 (2020), the Fourth
District applied the McGill rule. Mejia, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 702-703. The arbitration terms discussed in Mejia were
similarly broad to those found in the arbitration clause here, with
the plaintiff agreeing to arbitrate any claims arising out of the
credit agreement. Id.

The arbitration clause in Mejia also contained a class action
waiver that "specifically barred arbitration of all class,
representative, or private attorney general claims[.]" Id. As in
this case, the class waiver paragraph contained a "'poison pill'
provision" stating: "'If any portion of this Arbitration Provision
other than [the Class Waiver provision] is deemed invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining portions of this Arbitration Provision
shall nevertheless remain valid and in force. If an arbitration is
brought on a class, representative, or collective basis, and the
limitations on such proceedings in [the Class Waiver provision] are
finally adjudicated . . . to be unenforceable, then no arbitration
shall be had.'" (Italics added.) Id. at p. 695.

The defendant in Mejia moved to compel arbitration, arguing that
the plaintiff was seeking private injunctive relief. Id. at pp.
694-695. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was not
seeking to prevent future harm to the general public, but only to
benefit members of his class of similarly situated individuals. Id.
at p. 702. The Mejia court disagreed, pointing out that the
plaintiff sought an injunction forcing the defendant "to cease
selling motor vehicles in the state of California without first
providing the consumer with all disclosures mandated by Civil Code
[section] 2982 in a single document." Id. at p. 703.

The Mejia court noted that McGill defined "public injunctive
relief" as "relief that by and large benefits the general public
and that benefits the plaintiff, if at all, only incidentally
and/or as a member of the general public." Id. Accordingly, the
court held that the plaintiff's prayer for relief clearly meets
this definition because the plaintiff "seeks to enjoin future
violations of California's consumer protection statutes, relief
oriented to and for the benefit of the general public." Id.

In the present case, the defendant argued that even though the
plaintiffs requested a public injunction in the complaint, the
relief sought is actually private because it will, at best, only
benefit the plaintiffs and a discreet, narrowly-defined group of
other customers. The Fourth District disagreed because the
plaintiffs specifically stated that the injunctive relief should
require the defendant to stop charging unlawful interest rates and
adopt "corrective advertising."

Therefore, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs' complaint
and prayer did not limit the requested remedies for only some class
members, but rather encompassed all consumers and members of the
public.

Moreover, the Fourth District concluded that an injunction under
the CLRA against the defendant's unlawful practices would not
directly benefit the plaintiffs because they had already been
harmed and were already aware of the misconduct. Any benefit to the
plaintiffs would be incidental to the "general public benefit of
enjoining such a practice." McGill, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 955.
Therefore, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court on this
issue and held that the class waiver provision violated the McGill
rule.

The defendant also asserted that the trial court erred in declaring
the entire arbitration provision unenforceable simply because the
class waiver provision was invalid. The defendant argued that the
"subject to the right to appeal" language in the "poison pill"
provision meant that the arbitration agreement would not become
void until an appeal was taken from an adverse ruling, and that
appeal did not succeed in overturning the trial court's ruling.
Alternatively, the defendant maintained that any ambiguity in the
contractual language must be construed in favor of arbitration.

The Fourth District concluded that the defendant's interpretation
of the "poison pill" provision is incorrect and moot.

First, the Appellate Court pointed out that an appeal has now taken
place and the appellate court was affirming the trial court's
ruling. Therefore, this argument was no longer relevant even under
the defendant's interpretation of the "poison pill" provision.

Second, the Fourth District interpreted the "subject to the right
to appeal" language, when read in context, as simply acknowledging
the defendant's right to appeal the decision and enforce the class
waiver limitations if successful on appeal. Thus, the Court held
that the "poison pill" provision prevented the class waiver
provision from being severed from the rest of the arbitration
clause.

The defendant lastly argued that the FAA preempts McGill, stating
that there are two petitions currently before the U.S. Supreme
Court that make this same argument. However, the Fourth District
noted that the Supreme Court of the United States has already
denied these petitions, and that it is bound to follow the
precedent set by the California Supreme Court in McGill.

Accordingly, the Fourth District concluded that the arbitration
clause was invalid because the class waiver provision violated the
McGill rule, and affirmed the trial court's order denying the
defendant's motion to compel arbitration. [GN]


FIBROGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGEN) ("FibroGen") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired FibroGen securities and/or sold put
options from November 8, 2019 through April 6, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
FibroGen securities during the Class Period may, no later than June
11, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/fibrogen-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=fibrogen

FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for
the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. Its most
advanced product is roxadustat, an oral small molecule inhibitor of
hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase activity that acts by
stimulating the body's natural pathway for red cell production. In
2019, FibroGen filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the approval of roxadustat
for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease ("CKD").
FibroGen states that administration of roxadustat has been shown to
induce coordinated erythropoiesis, increasing red blood cell count
while maintaining plasma erythropoietin levels within or near
normal physiologic range in multiple subpopulations of CKD
patients, including in the presence of inflammation and without a
need for supplemental intravenous iron.

The Class Period commences on November 8, 2019 when FibroGen issued
a press release announcing "Positive Phase 3 Pooled Roxadustat
Safety and Efficacy Results". In the press release, and throughout
the Class Period, FibroGen touted roxadustat as a safe treatment
for anemia of CKD.

However, the truth was revealed on April 6, 2021 when, after the
market closed, FibroGen issued a press release that revealed that
FibroGen's previously disclosed safety data included undisclosed
post-hoc changes to the stratification factors and did not include
analyses based on the pre-specified stratification factors. As a
result of these changes, the complaint alleges that FibroGen was
forced to concede that roxadustat, contrary to prior
representations, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events
or hospitalization as compared to a currently approved anemia
injection used as a control based on pre-specified stratification
factors. Following this news, FibroGen's stock price fell $14.90,
or 43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) FibroGen's
prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses
from the roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia and
certain safety analyses submitted in connection with CKD included
post-hoc changes to the stratification factors; (2) FibroGen's
analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors result in
higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95%
confidence intervals; (3) based on these analyses FibroGen could
not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior
to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis
compared to epoetin-alfa; (4) as a result, FibroGen faced
significant uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment
for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' statements about FibroGen's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

FibroGen investors may, no later than June 11, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]


FIBROGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen") (NASDAQ: FGEN) between
November 8, 2019 and April 6, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-information-request-form?prid=14814&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's prior disclosures of U.S.
primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3
program for the treatment of anemia certain safety analyses
submitted in connection with CKD included post-hoc changes to the
stratification factors; (ii) FibroGen's analyses with the
pre-specified stratification factors result in higher hazard ratios
(point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals;
(iii) based on these analyses the Company could not conclude that
roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa; (iv) as a result, the Company faced significant
uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment for anemia
of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in FibroGen you have until June 11, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]



FIBROGEN INC: The Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of FibroGen, Inc.

Shareholders who purchased shares of FGEN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fibrogen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14802&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: November 8, 2019 to April 6, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's prior disclosures
of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat
Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia certain safety analyses
submitted in connection with CKD included post-hoc changes to the
stratification factors; (ii) FibroGen's analyses with the
pre-specified stratification factors result in higher hazard ratios
(point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals;
(iii) based on these analyses the Company could not conclude that
roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa; (iv) as a result, the Company faced significant
uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment for anemia
of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Faces Ali Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED USMAN ALI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP.; OC KIM;
and DAVID BROWN, Defendants, Case 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
April 16, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin securities between
September 17, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that Franklin's hotspot devices suffered from battery issues,
including overheating, thereby presenting a fire hazard; (2) that,
as a result, it was reasonably likely that the Company's customers
would recall Franklin's devices; (3) that, as a result, Franklin
would suffer reputational harm; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 9, 2021, Franklin stated that its customer Verizon
Wireless "has issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot
devices imported by Franklin." The Company stated that "[a]t this
time, fewer than 20 report of trouble have been received with over
2 million devices in sold over the last three and a half years." On
this news, the Company's share price fell $4.07, or nearly 23%, to
close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

Franklin Wireless Corporation designs and markets wireless
broadband high-speed data communications products. The Company also
offers solutions and services to its personal and business
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FUBOTV INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on April 5 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT FUBO:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14342&from=1

Class Period : March 23, 2020 - January 4, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (ii)
Fubo offering of products was subject to undisclosed cost
escalations; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its only sports
wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve long-term advertising
growth goals and forecasts; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies,
internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable
market into online sports wagering; and as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

CytoDyn Inc. (OTCQB: CYDY)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT CYDY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/cytodyn-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14342&from=1

Class Period: March 27, 2020 - March 9, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
CytoDyn securities were actively traded over the counter (OTC) in
the United States. While the exact number of Class members is
unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only
through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are
hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record
owners and other members of the Class may be identified from
records maintained by CytoDyn or its transfer agent and/or OTC
Markets and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail,
using the form of notice similar to that customarily used in
securities class actions.

Lordstown Motors Corp (NASDAQ:RIDE)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RIDE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/lordstown-motors-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=14342&from=1

Class Period: August 3, 2020 - March 24, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of
the would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked
the means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible
demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has
not been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in
September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the
vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


FUND LIQUIDATION: 2nd Circuit Revives Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron R. Fenton, Esq., of Mintz, in an article for Lexology,
reports that on March 17, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") overturned the decision
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ("District Court") dismissing Fund Liquidation Holdings,
LLC v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. In so doing, the Second
Circuit revived antitrust class action claims against a number of
banks, which alleged that the banks manipulated the Singapore
Interbank Offer Rate ("SIBOR") and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate
(SOR) between 2007 and 2011. Two Cayman Island investment
funds-FrontPoint Asian Driven Fund, L.P., and Sonterra Capital
Master Fund, Ltd. (the "Cayman Funds")-originally filed the case
but, years after filing, it became clear that both of the Cayman
Funds were dissolved prior to the case being filed, and that the
real party in interest was Fund Liquidation Holdings ("Liquidation
Holdings"), to whom the Cayman Funds had assigned their claims
before dissolution. Contrary to the District Court's ruling, the
Second Circuit determined that, although the Cayman Funds did not
exist at the time of filing, this did not deprive the court of
jurisdiction, and that on remand the District Court should consider
whether to allow the plaintiff to further amend the complaint in
order to add new, more appropriate plaintiffs.

The District Court's Decision on Appeal
Prior to the decision on appeal here, in October 2018, the District
Court dismissed each of the Cayman Funds' claims. Important here,
the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust allegations
because (a) one of the Cayman Funds never assigned their antitrust
claims to Liquidation Holdings, and (b) the other Cayman Fund
lacked antitrust standing, because it had not transacted directly
with the Defendants.

Nine months later, in July 2019, the District Court issued the
Order on appeal here. Specifically, the District Court denied
Liquidation Holdings' motion to further amend the complaint-in
order to add new plaintiffs to the case, whose claims did not have
these deficiencies-because the case had become a "legal nullity"
when it was filed by non-existent entities, which meant that the
District Court lacked jurisdiction over the case from the start.
This lack of jurisdiction also caused the District Court to refuse
to approve settlement agreements signed by several of the
Defendants, including CitiGroup, Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. The
Plaintiffs appealed.

Appellate Ruling I: The Cayman Funds Lacked Article III Standing
The Second Circuit first determined that, although the Cayman Funds
had already assigned their securities claims to Liquidation
Holdings prior to filing the suit, this assignment,
in-and-of-itself, did not mean that the Cayman Funds lacked
standing to sue. Specifically, Article III standing requires that a
plaintiff demonstrate three things: a "concrete and particularized"
injury, a connection between that injury and the conduct at issue
in the suit, and the Court's ability to redress the injury. The
Court noted that only redressability was at issue here because the
Defendants argued that, injury or not, the Cayman Funds were not
the proper party to whom redress could be awarded. However,
according to the Second Circuit the assignment did not negate the
Cayman Funds' standing, because the required showing is that the
Plaintiffs' injury is redressable-not that the redress be owed to
the Plaintiffs themselves,

On the other hand, while the pre-suit assignment did not destroy
standing for the Cayman Funds, the Second Circuit held that the
Cayman Funds' pre-suit dissolution did preclude standing. Under the
law of the Cayman Islands, a company ceases to possess both legal
existence and the capacity to sue upon dissolution. For this
reason, the Cayman Funds did not have standing at the time that
they filed the lawsuit. Importantly, the Court explained that this
decision hinged on the specifics of Cayman Island law, which is in
contrast to many states' laws that allow a company to continue in
some capacity following dissolution. Thus, rather than holding that
a dissolved company necessarily lacks standing to sue, the Second
Circuit instead determined that standing depends on the company's
legal rights and standing (as determined by state or national law)
at the time that it files the lawsuit.

Appellate Ruling II: Liquidation Holdings Had Article III Standing
Although the Cayman Funds lacked standing, this was not fatal to
the suit, because the Second Circuit ruled that "Article III is
satisfied so long as a party with standing to prosecute the
specific claim in question exists at the time the pleading is
filed." This rule is in contrast to the "nullity doctrine" adopted
in a number of other circuits (notably, the Sixth Circuit), which
would hold that a lack of standing by the named Plaintiff
invalidates the entire lawsuit.

In rejecting the "nullity doctrine," the Second Circuit explained
that the decision as to which party ought to be named as the
plaintiff in a lawsuit involving an assignment of claims is a
question of procedure, not of constitutional jurisdiction, and has
varied across geography and time. Because the question is
procedural rather than jurisdictional, the Second Circuit
determined that it was able to select its own rule regarding the
proper party to prosecute the suit. Furthermore, although questions
regarding standing do implicate jurisdictional concerns, courts
routinely allow subsequent events in a case to "fix" jurisdiction,
without also requiring that a new complaint be filed; in other
words, when jurisdiction is "fixed" sometime after the filing of a
case, that does not mean that the court lacked jurisdiction over
the case prior to the "fix." For example, if a federal court
sitting in diversity finds that "complete diversity" is lacking,
and "fixes" the lack of diversity jurisdiction by dismissing one of
the defendants, this would not then require the plaintiff to
re-file the lawsuit, and the statute of limitations would still
toll from the date that the jurisdictionally-deficient complaint
was filed.

Questions for District Court on Remand
The Second Circuit outlined two separate questions that the
District Court will need to determine on remand. The first is
whether, given the existence of jurisdiction, the District Court
should now preliminarily approve the combined $21 million
settlements by CitiGroup and JPMorganChase. Second, the District
Court must determine whether Liquidation Holdings should be granted
leave to further amend its complaint, in order to add new
investment funds as plaintiffs.

Finally, as guidance to the District Court, the Second Circuit
noted that the District Court had misinterpreted China Agritech,
Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018). Specifically, the Second
Circuit clarified that China Agritech held that, under American
Pipe, the statute of limitations does not toll where a plaintiff in
an existing action files a new action against the same defendant.
But the Second Circuit went on to explain that, by prohibiting the
filing of a new action, China Agritech does not also prohibit
tolling of the statute of limitations where, as here, a new
plaintiff is added to an existing action. [GN]


FYRE FESTIVAL: Discloses Festival Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to its catastrophic downfall, it at one point seemed that
Fyre Festival could command any price for a coveted ticket to the
Great Exuma event. Now, four years in the rearview, it ended up
being the attendees who would be compensated for their troubles.
Well, at least some of them anyway.

According to The New York Times, 277 ticket holders have reached a
settlement with Fyre Festival amounting to a total of $2 million --
that's $7,220 apiece. Due to the stratification of ticket prices,
which ranged from $1,000 to $12,000 a pop, and with some limited
luxury packages priced in the tens of thousands, it's difficult to
say whether anyone came out ahead or even broke even in terms of
financials after all of this. The initial class action suit was
submitted for a claim of $100 million.

The ruling delivered by the US bankruptcy court of New York is
subject to approval on May 13th, where the final payout figure
could potentially be lowered depending on how Fyre Festival fares
in bankruptcy suits with other creditors.

This is not the first successful verdict delivered to attendees of
the infamous event. In 2018, Seth Crossno and Mark Thompson were
the first attendees to settle with the disgraced festival, and were
awarded a total of $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $1
million in punitive damages. [GN]


GEICO CASUALTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Rebates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autobody News reports that Jessica Day has become the lead
plaintiff in a California class action lawsuit against GEICO
Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company and GEICO General
Insurance Company (collectively GEICO.)

Day alleges GEICO wrongly refused to pay back overcharged premiums
during the pandemic when fewer people were driving and fewer car
accident claims were submitted. According to Day's complaint, the
auto insurer is at fault for "unfairly profiting from the global
COVID-19 pandemic."

In March 2020, states across the country, including California,
began to enforce social distancing measures to slow the spread of
COVID-19, which included closing schools and businesses and
instituting strict "stay-at-home" orders that prevented most
individuals from leaving their homes for extended periods of time,
according to the class action complaint.

"While many companies, industries and individuals have suffered
financially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, auto insurers
like GEICO have scored a windfall," a portion of the class action
complaint reads. "Not surprisingly, as a result of statewide social
distancing and stay-at-home measures, there has been a dramatic
reduction in driving, and an attendant reduction in driving-related
accidents.

"According to its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway, GEICO
reported pretax earnings of $3.428 billion in 2020. That is more
than double GEICO's earnings over the same period in 2019."

The state's insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, said car insurers
overcharged by 8% from March 2020 through September 2020, pointing
out carriers collected $220 million in excess premiums in April
2020 alone, according to Day's complaint.

"The bottom line: Insurance companies overcharged consumers and
need to do more to make it right and help Californians recover,"
said Lara.

GEICO has yet to respond to Day's class action complaint. [GN]


GEODIS USA: Garner Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZYANNE GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEODIS USA, LLC; GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC,
f/k/a Ozburn Hessey Logistics, LLC; and GEODIS TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
f/k/a Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC and OHL Transportation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00382-MAB (S.D. Ill., April 13, 2021)
alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the Class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant allegedly failed to inform its employees of the
complete purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric
data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to
obtain their knowing consent to use their biometric data.

GEODIS USA, LLC provides transportation and logistics services. The
Company offers supply chain, distribution, freight forwarding, and
flow management. [BN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               -and-

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com


GEORGE DEUTSCH: Smith Seeks Electronics Technicians' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE DEUTSCH d/b/a DEL MAR ELECTRONICS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00156 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendants for its alleged failure to
pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an electronics
technician from October 2018 to January 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, but the Defendants paid him on a day-rate basis only
without overtime. The Defendant did not pay him his lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay for all hours he worked over 40 per week. In
addition, the Defendant did not maintain accurate time and pay
records, and did not post and keep posted the notice, the Plaintiff
adds.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated electronics
technicians, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees plus interest and
costs, and all other relief that may be adjudged against the
Defendant.

George Deutsch d/b/a Del Mar Electronics provides electronic
installation services on vessels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


GERBER PRODUCTS: Cantor Sues Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CANTOR, ASHLEY ALLEN, EMILY BACCARI, KAITLYNN CARSON, AMBER
CAUDILL, NEISHA DANIELS, FELICIA DYKES, JILLIAN GEFFKEN, JESSICA
GOODPASTURE, HANNAH GRANDT, DOMINICK GROSSI, GALENA GUTIERREZ,
ANTHONY HARRISON, CHRISTINA HOLLAND, HEATHER HYDEN, MERCEDES JONES,
LISA LOSIEWICZ, HEATHER MCCORMICK, TERRIE MCDONALD, HALEY SAMS,
VITO SCAROLA, BAYLEE SCHAEFER, NATALIA STOROSHKO, and ARIANE
THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00489 (E.D. Va., April 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and violations of consumer protection statutes in various states.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of its baby
food products. Contrary to the representations on the products'
label, the products contain heavy metals, including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead at levels above what is considered safe for
babies. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations,
the Plaintiffs were harmed by paying a premium for baby foods that
contain heavy metals.

Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Brian A. Richardson, Esq.
         Justin W. Ward, Esq.
         FORD RICHARDSON P.C.
         901 E. Byrd Street, Suite 1800
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 220-6113
         Facsimile: (804) 482-4898

                - and –

         Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
         Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
         Zachary Rynar, Esq.
         SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
         184 Atlantic Street
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Telephone: (203) 325-4491
         Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
         E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                 isloss@sgtlaw.com
                 zrynar@sgtlaw.com

                - and –

         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         Erin G. Comite, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 ecomite@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 983-9330
         Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Baker Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA BAKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL RESPONSE NORTH CORPORATION and GLOBAL
RESPONSE LLC, Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-00073 (W.D. Mich., April 14,
2021) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Baker was employed by the Defendants as customer service
representative.

Global Response North Corporation operates as call center. The
Company offers social media monitoring, interactive voice response,
business process outsourcing, ecommerce customers care, and inbound
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com


GOOGLE LLC: Farwell BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled H.K. and J.C., through their father and legal
guardian CLINTON FARWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 20LL00017, was removed
from the Circuit Court of McDonough County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on April 20,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01122-MMM-JEH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the
Plaintiffs' biometric data and other personal information through
its educational product Google Workspace for Education (GWFE)
without obtaining their parents' consent and without providing and
complying with public notice of a retention schedule and
destruction guidelines for biometric data.

Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Andrew Stuckart, Esq.
         LUCIE, BOUGHER & ASSOCIATES,
         Attorneys at Law, P.C.
         202 N. Lafayette St.
         Macomb, IL 61455
         Telephone: (309) 833-1702
         Facsimile: (309) 833-1701
         E-mail: andrew@lucielaw.com

               - and –

         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
         Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                 jmarchese@bursor.com
                 jarisohn@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and –

         Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
         David W. Hall, Esq.
         HEDIN HALL LLP
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 357-2107
         Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
         E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 dhall@hedinhall.com

GREENVILLE COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MATZURA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GREENVILLE COLLEGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-02693
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.greenville.edu, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Defendant offers the commercial Website to the public as well
as offers features which should allow all prospective students to
access the services offered by the Defendant. The services offered
by Defendant include the following: which allow students the
ability to take courses online, to pay tuition and other costs
online, apply for payment plans, and apply for admissions online,
as well as information relating to course offerings, financial aid,
cost of tuition, majors, and other services available online and
other general information about attending the Colleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

GUIDED DISCOVERIES: Two Law Firms File Wage Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Guided
Discoveries, Inc. for allegedly failing to accurately pay
employees' wages for all their time worked. The Guided Discoveries,
Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No. 21STCV08418, is currently
pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of
California. A copy of the Complaint can be read at
https://zakaylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guided-Discoveries-Conformed-Complaint.pdf.

According to the lawsuit, Guided Discoveries, Inc. allegedly
violated California Labor Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203,
204, 206.5, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and
2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages;
(3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (5) provide wages when due; and (6)
reimburse employees for required expenses. The lawsuit also alleges
Guided Discoveries, Inc. violated the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties as a result of Guided
Discoveries, Inc.'s conduct. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to
file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves,
other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code
violations.

California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish
its employees an accurate itemized wage statement in writing
showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the
number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate,
(4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates
of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
employee and only the last four digits of the employee's social
security number or an employee identification number other than a
social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours
worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Guided Discoveries,
Inc. allegedly failed to provide its employees with accurate
itemized wage statements that complied with all the requirements of
California Labor Code Section 226.

If you would like to know more about the Guided Discoveries, Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling
(619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]


HILTON GRAND: Blackburn Sues Over Omitted Share Issuance Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BLACKBURN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. LEONARD A. POTTER, MARK WANG,
BRENDA J. BACON, DAVID W. JOHNSON, MARK LAZARUS, PAMELA PATSLEY,
PAUL W. WHETSELL, and HILTON GRAND VACATIONS INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2021-0339 (Del. Ch., April 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed misleading proxy
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with soliciting stockholder support for the proposed
issuance of common stock of Hilton Grand Vacations (HGV) related to
its proposed merger with Diamond Resorts International, Inc.
Specifically, the proxy statements failed to disclose: (1) the
amount of the financial advisory fee payable to HGV's financial
advisor, BofA Securities, Inc., that is contingent upon completion
of the merger; and (2) the amount of financing-related fees and/or
additional compensation that BofA Securities and its affiliate(s)
will receive for providing the transaction-related debt financing
to HGV. The Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to know all
material information concerning BofA Securities' conflicts of
interest in order to fairly assess the proposed transaction and
decide how to vote on the share issuance, the suit asserts.

Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. is a global timeshare company, with
headquarters in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         The Nemours Building
         1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3800

                 - and –

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585

                 - and –

         Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
         1575 McFarland Road
         Pittsburgh, PA 15216
         Telephone: (412) 391-5164

HOME CITY: Pansiera Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK PANSIERA,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
HOME CITY ICE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01042-TSB (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Classes;

      -- Nationwide Class shall consisting of:

         "all persons in the United States who purchased an
         underweight "7 lb." ice bag from HCI during the applicable

         limitations period."

         Excluded from the Nationwide Class are persons who made
         such purchase for purpose of resale; the defendant, its
         officers, directors, employees, legal representatives,
         successors, assigns; any person or entity who has or who
         at any time during the relevant class period had a
         controlling interest in any Defendant; the Judges to whom

         this case is assigned and any member of the Judges'
         immediate family; and all persons who may submit timely
         and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the
         Nationwide Class. Members of this Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule
         23(b)(2) Class seek monetary damages, declaratory and
         injunctive relief, and other relief as ordered by the
         Court for claims of breach of express warranty, breach of

         implied warranty of merchantability, promissory estoppel,

         negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

         (Compl. As a purchaser of underweight HCI ice bags,
         Pansiera is a member of the Nationwide Class; and

      -- The Indiana Class consisting of:

         "all individuals who purchased an underweight "7 lb." ice

         bag in Indiana during the applicable limitations period.
         Members of this Class seek damages, including the purchase

         price of ice bags, for which HCI is liable under the
         IDCSA, the costs to Class members to supplement and
         increase their ice stores, and other relief as ordered by

         the Court. As a purchaser of underweight HCI ice bags in
         Indiana, Pansiera is also a member of the Indiana Class;"

   2. appointing himself as the Class Representative for those
      Classes; and

   3. appointing his Counsel as Class Counsel.

The Defendant HCI is a company that made over $200 million in
revenue in 2020 alone -- revenue which was primarily derived from
selling millions of bags of ice to consumers in a sixteen-state
market. A significant portion of these revenues come from bags of
ice that bear a weight statement guaranteeing to HCI customers that
the bags contain at least "7 lbs." of ice. However, the Plaintiff
contends that HCI has known for some time, through its own data
collection efforts, that its uniform processes and operations for
producing and bagging the ice that it sells to consumers yield a
significant amount of bags that weigh less than the "7 lbs."
advertised on its bags.

State regulatory authorities have also repeatedly cited HCI for
instances in which high percentages of its ice bags were
underweight and removed from sale. Despite knowing that underweight
bags of its ice make it into the market for sale to its consumers,
HCI has done nothing to change its ice manufacturing operations and
equipment or quality assurance measures to ensure that bags are
produced at accurate weights. Instead, it continues to misleadingly
guarantee that the bags of ice purchased by HCI customers contain
at least "7 lbs."

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April
15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3dO17jl at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. O'Connor, Esq.
          William E. Santen, Esq.
          Alexander R. Foxx, Esq.
          SANTEN & HUGHES
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2700
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Telephone: (513) 721-4450
          Facsimile: (513) 852-5994
          E-mail: bpo@santenhughes.com
                  wsj@santenhughes.com
                  arf@santenhughes.com

               - and -

          Jacob D. Mahle, Esq.
          Brent D. Craft, Esq.
          jdmahle@vorys.com
          bdcraft@vorys.com
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          301 East Fourth Street
          Suite 3500, Great American Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-8589
          Facsimile: (513) 852-7844

HORIZON NUT: Faces Hernandez Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Nut, LLC. The
case is captioned as HERNANDEZ v. HORIZON NUT, LLC, Case No.
BCV-21-100724 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 30, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.

A case management conference will be held on Sep. 29, 2021.

Horizon Nut is a grower-owned, California grown pistachio
processing operation led by a diverse group of industry
pioneers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastebar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd, Ste 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com

HUDAPACK METAL: Joint Bid for Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA KELLY on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. HUDAPACK METAL
TREATING, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00130-BHL (E.D. Wisc.), the
parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the proposed Rule
      23 Class and FLSA Collective;

   3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Plaintiff, Laura Kelly, as representative of the
      Settlement Class;

   5. approving the mailing of the Notice Packet to class members;

   6. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt

      out of the case or object to the Agreement;

   7. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt

      in to the FLSA Collective;

   8. finding that such Notice process satisfies due process;

   9. directing that any member of Rule 23 Class who has not
      properly requested exclusion and FLSA Collective members who

      have chosen to participate to the FLSA Collective shall be
      bound by the Agreement in the event the Court issues a Final

      Order Approving Settlement;

  10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class or FLSA
      Collective who wishes to object to the Agreement in any way
      must do so per the instructions set forth in the Notice
      Packet; and

  11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a total monetary settlement
payment of $49,000.00 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The
Parties believe that the settlement is fair and reasonable, as it
fully and adequately satisfies this Court’s criteria for such
settlements.

Beginning on November 16, 2020, the Parties engaged in settlement
dialogue via their respective counsel. On January 7, 2021, the
parties reached a settlement agreement in principle. On March 15,
2021, the parties finalized their Agreement which they now request
this Court to approve.

On January 28, 2020, the Plaintiff, Laura Kelly, filed her
Complaint against Defendant, Hudapack Metal Treating, Inc., on
behalf of herself and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.


The Plaintiff, herself, was an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of
Hudapack Metal Treating, Inc. within the three years preceding the
filing of her Complaint. The Plaintiff alleged violations of the
FLSA and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL), to
wit, the Defendant failed to include all non-discretionary forms of
monetary compensation in hourly-paid, non-exempt employees’
regular rates of pay for overtime calculation and compensation
purposes in workweeks when said employees worked in excess of 40
hours during the representative time period for which the
non-discretionary remuneration covered.

Hudapack Metal is a metal heat treatment company.

A copy of the parties joint motion dated April 15, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ezsblC at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mitchell W. Quick, Esq.
          Scott C. Beightol, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Odian, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP
          790 N. Walter Street, Suite 2500
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          E-mail: mwquick@michaelbest.com
                  scbeightol@michaelbest.com
                  eaodian@michaelbest.com

INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CELESTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTRUSION INC.; JACK BLOUNT; and B. FRANKLIN
BYRD, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex., April 16,
2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Intrusion securities between
January 13, 2021 and April 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursues claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Intrusion's Shield product was merely a repackaging of existing
technology in the Company's portfolio; (2) that Shield lacked the
patents, certifications, and insurance critical to the sale of
cybersecurity products; (3) that the Company had overstated the
efficacy of Shield's purported ability to protect against
cyberattacks; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intrusion's
Shield was reasonably unlikely to generate significant revenue; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 14, 2021, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Intrusion's product, Shield,
"has no patents, certifications, or insurance, which are all
essential for selling cybersecurity products" and that "Shield is
based on open-source data already available to the public."

Moreover, the report alleged that the claims that Shield "stopp[ed]
a total of 77,539,801 cyberthreats from 805,110 uniquely malicious
entities in the 90-day beta program" were "outlandish," leading
White Diamond to question "how have these companies been able to
function so far, as they've been attacked many times per minute by
ransomware, malware, data theft, phishing and DDoS attacks?"

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.50, or over 16%, to
close at $23.75 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $3.22, or
14%, over the next trading session to close at $20.53 per share on
April 15, 2021.

Intrusion Inc. provides enterprise security products that help
businesses protect critical information assets. The Company's
products detect, analyze, and respond to network- and host-based
attacks. Intrusion's products include intrusion detection and
vulnerability assessment systems, and modular, scalable secured by
Check Point security appliances. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               -and-

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


IRELAND: Faces Class Action Over Northern Ireland Protocol Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Young, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reports that a class
action has been launched against the Government claiming
post-Brexit Irish Sea trading arrangements infringe the economic
rights of Northern Ireland citizens.

If successful, the commercial litigation could pave the way for
companies adversely affected by the terms of the Northern Ireland
Protocol to claim significant financial damages from the
Government.

The legal move is different to separate legal challenges that have
been mounted against the Protocol on constitutional grounds.

The action, which names the Cabinet Office and Attorney General as
defendants, seeks a declaration from the High Court in London that
the provisions in EU Withdrawal Act relating to the Protocol
conflict with the economic rights provided for in the UK Human
Rights Act.

The 1998 Human Rights Act enshrines the European Convention on
Human Rights in domestic legislation.

The claim form lodged with the High Court names Ballymena haulage
company Blair International and DUP North Antrim MP Ian Paisley as
the initial claimants.

Solicitor Clive Thorne, who is acting for the claimants, said the
next legal stage move would be to formally add a "long queue" of
interested companies to the action. A court hearing would then
follow, said Mr Thorne.

"We're in touch with a whole series of other claimants who it is
envisaged will join the action," the lawyer told the PA news
agency.

The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed by the EU and UK during
the withdrawal negotiations in an effort to prevent a hard border
on the island of Ireland.

It achieves that by moving many regulatory and customs processes to
the Irish Sea, with goods arriving into the region from GB
subjected to significant new red tape.

The arrangements have caused some disruption to trade since the
start of the year as firms have struggled with the extra
bureaucracy.

Unionists and loyalists are vehemently opposed to the arrangements,
claiming they undermine Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal
market.

Mr Thorne said the claim argues that the Protocol discriminates
against businesses involved in GB/NI trade, hindering their ability
to operate as effectively as UK traders not involved in Irish Sea
shipping.

Mr Thorne, a partner in London-based law firm McCarthy Denning,
said those economically harmed included Northern Ireland businesses
but also GB traders who did business in the region.

He said the second aspect of the action centred on the contention
that there was no democratic mandate for the Protocol within
Northern Ireland

"We would say that the Protocol legislation is unlawful because it
conflicts with the rights under the Human Rights Act and contained
in the European Convention," he said.

The solicitor added: "This very much is a piece of commercial
litigation, rather than political or constitutional litigation,
whereby businesses in Northern Ireland, and also in Great Britain,
have suffered adversity as a result of the framing of the Protocol
and the way in which it has become part of United Kingdom law."

Mr Thorne said compensation claims would likely follow if the High
Court declared the Protocol unlawful.

"If the Government is found to have acted unlawfully, then it has
opened the door to possible subsequent claims for compensation for
the damage suffered," he said.

A separate legal challenge involving former Brexit MEP Ben Habib
and Baroness Kate Hoey, and supported by the leaders of the three
main unionist parties in Northern Ireland, is challenging the
Protocol on constitutional grounds, claiming it undermines the Act
of Union and the terms of the region's historic Good Friday peace
deal.

Mr Paisley said the new legal challenge complemented the
constitutional judicial review.

He added: "It's very much looking at the commercial damage that's
being done to various commercial interests and the various sectors
within the economy and it has to attack the Protocol from that
point of view, so that's why it's different but it's very
complementary.

"I think it is important that as many people come together and
demonstrate to the Government that this has to be challenged
constitutionally, politically, societally and economically."

Mr Paisley said using his name as a claimant was a "technical"
move. He said his main role was to provide a pathway to encourage
and facilitate companies to join the challenge.

"Potentially I think this will end up being a multimillion-pound
legal claim on behalf of several companies for loss against the
Government," he said. [GN]


J.E. BERKOWITZ: Violates WARN Act, Wojnar Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN WOJNAR and BARRY BLUMENFELD, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. J.E. BERKOWITZ, LP; CONSOLIDATED GLASS
HOLDINGS, INC.; and CZECH ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P., Case No.
1:21-cv-06990 (D.N.J., March 29, 2021) alleges that Defendants
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and
the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss
Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to provide a 60-day
notice to the employees of the Pendricktown Facility of a temporary
closure on February 2, 2021, constitutes a violation of the WARN
Act.

Defendant JEB is a glass manufacturing company that began
operations in or around 1920. Defendant CGH purchased Defendant JEB
in or around 2016. JEB constituted a wholly owned subsidiary of
Defendant CGH. From 2016 to 2018,  Defendant CGH owned and operated
eight glass manufacturing locations, including the Pendricktown
Facility, formerly operated by JEB.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Manali Arora, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

JEFFERSON PERFORMING: Brommer Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY BROMMER, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON PERFORMING ARTS SOCIETY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00726-CJB-JVM (E.D. La., April 8, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated all current and former
manual laborers against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt manual laborer for the
Defendant in the position of Assistant Technical Director from June
15, 2018 to November 26, 2020. He was promoted as the Technical
Director from November 27, 2020 until his resignation on December
3, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him of overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate despite working many
hundreds of hours of overtime. Specifically, the Plaintiff has
worked over 1,000 hours of overtime from 2018 until his
resignation. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay him 15 days
of his termination, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendant for
himself and other similarly situated manual laborers, that includes
all unpaid overtime compensation an amount equal to one and
one-half times the rate of pay for all overtime worked, as well as
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Jefferson Performing Arts Society produces theatrical productions
with performers travelling from around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Rose Denson, Esq.
          Justine G. Daniel, Esq.
          CASEY DENSON LAW, LLC
          4601 Dryades Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Tel: (504) 224-0110
          Fax: (504) 534-3380
          E-mail: cdenson@caseydensonlaw.com
                  jdaniel@caseydensonlaw.com

                - and –

          Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
          KENNETH C. BORDES,
            ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          4224 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Tel: (504) 588-2700
          Fax: (504) 708-1717
          E-mail: KCB@KENNETHBORDES.COM


JELD-WEN: Judge Grants Class Certification to Investors
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Virginia judge granted class
certification to Jeld-Wen investors who claim corporate officers
lied about the company's anticompetitive conspiracy to fix prices
in the interior door market. [GN]

JET SET SPORTS: Caruso Seeks Olympic Ticket Refunds Due to COVID
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE CARUSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JET SET SPORTS, LLC D/B/A COSPORT,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-09665 (D.N.J., April 16, 2021) alleges
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased tickets and
accommodations for the Summer Olympics through CoSport, which is
the sole entity authorized to sell tickets to the American public.
Because of the Novel Coronavirus pandemic, the Summer Olympics in
Tokyo were postponed from the summer of 2020 to the summer of 2021.
However, the Japanese Olympic Committee recently announced that no
international spectators will be allowed to attend. As a result,
the Olympic tickets and accommodations purchased by Plaintiff and
the putative class through CoSport are worthless. They are of no
value whatsoever, the suit says.

Defendant CoSport refuses to grant the Plaintiff and the class a
full refund under its Terms and Conditions. Instead, CoSport only
offers a partial refund (75%) if the customer elects her refund by
the eight (8) day deadline and the customer agrees to hold CoSport
harmless for retaining the remainder of their refund (25%).

Jet Set Sports provides accommodations, event tickets, catering,
ground transportation, management and other services related to
Olympic Games. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: jpolakoff@bm.net


JUUL LABS: Faces Altizer Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Addison Altizer, on behalf of her daughter, S.P., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:21-cv-02209-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2021) arises from the
Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of
e-cigarette products.

Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole
new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that
common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a
product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the
stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early
investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz
Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.

According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children, added the
suit.

JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world’s largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  rpaul@bm.net

JUUL LABS: Faces Kelly RICO Suit in Northern District of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juul Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Kelly, et al. v. Juul Labs, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02215-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2021).

The suit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William
H. Orrick.

Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017.[BN]

JUUL LABS: Ind. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELKHART COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02868 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants allegedly developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with
kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were
safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by
placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media
and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a
teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more
young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit asserts.

Elkhart Community Schools is a public school district located on
California Road in Elkhart, Indiana.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: Parker Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Parker, on behalf of her daughter, S.P., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:21-cv-02183 (N.D. Calif., March 29, 2021) arises from the
Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of
e-cigarette products.

Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole
new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that
common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a
product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the
stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early
investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz
Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.

According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.

JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world’s largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          Christopher Randolph, Jr., Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          2025 Third Avenue North Ste 800
          Birmingham AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com
                  chris@hwnn.com

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02870 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants allegedly developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with
kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were
safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by
placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media
and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a
teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more
young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit asserts.

Fort Wayne Community Schools is a public school district located on
South Clinton Street in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENWOOD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 51, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG
HUH, RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02872-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the South Carolina Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants allegedly developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with
kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were
safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by
placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media
and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a
teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more
young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says.

Greenwood County School District 51 is a public school district
located on South Greenwood Avenue in Ware Shoals, South Carolina.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         Eric D. Barton, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com
                 ebarton@wcllp.com

                - and –

         David T. Duff, Esq.
         DUFF FREEMAN LYON, LLC
         P.O. Box 1486
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Telephone: (803) 790-0603
         Facsimile: (803) 790-0605
         E-mail: dduff@dfl-lawfirm.com

                - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

KADMON HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Kadmon securities between October 1, 2020 and
March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/kdmn.                 

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or
deficient; (2) the additional new data that the Company submitted
in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information
request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (3)
accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the
degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe;
(4) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target
action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (5) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/kdmn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Kadmon
you have until June 2, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com

URL : http://bgandg.com

Contact Information:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com [GN]


KADMON HOLDINGS: Holzer & Holzer Reminds of June 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on April 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Kadmon
Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: KDMN) ("Kadmon" or the "Company") securities
between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The complaint seeks to recover damages for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you purchased shares of Kadmon between October 1, 2020 and March
10, 2021 and suffered significant losses on that investment, you
are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832
to discuss your legal rights or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com to learn more. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 2, 2021.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

CONTACT:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]


KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-01797, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Kadmon securities
between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Kadmon securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 2, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the
treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The Company's lead
product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an
orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated
coiled-coil kinase 2 ("ROCK2"), which is in Phase II clinical
development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease
("cGVHD").

On September 30, 2020, post-market, Kadmon announced the submission
of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment
of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").

Then, on November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the FDA's acceptance
of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had assigned the NDA a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of May
30, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was
incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the
Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to
an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA
submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA
submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led
investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to
extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA
and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021,
the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its
Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30,
2021." Kadmon advised investors that "[t]he FDA extended the PDUFA
date to allow time to review additional information submitted by
Kadmon in response to a recent FDA information request," and that
"[t]he submission of the additional information has been determined
by the FDA to constitute a major amendment to the NDA, resulting in
an extension of the PDUFA date by three months."

On this news, Kadmon's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 10.57%,
to close at $4.40 per share on March 11, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


KAMIL KNAP: Faces Bell Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL N. BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAMIL KNAP and EPA USA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01906 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for its alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent the Plaintiff a
letter on or about February 22, 2021 in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt with the amount of $440.81. The Plaintiff asserts that
she did not owe the alleged debt nor was she indebted to the
Defendant EPA since she was never involved in any transaction
and/or entered into any contract with EPA. However, at an exact
time known only to the Defendants, the alleged debt was assigned or
otherwise transferred to the Defendants for collection.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have violated the FDCPA
by unlawfully shortening the Plaintiff's 30-day validation period,
and by providing false representation or deceptive means to collect
or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning
a consumer.

Kamil Knap is the President/Director of EPA USA, Inc., which is a
debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadwayhollow Road, Suite CL18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Tel: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055


KANGMEI PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caixin reports that in the past few days, the Guangzhou
Intermediate People's Court and the China Securities Investor
Services Center (ISC) have successively issued announcements. The
former has clarified the scope of investors qualified to register
with the court and join the lawsuit against Kangmei Pharmaceutical.
The latter has declared that it will accept the entrustment of
investors to intervene as their litigation representative. The
amended Securities Law stipulates that if an insured institution
accepts the entrustment of more than 50 investors, an "ordinary"
representative action can be converted into a "special" action with
the institution as the representative. In this case, a large number
of injured investors are entitled to claim compensation from
Kangmei Pharmaceutical. This heralds an inaugural "special
representative" action in China's stock market.

China's gigantic securities market is permeated with criminal
activities such as false statements, insider trading and market
rigging. Numerous investors, especially medium and small investors,
have little access to judicial remedies after suffering a loss, and
are compelled to be the "silent majority." In the face of this
outrageous and helpless situation, China has taken
countermeasures.

The long-awaited action is an important exploration into
resolutions for the long-term weaknesses of judicial remedies. This
epoch-making lawsuit is highly anticipated due to the heinous
financial fraud committed by Kangmei Pharmaceutical. Although this
first case is certainly flawed, despite the current constraints, we
should strive to establish the case of Kangmei Pharmaceutical as
precedent that can guide the behavior of China's capital market and
the construction of a country under the rule of law. There are few
such classic cases, but they pose a strong deterrent against crime.
Some people have expressed the concern that the class action
mechanism will be abused and leave accused companies in a
vulnerable position. However, as grossly insufficient protections
for investors constitute a major challenge that we currently face,
the bigger threat may lie in the absence of this class action
lawsuit than in its abuse. [GN]


KDK LLC: Underpays Restaurant Cooks, Gil FLSA Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCIO GIL and JORGE CARDOSO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KDK, LLC d/b/a VIAND CAFE
RESTAURANT; EGS, LLC d/b/a THE VIAND; HERRICK KONTOGIANNIS; GEORGE
KONTOGIANNIS; and SOTIRIOS KONSTANTAKOPOULOS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03453 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for unpaid wages due to time-shaving and illegal
wage deductions, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium,
improper meal credit deductions, and statutory penalties in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Gil and Mr. Cardoso worked for the Defendants as cooks from
February 2019 until July 2020 and from January 2018 until January
2020, respectively.

KDK, LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name
Viand Cafe Restaurant located in New York, New York.

EGS, LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name
The Viand located in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                                   
   
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

KOHL BUILDING: Gatica Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CESAR GATICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21STCV15149 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code including
failure to pay all regular and overtime wages due, failure to
provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses, and failure
to pay wages due upon termination of employment.

Mr. Gatica worked for the Defendant as a janitor from November 30,
2002 until July 10, 2020.

Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. is a facility maintenance services
company based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
         Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone No.: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile No.: (562) 590-8400
         E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 awilson@mahoney-law.net

LEAF GROUP: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, has launched an investigation into whether the
board members of Leaf Group Ltd. (NYSE: LEAF) breached their
fiduciary duties or violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the company's acquisition by Graham Holdings
Company (NYSE: GHC).

On April 5, 2021, Leaf Group announced that it had signed an
agreement to be acquired by Graham Holdings for approximately $323
million. Pursuant to the merger agreement, Leaf Group stockholders
will receive $8.50 in cash for each share of Leaf Group common
stock owned. The deal is scheduled to close in June or July of
2021.

Bragar Eagel & Squire is concerned that Leaf Group's board of
directors oversaw an unfair process and ultimately agreed to an
inadequate merger agreement. Accordingly, the firm is investigating
all relevant aspects of the deal and is committed to securing the
best result possible for Leaf Group's stockholders.

If you own shares of Leaf Group and are concerned about the
proposed merger, or you are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Melissa Fortunato or Alexandra Raymond by email at
investigations@bespc.com or telephone at (646) 860-9157, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Alexandra Raymond, Esq.
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 1
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) ("Leidos")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Leidos securities
between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Leidos securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 5,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/leidos-holdings-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=leidos

Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology
company that provides services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets, both
domestically and internationally. The Class Period commences on May
4, 2020, when Leidos announced that it had completed the
acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' Security Detection and
Automation businesses ("SD&A Businesses").

According to the complaint, on February 16, 2021, Spruce Point
Capital Management LLC ("Spruce Point") published a research
report, alleging, among other things that "Leidos is potentially
covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing
$355 - $367m of international revenue." The report also alleged
that Leidos was "concealing numerous product defects from
investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports
and borders." Following this news, Leidos's share price fell $2.58,
or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021.

Then, on February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein,
Leidos reported $89 million in revenue related to the SD&A
Businesses for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full
quarters, the acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or
$326 million annualized), falling well short of projected $500
million sales. Leidos expected cash flow of $850 million, well
below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion. Following this news,
Leidos's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per
share on February 23, 2021.

Finally, on February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos
had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report
for the year ended December 31, 2020, which had been filed after
the market closed on February 23, 2021. Spruce Point tweeted: "We
believe it is validating all the major points of our report."
Spruce Point noted that Leidos expanded its risk disclosures
regarding insurance coverage, as "Leidos is shipping defective
products back from various countries [that] may not have the same
protections as in the U.S." Following this news, Leidos's stock
price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February
24, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the purported
benefits of Leidos's acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' SD&A
Businesses were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos's products
suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive
detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Leidos's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
positive statements about Leidos's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Leidos investors may, no later than May 5, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH KHALED, on
behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. LIBRARY
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-01478-JGB-KK
(C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 17, 2021 to
enter an order:

   1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely
      for settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal Rules

      of Civil Procedure;

   2. preliminarily approving the Stipulation of Class Settlement
      and Release Between Plaintiff and Defendant;

   3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter
      Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing her as the Representative Plaintiff;

   5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and
      related forms;

   6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement
      Class; and

   7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of
      class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and
      costs.

The "Settlement Class" means all persons employed by Defendant in
16 California as non-exempt employees at any time during the
Settlement Class Period. The Settlement defines the "Settlement
Class Period" to mean the period from June 4, 2015 through the date
of the Court's order preliminarily approving this Settlement.

Library Systems is a private for-profit company that manages
municipal libraries on an outsourced basis. It is the largest
library outsourcing company in the United States. It runs 20
library systems in 80 locations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sPcxI2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (213) 725-9094
          Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

LIFE TIME FITNESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reulbach Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG REULBACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE TIME FITNESS INC., LTF CLUB OPERATIONS
COMPANY INC., and LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Case No.
21-946432 (Ohio Com. Pl., April 14, 2021)  is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Reulbach was employed by the Defendants as fitness
instructor.

LIFE TIME FITNESS INC. operates more than 150 exercise and
recreation centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
          Kevin M. Gross, Esq.
          ZIPKIN WHITING CO., L.P.A.
          3637 Green Road
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 514-6400
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com
                  kgross@zipkinwhiting.com


LIFEMD INC: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Owens v. LifeMD, Inc., et
al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03384) on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD, Inc. ("LifeMD" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LFMD) securities between January 19, 2021 and
April 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/lifemd-inc/ to participate.

On April 14, 2021, Culper Research issued a report alleging that
"LifeMD appears to use unlicensed doctors to dispense OTC
medications, has implemented an autoshipping/autobilling scheme,
failed to honor guarantees, and put in place abusive telemarketing
practices." The report also alleged that several of the Company's
executives were involved in "wide ranging fraud" at Redwood
Scientific, which was charged by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
for "unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false
claims." Specifically, according to Culper Research, "many
customers are effectively duped into purchasing subscriptions
rather than one-time purchases" and LifeMD "makes cancellations
difficult if not impossible."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.84, or 24%, to
close at $9.00 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that many of LifeMD's executives were associated
with Redwood Scientific when it was charged for unlawful
autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and that
they employed similar practices at the Company; (2) that LifeMD
engaged in autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record
recurring revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such
subscriptions; (3) that certain of the purportedly licensed
physicians on the Company's platform were not in fact licensed and
faced disciplinary action; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing
practices, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and/or reputational harm; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased LifeMD securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased LifeMD securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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


LIFEMD INC: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against LifeMD, Inc. ("LifeMD" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LFMD) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the
Company's stock between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

LifeMD investors who have suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/lifemd-inc/, for additional information
about this investigation and their legal rights and options.

According to the complaint, on April 14, 2021, Culper Research
issued a report alleging that "LifeMD appears to use unlicensed
doctors to dispense OTC medications, has implemented an
autoshipping/autobilling scheme, failed to honor guarantees, and
put in place abusive telemarketing practices." The Culper report
also alleged that several of LifeMD's executives were previously
involved in "wide ranging fraud" at Redwood Scientific, which was
charged by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for "unlawful
autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims." According
to the Culper report, "[a]t LifeMD, numerous customer reviews lead
us to believe that the Company has implemented the same tactics.
LifeMD touts its "recurring revenue" model yet we think much of the
Company's revenues are generated under false pretenses of 'one-time
purchases.'"

Following this news, shares of LifeMD's common stock declined $2.84
per share, or nearly 25% in value, to close on April 14, 2021 at
$9.00 per share, on heavy trading volume.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased LifeMD's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than June 15, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.
LifeMD investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this
opportunity to actively participate in the action.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Roby FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC ROBY, v. THE LINCOLN
ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-00006-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Donald C. Nugent entered an order denying the motion of
Defendant Lincoln for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Eric Roby's
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff Rohy, filed this action on January 2,2018, on behalf
of himself and "all others similarly situated," asserting violation
of the FLSA-Failure to pay overtime compensation based on Lincoln
imposition of a 20 minute meal period auto-deduction for piece rate
orkers in certain departments at its Mentor and Euclid Ohio plants.
With respect to Mr. Roby, the 20 minute meal period auto-deduction
ended in December 2017.

Mr. Roby received his final pay with that auto-deduction on
December 20, 2017. There have been no further meal deductions for
piece workers taken from Mr. Roby's pay since that time. The Court
conditionally certified the class on December 28,2018. Following
certification, 315 Plaintiffs opted in from a potential class of
1,255. All of the opt-in Plaintiffs signed and filed a "Consent to
Sue Under the FLSA." Mr. Roby did not attach his written consent to
the Complaint, nor did he sign and file the consent form that was
signed and filed by all of the opt-in Plaintiffs. On February
24,2021, the Court granted Lincoln's Motion to Decertify the
Conditionally Certified Collective Action and dismissed the claims
of all opt-in Plaintiffs without prejudice. The only remaining
plaintiff is Mr. Roby.

Lincoln is an American multinational and a global manufacturer of
welding products, arc welding equipment, welding consumables,
plasma and oxy-fuel cutting equipment and robotic welding system.

A copy of the Court's order: dated April 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3euBpj5 at no extra charge.[CC]

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Lordstown Motors Corp. (RIDE)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 3/24/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-lordstown-motors-corp-securities-litigation

CytoDyn, Inc. (CYDY)
Class Period: 3/27/2020 - 3/9/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-cytodyn-inc-securities-litigation

Root, Inc. (ROOT)
Class Period: 10/28/2020 - 3/8/2021, or shares issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the October 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-root-inc-securities-litigation

Vroom, Inc. (VRM)
Class Period: 6/9/2020 - 3/3/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 21, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-vroom-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                         About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Another Investor Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rolan Selak Jr., writing for The Vindicator, reports that Lordstown
Motors Corp. faces another class-action investor lawsuit, this one
-- like the previous two -- alleging the company misled investors
regarding preorders for its battery-powered truck, the Endurance.

The latest lawsuit by investor Sulayman Zuod also names company
founder / CEO, Steve Burns; Rich Schmidt, president; Julio
Rodriguez, chief financial officer; and Michael Fabian, director of
stamping operations.

It also claims they were part of a scheme to deceive the stock
market and through their conduct, caused the price of Lordstown
Motors stock to be artificially inflated, allowing several top
executives, including Schmidt and Rodriguez, to make a tremendous
amount of money when they sold off their personal shares.

And those investors who purchased stock at the pumped-up price
suffered significant financial loss when the company's RIDE stock
started to fall, the lawsuit claims.

"Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated
as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Lordstown common stock was a
success," the lawsuit states, because it deceived the investing
public regarding the company's prospects, artificially inflated the
company's common stock, permitted some executives to sell off $27
million of their own shares "at fraud-inflated prices" and caused
Zuod and others to buy shares at the puffed up price.

The lawsuit claims Schmidt, between Dec. 11 and Feb. 3 sold 263,412
shares worth $6.3 million and Rodriguez, 9,300 shares worth
$251,000.

Also, David Hamamoto, director and former president of DiamondPeak
Holdings Corp., a special purpose acquisition company that merged
with Lordstown Motors on Oct. 22, sold 1 million shares the same
day worth $16.3 million, the lawsuit states. He is not a defendant
in the lawsuit.

The merger is also the subject of a U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission probe.

An email seeking comment was sent to a spokesman with Lordstown
Motors regarding the latest lawsuit.

The earlier two lawsuits were combined into one.

The latest lawsuit claims the class period starts Aug. 3, when
Lordstown Motors announced the planned merger with New York-based
DiamondPeak Holdings. In a press release then, the company claimed
it had more than 27,000 preorders for the truck that represented
more than $1.4 billion in revenue mostly from fleet customers.

It also contains other examples of preorder announcements and
statements regarding figures from the company and Burns, claiming
the company "never had firm commitments much less legally binding
contracts for any" of the preorders when the merger was announced
and many of the customers touted during the class period, which
ended March 24, "were sham operations that were incapable of making
purchases of any sort," the lawsuit states.

The claims are similar to ones made in a biting short-sellers
report released March 12 by New York City-based Hindenburg
Research. It alleges Lordstown Motors misled its investors
regarding preorders and production schedule for its battery-powered
truck. The report also characterized the company as a mirage.

Lordstown Motors publicly revealed the first two beta prototypes of
the Endurance. The company announced in March it planned, after the
first prototypes were manufactured, to produce one per day over the
next two months. The betas will be used for crash, engineering and
validation testing. [GN]


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Koziol, writing for 21WFMJ, reports that another
class-action civil lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District
Court against Lordstown Motors Corp., alleging that certain senior
officials cashed in on false and misleading statements.

Court documents show the lawsuit was filed on April 2 and lists
Sulayman Zuod as the plaintiff "on behalf of all others similarly
situated." The defendants are listed as Lordstown Motors, CEO Steve
Burns, Chief Financial Officer Julio Rodriguez, President Rich
Schmidt and Director of Stamping Operations Michael Fabian.

Back in January, Lordstown Motors Corp. said it had received more
than 100,000 orders from commercial fleets for its all-electric
pickup truck, the Endurance. In March, Hindenburg Research released
a story alleging that the company's pre-orders are "largely
fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy."

The recent lawsuit alleges the company's claims allowed certain
senior executives and directors at Lordstown Motors to sell almost
$27 million of their personally held shares of Lordstown common
stock at "fraud-inflated prices," and caused the plaintiff to
purchase Lordstown common stock at "artificially inflated prices."

The lawsuit is seeking damages and interest as well as attorney
fees.

When Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose visited the Lordstown
Motors plant in March, 21 News got to question Burns about the
Hindenburg report.

"I can't speak to the report, but I can tell you two things: We're
at betas in 10 days, and we're going to start production of the
world's first electric pickup," Burns told 21 News. "There are
always haters . . . I quoted Taylor Swift to someone the other day,
haters gonna hate, hate, hate . . . you gotta shake it off."

Lordstown Motors did recently reveal its beta models for the
Endurance. The company says they are on track to meet the goal of
producing the trucks at the Lordstown facility this September.
[GN]


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) ("Lordstown")
f/k/a DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: DPHC) ("DiamondPeak") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Lordstown securities
between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Lordstown
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 17, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com;
or click https://www.ktmc.com/lordstown-motors-class-action-lawsuit


Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers. Lordstown's purported flagship vehicle
is the "Endurance," an electric full-size pickup truck. DiamondPeak
was structured as a special purpose acquisition company.

The Class Period commences on August 3, 2020, when Lordstown and
DiamondPeak announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement. The August 3, 2020 release provided, in relevant
part, that the transaction valued Lordstown "at an implied $1.6
billion pro forma equity value," and that the transaction was
expected to deliver approximately $675 million in gross proceeds.
The release also announced that the transaction was expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2020. Throughout the Class Period,
Lordstown repeatedly lauded its pre-order agreements with
prospective customers. Moreover, Lordstown stated numerous times
that it was "on track" to begin production of the Endurance in
September 2021.

However, before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, Hindenburg
Research, LLC published a report on Lordstown entitled: "The
Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production
Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." The report noted that Lordstown
has "no revenue and no sellable product," and that Lordstown "has
misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities."
The report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are largely
fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company
is experiencing delays and making 'drastic' design modifications,
putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production,"
rather than Lordstown being "on track" for a September 2021
production start. Following this news, the price of Lordstown's
common stock fell approximately 16.5%, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of $14.78.

Then, on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, Lordstown held
an earnings call on which the defendants disclosed that Lordstown
had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). Although Lordstown also issued a press release
and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020
financial results after trading closed on March 17, 2021, Lordstown
failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in those
filings. Following this news, Lordstown's stock price fell
approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lordstown's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (2) many of the would-be customers who made these
purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or
would not have credible demand for the Endurance; (3) Lordstown is
not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the
Endurance in September 2021; (4) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (5) as a result, Lordstown's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Lordstown investors may, no later than May 17, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com
http://www.ktmc.com[GN]


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company")
(formerly known as DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. ("DiamondPeak"))
(NASDAQ:RIDE)(NASDAQ:RIDEW)(NASDAQ:DPHC) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and
docketed under 21-cv-00760, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lordstown securities between August 3, 2020 and
March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
15 U.S.C. Sec 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lordstown securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 8, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

According to its website, Lordstown is an automotive company
founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty
electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. The Company's
purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric
full-size pickup truck.

On August 3, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement through which, upon
closing, the combined company would remain listed on the NASDAQ
stock exchange under the new ticker symbol "RIDE." DiamondPeak was
setup as a special purpose acquisition company (also known as a
SPAC). DiamondPeak's shares traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange
under the ticker symbol "DPHC." The August 3, 2020 release
provided, in relevant part, that the transaction valued Lordstown
"at an implied $1.6 billion pro forma equity value," and that the
transaction was expected to deliver approximately $675 million in
gross proceeds. The release announced that the transaction was
expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2020.

On October 22, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that
DiamondPeak shareholders had approved the merger. On October 23,
2020, Lordstown announced that it had completed the business
combination with DiamondPeak, and that beginning on October 26,
2020, Lordstown's Class A shares would begin trading on the NASDAQ
Global Select market under the ticker symbol "RIDE," and that its
warrants would trade on NASDAQ under the symbol "RIDEW."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of the
would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the
means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand
for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been
"on track" to commence production of the Endurance in September
2021; (iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle
bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report on Lordstown entitled: "The
Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production
Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." As alleged in greater detail
below, in this report, Hindenburg noted that Lordstown has "no
revenue and no sellable product," and wrote that the Company "has
misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities."
The Hindenburg report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are
largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company
is experiencing delays and making 'drastic' design modifications,
putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production,"
rather than the Company being "on track" for a September 2021
production start.

On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.

Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call on which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown
had received an inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although
Lordstown also issued a press release and a Form 8-K announcing its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading
closed on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the
existence of the SEC inquiry in those filings.[1] On this news, the
stock fell approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


LOVE'S TRAVEL: Ellis Seeks Operations Managers' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JD ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00308-F (W.D. Okla., April 7, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and all available relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Operations
Manager (OM) in the Defendant's store in Hinton, Oklahoma from
approximately November 2015 to August 2017 and again from May 2018
to January 3, 2021 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff assert that although he regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek, approximately 55 to 60 hours per week or
more during each week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate for hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly violated the FLSA by implementing a
centralized, companywide policy, pattern, and/or practice of
attempting to minimize labor costs. Specifically, the Defendant
willfully misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Operations Managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA, willfully failed to pay them overtime, and willfully failed
to provide enough money in its store-level labor budgets for its
non-exempt employees to perform their duties and responsibilities,
forcing its exempt OMS to perform such non-exempt tasks. In
addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to record all hours worked
by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Operations Manager.

Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. operates over 550 retail
locations throughout 41 states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC
          401 South Boston Ave., Suite 500
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Tel: (918) 629-3350
          Fax: (918) 699-0325
          E-mail: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com

                - and –

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Ave., Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 545-1199
          Fax: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


MAGNITE INC: Faces Class Actions, Business Growth Risks
-------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Alpha reports that Magnite continues to be a solid play on
programmatic advertising especially in areas such as AVOD and CTV.

Publishers are increasingly preferring independent SSPs to avoid
conflict of interests.

Magnite has come out with stellar fourth quarter 2020 results.

Magnite has significant growth potential in 2021, and I believe it
is a buy even at these levels.

Investment Thesis
The pandemic has been a net positive for Magnite (MGNI), a company
formed by the merger of two companies, namely Rubicon Project and
Telaria, in April 2020. The pandemic affected overall advertising
spend in the second and third quarters of 2020. However, the
pandemic also forced people to reduce discretionary spending. With
cable companies not reducing fees despite the absence of live
sports, which is undoubtedly the biggest attraction on linear TV,
the pace of cord-cutting has accelerated.

Instead, people have been increasingly opting for over-the-top
(OTT) content streamed on Connected TV (CTV) (all-in-one smart TV
or regular television connected to the internet through streaming
set-top box) or on devices such as laptops, mobiles, and tablets.
This, in turn, has dramatically pushed up demand for programmatic
advertising. This secular tailwind has pushed up share prices of
Magnite by over 700% in the last year. With the company now
acquiring leading CTV player SpotX, the combined company will be a
force-to-reckon on the supply side in the programmatic advertising
space.

Investment Thesis
The pandemic has been a net positive for Magnite (MGNI), a company
formed by the merger of two companies, namely Rubicon Project and
Telaria, in April 2020. The pandemic affected overall advertising
spend in the second and third quarters of 2020. However, the
pandemic also forced people to reduce discretionary spending. With
cable companies not reducing fees despite the absence of live
sports, which is undoubtedly the biggest attraction on linear TV,
the pace of cord-cutting has accelerated.

Instead, people have been increasingly opting for over-the-top
(OTT) content streamed on Connected TV (CTV) (all-in-one smart TV
or regular television connected to the internet through streaming
set-top box) or on devices such as laptops, mobiles, and tablets.
This, in turn, has dramatically pushed up demand for programmatic
advertising. This secular tailwind has pushed up share prices of
Magnite by over 700% in the last year. With the company now
acquiring leading CTV player SpotX, the combined company will be a
force-to-reckon on the supply side in the programmatic advertising
space.

Analysts are expecting a material deceleration in the growth
trajectory starting from the second quarter of fiscal 2021.

However, the company was profitable in the fourth quarter and its
profits are expected to climb higher gradually in coming quarters.

At end of fiscal 2020, Magnite had total liquidity worth $117.7
million and total debt of $42 million on its balance sheet. Hence,
the company has significant financial flexibility to fund its
future growth.

Conclusion
Magnite is rapidly growing its scale through targeted acquisitions.
However, there are few risks. Many analysts consider the company's
valuation to be quite high, especially when the coming quarters are
not expected to be super high growth in terms of topline and
bottom-line. The competition from the likes of PubMatic (PUBM) and
Perion Network (PERI) can nibble away some of Magnite's market
share. Insider ownership is only 12.39%, and few insiders have been
selling shares in the past few months. Magnite is also facing some
class-action lawsuits.

However, despite these risks, the tailwinds in the programmatic
advertising space are too big to ignore at any chance. Magnite has
integrated with several prominent DSPs, to optimize the ad
auctioning process. Further, being the largest SSP and have many
prominent CTV and online media customers, the company increasingly
has access to larger amounts of data. This, in turn, is helping the
company further refine its marketing efforts. The network effect
for a leading player in a hot technology segment can prove to be a
major competitive advantage in coming years.

Magnite has also focused on diversifying its revenue base and
operates a SaaS (software-as-a-service) offering called Demand
Manager. This allows publishers to manage and optimize their
ad-space auctions. The company considers this to be a more reliable
revenue stream.

While Magnite may seem overpriced based on fundamentals in the
short run, the long-term risk-reward proposition seems highly
attractive. Besides, price-to-sales of over 18 is not surprising in
the world of growth stocks, especially for a young small market
capitalization company. However, retail investors may want to
protect themselves from dramatic movements in share price. Hence, I
believe that investors should opt for a value-averaging strategy
and gradually build a position in this stock in 2021. [GN]


MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Ferjani et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
FATMA FERJANI, AFIFA BACCOUCHE, RODELINE HILAIRE and AYLONN GDAIEM,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-60770-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 8, 2021) bring this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendant as non-exempt
employees, assert that the Defendant willfully refused to properly
compensate them and other similarly situated employees for all
hours worked despite being required to work in excess of 40 hours
per workweek. The Plaintiffs has estimated approximately 2 hours of
unpaid overtime per week.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees seek all
unpaid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours per work week, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

Maximus Federal Services, Inc.  is the loan servicer for defaulted
federal student loans. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Tel: (954) 763-5722
          Fax: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  david@levylevylaw.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Faces Suit For Misbranding OxyContin Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
CANNON TOWNSHIP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., MCKINSEY &
COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES, and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.
WASHINGTON D.C., Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-00314 (W.D. Mich., April
13, 2021) alleges that the Defendant is liable for the successful
efforts to increase OxyContin sales after 2007 guilty plea of
Purdue Frederick Company, the parent of Purdue Pharma, L.P.
("Purdue"), for misbranding OxyContin.

According to the complaint, McKinsey's mandate was to increase the
sales of the drug in light of the fact that Purdue had plead guilty
to misbranding, and the owners of Purdue now wished to exit the
opioid market due to the perceived reputational risks of remaining
there. McKinsey's task was to thread the needle, to increase
OxyContin sales given the strictures imposed by the 5-year
Corporate Integrity Agreement. This McKinsey did, turbocharging
the sales of a drug it knew fully well was addictive and deadly,
while paying at least tacit respect to the Corporate Integrity
Agreement, the suit says.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consulting firm. The
Company offers consultation to various industries such as
electronic, aerospace, automotive, chemical, financial, oil and
gas, public sector, and healthcare. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW OFFICE PLLC
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 244-9331
          Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
          E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
                  a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

               -and-

          Troy W. Haney, Esq.
          HANEY LAW PC
          300 East Fulton
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 235-2300
          Facsimile: (616) 459-0137
          E-mail: thaney@troyhaneylaw.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Suit Sues Over Market and Sale of OxyContin
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORANGE COUNTY, INDIANA, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.,
MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES, AND MCKINSEY & COMPANY,
INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Case No. 4:21-cv-00043-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.,
March 29, 2021) seeks to recover damages from the Defendants and to
eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the
opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to
recoup monies that has been spent, or will be spent, because of the
Defendants' conduct in fueling the epidemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of the dangers of
opioids, and of Purdue's prior misconduct, but nonetheless advised
Purdue to improperly market and sell OxyContin. The Plaintiffs
provide essential services for their citizens and residents,
including law enforcement, emergency medical assistance, services
for families and children, public assistance, public welfare, and
other care and services for the health, safety and welfare of their
citizens and residents. The rising numbers of people addicted to
opioids have led to significantly increased costs, as well as a
dramatic increase of social problems including drug abuse and the
commission of criminal acts to obtain opioids.

Opioids include brand-name drugs like Oxycontin and Percocet, as
well as generic drugs like oxycodone and hydrocodone. These drugs
are derived from or possess properties similar to opium and heroin,
and, as such, they are highly addictive and dangerous.

Opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the
widespread abuse of opioids has resulted in a national epidemic of
opioid overdose deaths and addictions. The crisis arose from opioid
manufacturers' (such as Purdue Pharma) deliberately deceptive
marketing strategy to expand opioid use. The Defendants played an
integral role in creating and deepening the opioid crisis.

The Plaintiffs in this case include local governmental entities
that have been damaged and continue to be damaged by the
Defendants' conduct.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William D. Nefzger, Esq.
          BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
          E-mail: will@bccnlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW | INSURED RIGHTS
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 244-9331
          Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
          E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
                  a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth C. Pierce, II, Esq.
          BLANTON & PIERCE, LLC
          705 Meigs Avenue
          Jeffersonville, IN 47130
          Telephone: (812) 283-8577
          Facsimile: (812) 283-7995
          E-mail: kpierce@blantonpierce.com

MEDCIPHERS LLC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM DAWSON, CHARLENE
BURRELL, AMEIKA EDMONDS, AND TANYA SMALL, v. MEDCIPHERS, LLC,
DAVINA CONSULTING, LLC, AND JEFFREY B. AIBEL, Case No.
1:21-cv-00588-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
      on behalf of current and former hourly employees of the
      Defendants;

   2. approving and allowing notice to be sent to all hourly
      employees who are employed or have been previously employed
      by Defendants, within three years of the date of the filing
      of this action by sending the proposed Notice of this Action;


   3. prohibiting any misleading and improper communication by the

      Defendants to any potential opt-in plaintiff; and

   4. requiring the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs a list

      identifying all current and former employees by full legal
      name, current or last known address, dates of employment,
      email address and last four numbers of the employees social
      security number.

The Plaintiffs,  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, file this motion for
conditional class certification and further moves for an order to
facilitate notification to putative class members pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Medciphers is a multi-service health-care company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3niWTUe
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas P. Martin, Esq.
          Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
          MARTIN | DEMELFI, LLC
          1742 Mount Vernon Road, Suite 300
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 450-6155
          E-mail: nmartin@martin-demelfi.com
                  fdemelfi@martin-demelfi.com

MEMPHIS, TN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Trash Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
FOX13Memphis.com News reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against the City of Memphis and MLGW over trash troubles.

Watson Burns, PLLC filed the suit on behalf of Area E residents and
business owners who say they are paying for a service they are not
getting.

Area E includes neighborhoods like Cordova, Hickory Hill, Windyke,
and sections of East Memphis.

According to a press release, "The lawsuit outlines how the
residents and business owners of Area E pay the City of Memphis via
MLG&W, in full, monthly or utilities are turn-off at their homes or
places of business. The residents of Area E are compelled by law to
contract with the City of Memphis for trash services and are
compelled to pay the City of Memphis retail prices for bulk
service. The City of Memphis routinely fails to provide the
expected service." [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ: Judge Refuses to Certify Transmission Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in California has refused to certify a lawsuit accusing Daimler AG
unit Mercedes-Benz USA LLC of concealing a defect in its vehicles'
transmissions as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose ruled on April 2 that
plaintiff Terry Hamm could not represent a proposed class of buyers
and lessors of Mercedes-Benz vehicles in California because he had
bought his used vehicle from a Toyota dealership, and that
individual issues would predominate over common issues among class
members. [GN]



MICHELS CORPORATION: Faces Beyer Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA BEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHELS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00514-PP (E.D. Wis., April 21, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated employees all straight time and
overtime pay and failing to pay interrupted meal breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed as an inventory specialist at the
Defendant's corporate headquarters in Brownsville, Wisconsin.

Michels Corporation is an international energy and infrastructure
contractor based in Brownsville, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Yingtao Ho, Esq.
         THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
         310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
         Milwaukee, WI 53203
         Telephone: (414) 271-4500
         Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
         E-mail: yh@previant.com

MICROSOFT CORP: Controller Drift Class Lawsuit Enters Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
screenrant.com reports that a high-profile class-action lawsuit
regarding drift in the Xbox Elite controller has been moved into
arbitration, meaning that it will hopefully be settled outside the
courtroom. This case was filed last April when Microsoft was
accused of neglecting a defect in their designer controllers that
causes the aforementioned drift.

This drift happens when wear and tear seemingly lock a controller's
joystick in a moving position, causing a game's character or camera
to slide uncontrollably even when the stick isn't being pressed at
all. This makes simple tasks like navigating the start menu a
nightmare to players. The law firm of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith (CSK&D), who first filed the complaint against
Microsoft a year ago, has bought defective Xbox Elite Controllers
from players that have experienced this problem to build their case
against the tech giant. Meanwhile, Microsoft has requested that
this case be settled outside of the courtroom -- and now it seems
it is getting its wish. [GN]



MOGONYE LAND: Ixmata Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL IXMATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOGONYE LAND TECH, LLC and STEPHEN M.
MOGONYE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01310 (S.D. Tex., April 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Ixmata worked for the Defendants as a landscaping laborer and
supervisor from the summer of 2018 until October of 2020.

Mogonye Land Tech, LLC is a company that offers landscape services
located in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

         
         Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
         THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
         2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
         Houston, TX 77018
         Telephone: (713) 868-3388
         Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
         E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of MoneyGram International, Inc.. (NASDAQ:
MGI) investors that acquired shares between June 17, 2019 and
February 22, 2021. Investors have until April 30, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that MoneyGram made misleading and
false statements to the market. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the
cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was
considered as an unregistered and therefore unlawful security by
the SEC. MoneyGram was likely to lose a significant revenue stream
if the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple based on market
development fees it received due to the partnership. MoneyGram's
revenues from these development fees was critical to its financial
results. MoneyGram's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. Investors suffered damages
when the market learned the truth about MoneyGram.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30,
2021.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

MONSANTO CO: Suit Seeks to Strike Coffee's Class Declaration
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC (N.D. Calif.), the Objector
Melinda Sloviter, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702,
Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-5(b), and
general rules of evidence will move the Court on May 12, 2021 to
strike the Declaration of John C. Coffee regarding Class
Certification and the Benefits of Class Members.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired
by Bayer as part of its crop science division. It was headquartered
in Creve Coeur, Missouri.

A copy of Objector's motion dated April 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aBmD8X at no extra charge.[CC]

The Objector is represented by:

          Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
          SMOGER & ASSOCIATES
          13250 Branch View Lane
          Dallas, TX 75234
          Telephone: (510) 531-4529
          Facsimile: (510) 531-4377)
          E-mail: gerson@texasinjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Bronson, Esq.
          THE BRONSON FIRM APC
          7777 Fay Avenue, Suite
          202 La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: 619-374-4130
          Facsimile: 619-568-3365
          E-mail: sbronson@thebronsonfirm.com

MURRAY GOULBURN: Court Rules Against AIG in Dairy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the Federal Court has found
against AIG after the insurer argued the company securities part of
its policy didn't cover class action claims related to the Murray
Goulburn dairy group.

The Endeavour River class action settled on June 24 2019 for $42
million while the Webster class action settled later in the year
for $37.5 million, with no admission of liability for either
proceeding.

AIG denied cover for Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co Ltd and
subsidiary MG Responsible Entity Ltd (MGRE), saying traded units
involved didn't meet the securities definition, and exclusions
applied given matters arose from a pre-listing product disclosure
statement (PDS) and prospectus.

Class actions were launched after Murray Goulburn co-operative,
which registered as an unlisted public company in 1950, moved ahead
with a restructure that would allow farmers to retain control while
also creating a vehicle to raise funds from other investors.

MGRE became the responsible entity for the MG Unit Trust, which
listed on the Australian Securities Exchange on July 3 2015 after
initial investments were made through off-market transactions.

Previous directors' and officers' insurance was replaced by a new
policy that added companies securities Side C cover for July 29
2015 to September 30 2016, retroactive to the listing date. The
annual premium including Side C cover was about double the previous
AB policy.

AIG, Zurich Australian Insurance and Allianz Australia each had a
one-third share of a $30 million liability limit, with the court
dispute only relating to the AIG cover.

The Murray Goulburn entities argued Side C cover should apply to
class action claims related to units purchased in the secondary
market from the listing date.

Investors involved in the actions alleged breaches of continuous
disclosure or misleading or deceptive conduct provisions over
forecasts for the farmgate milk price and profits.

The pre-listing PDS provided to potential investors forecast a
price of $6.05 per kilogram of milk solids and a fiscal 2016 net
profit of $86 million. An August 31 2015 ASX announcement then
warned a fall in commodity prices could cut the forecasts to
$5.60-$5.90 and $66-79 million.

On April 27, the forecast ranges were revised to $4.75-5.00 and
$39-42 million and the actual result, reported on August 24 2016,
was a farmgate price of $4.80 and net profit of $40.6 million.

Justice Jonathan Beach rejected AIG arguments on whether risks were
instead covered by investment managers insurance (IMI) or public
offering of securities insurance provided by other underwriters,
and dismissed a contention that the traded units were not
securities.

The MG Unit Trust gave investors a beneficial interest in the
assets of the trust, entitling them to the payment of
distributions, he said in the judgment.

"The mutually known context in which side C cover was procured was
the listing of the MGUT on the ASX, and denying the description
'securities' to the units would effectively denude the side C
aspect of any application," he said.

Justice Beach says upon listing MGRE repeated the financial
forecast information in the PDS to the market and following the
listing the class action claimants alleged it made further
inaccurate forecasts.

"It was the omission of MGRE to issue corrective forecasts from the
date of listing that was said to have given rise to liability," he
said. "This is the lens through which the class action claims are
to be analysed, and when so viewed, any connection with the PDS was
severed from the date of listing."

Justice Beach says he believes transactions from July 3 fall within
the scope of indemnity, or alternatively from August 31.

AIG also maintained services provided to unitholders by MGRE and
Murray Goulburn Corporation Ltd fell within the definition of
excluded professional services.

Justice Beach says AIG fails to properly identify what specific
professional services had been provided or what "profession" is
involved, and the class action claims are not linked causally to
any failure to perform trustee or back-office services.

"I should note that I am not construing the term 'professional' in
the insuring clause of a professional indemnity policy, I am
construing and applying an exclusion," he says "In that context,
AIG's high, wide but not handsome submission is to be rejected."
[GN]


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Can Compel Arbitration in Vasquez FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Re: Yolanda Vasquez v. National Enterprise Systems,
Inc., Civil Action No. 19-16418 (SDW) (AME) (D.N.J.), Judge Susan
D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Dismiss the Plaintiff's class action complaint pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.

On April 8, 2006, the Plaintiff signed a loan application and
Promissory Note to obtain a private education loan from Stillwater
National Bank through Sallie Mae, Inc.  The Note's terms governed
the Plaintiff's Student Loan and contained an arbitration
provision.

The arbitration provision further defined the "Claims" subject to
arbitration to include "any claim, dispute or controversy that
arises from or relates in any way to the Note, including any
dispute relating to: the Note and any applications, disclosures and
other documents relating in any way to the transactions evidenced
by the Note" as well as disputes concerning "arbitrability" and
"violation of statute."

Sometime after the Plaintiff obtained her loan, Sallie Mae created
Navient Solutions, LLC to handle student loan servicing issues.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Student Loan thereafter went into
default and Navient "assigned, placed or transferred" the Student
Loan to Defendant, a debt collection agency.  The Defendant sent
the Plaintiff a letter on Aug. 6, 2018, seeking to collect an
outstanding balance of $30,259.43.  It sent her another collection
letter on Nov. 4, 2018.

The Plaintiff filed the instant suit on Aug. 6, 2019, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that
Defendant's attempts to collect on her outstanding Student Loan
balance violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.

The Defendant subsequently filed the instant motion and the parties
timely completed briefing.

The Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the Note or its
arbitration provision, nor does she contend that she timely
rejected the arbitration provision.  Rather, she argues that she is
not required to arbitrate disputes with the Defendant because it is
neither a signatory to the Note nor authorized by its arbitration
provision to compel arbitration.  According to the Plaintiff, there
is no basis in the arbitration provision for a third-party debt
collector, such as the Defendant, to elect or initiate arbitration,
unless it is a co-defendant in a lawsuit with another enumerated
party, such as the creditor or Sallie Mae.  She further contends
that the Defendant cannot compel arbitration because it does not
work on behalf of Sallie Mae, but only on behalf of Navient.

Judge Wigenton opines that the language of the Note's arbitration
provision is clear that the following parties can compel
arbitration: (1) the lender (i.e., Stillwater National Bank); (2)
any subsequent holder of the Note; (3) Sallie Mae; (4) any
affiliate or subsidiary of Sallie Mae (e.g., Navient); (5) parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates of these entities; (6) predecessors,
successors, and assigns of these entities; and (7) officers,
directors, and employees of these entities.  She says, the
provision's plain language, specifically its fifth listed grouping,
expressly permits affiliates of Sallie Mae's affiliates to compel
arbitration.  The Defendant is therefore entitled to enforce the
provision's terms as an affiliate of Navient, a Sallie Mae
affiliate.

Even without such express language, Judge Wigenton opines that the
Defendant would still be entitled to compel arbitration as
Navient's agent tasked with collecting the Plaintiff's debt.

The Plaintiff's FDCPA claim is also within the scope of claims
covered by the Note's broad arbitration provision.  Her FDCPA claim
arises from the Defendant's attempts to collect on the outstanding
balance on her Student Loan, which she obtained by signing the
Note.  The Note's arbitration provision encompasses "any claim that
arises from or relates in any way to the Note," and any "disputes
involving alleged violation of statute."  Judge Wigenton holds that
the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim falls into both of these categories and
must therefore be arbitrated.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wigenton granted the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the matter.
An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Letter Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fh7utvcc from Leagle.com.

Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. -- lh@hershlegal.com -- in Rutherford, New
Jersey, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Nicholas M. Gaunce -- ngaunce@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC, in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, Attorney for
Defendant.


NATIONAL RIFLE: InfoCision's Bid to Dismiss McEwen TCPA Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVIS McEWEN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA and INFOCISION, INC., d/b/a INFOCISION MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-LEW (D. Me.), Judge
Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine granted InfoCision's Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 through 6 of
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

The case arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff McEwen commenced the civil action in May of 2020 by
filing his Class Action Complaint ("CAC") containing four counts.
After the Defendants filed their initial Motion to Dismiss and to
Stay, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint
("FACAC") containing six courts.  Because the FACAC supersedes the
CAC, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 through
6 ("Second Motion"), which supersedes their prior motion to
dismiss, but not the prior request for a stay.

The Defendants NRA and InfoCision have together created and
sustained a telemarketing campaign aimed at selling memberships and
soliciting contributions to the NRA.  As part of their campaign,
the Defendants use an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
to make autodialed calls to consumers without the consumers'
consent, including to consumers who have listed their numbers on
the National Do Not Call Registry.  Some calls, when completed,
deliver a prerecorded message.

The Plaintiff placed his telephone number on the National Do Not
Call Registry in 2003 to avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls.
Although he once had a membership with the NRA, he let it lapse in
2018 and never consented to automatically dialed calls from the
NRA.  Nonetheless, he received numerous calls from InfoCision on
behalf of the NRA asking him to join the organization.  Even after
he answered a call and asked for the calls to stop, InfoCision
called the Plaintiff's number repeatedly.

In his FACAC, the Plaintiff states that in 2014 or 2015 he asked
InfoCision to place him on their "internal do-not-call list."  He
states that between 2017 and March of 2020 he received "about 66
calls from InfoCision."  Eventually, in March of 2020, the
Plaintiff answered a call InfoCision placed on behalf of the NRA.
When he answered, he had to wait for the ATDS to put him through to
one of InfoCision's representatives.

During the call, in which the Plaintiff once again asked to have
his number removed from the system, the representative said words
to the effect that the calls were not illegal because the NRA is a
nonprofit.  At the Plaintiff's request, the representative provided
the contact information of the NRA and InfoCision.  When he later
called the number that InfoCision used to call his phone, his call
was answered by an automated messenger and there was no option to
connect to a person.

The Plaintiff alleges that the calls caused him to experience
aggravation, nuisance, invasion of privacy, and economic injury.

The Plaintiff describes the NRA as, "ostensibly," a
membership-based organization that solicits and collects membership
fees to further its work in firearms advocacy, training, and
education.  He describes InfoCision as the second largest privately
held teleservices company in the United States.  The NRA has a
contract with InfoCision that instructs or allows InfoCision to
make telemarketing calls on behalf of the NRA.

When InfoCision places calls on behalf of the NRA, it does so using
an ATDS that is able to place many calls all at once.  When the
call is answered, the ATDS can deliver a prerecorded message or
patch the consumer through to an InfoCision representative (a new
allegation in FACAC).  InfoCision regularly places calls to persons
who do not have an existing relationship with the NRA and who have
never consented to the receipt of automated calls on the NRA's
behalf.  InfoCision obtains numbers for its call lists from various
sources, including third party vendors, and not exclusively from
the NRA's membership records.

Through his FACAC, the Plaintiff expands his allegations against
InfoCision.  He claims InfoCision has called him and prospective
class members on behalf of unspecified entities other than the NRA,
using the same methodologies it employs when it places calls for
the NRA.

The FACAC, which is now the operative complaint in the action,
recites six counts, or causes of action, as follows:

     a. Count A: A claim for violation of the TCPA on behalf of
persons who received automated telephone calls on their residential
telephone lines without their consent.

     b. Count B: A claim that the TCPA violation asserted in Count
A was a willful or knowing violation.

     c. Count C: A claim for violation of the TCPA on behalf of
persons who received calls despite having registered their
residential telephone numbers with the National Do-Not-Call
Registry (at least two calls in a twelve-month period).

     d. Count D: A claim that the TCPA violation asserted in Count
C was a willful or knowing violation.

     e. Count E: A claim for violation of the TCPA on behalf of
persons who received calls despite having instructed Defendants to
honor NRA/InfoCision internal do-not-call lists (at least two calls
in a twelve-month period).

     f. Count F: A claim that the TCPA violation asserted in Count
E was a willful or knowing violation.

In exchange for the receipt of membership fees, the NRA provides
certain benefits, including gifts and magazine subscriptions.

Through its operative Motion to Dismiss, InfoCision targets for
dismissal FACAC Counts Three through Six (actually Counts C, D, E,
and F), contending these do-not-call claims fail because the NRA is
exempt from the FCC's registry-based restrictions due to its
nonprofit-organization status and because it does not place calls
to solicit sales of goods or services.  InfoCision also argues the
registry-based claims fail because the calls were made to
Plaintiff's cellphone, which does not qualify as a residential
telephone.

The Plaintiff has opposed the motion, Objection to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, and the Defendants have submitted their Reply.
The parties were heard at oral argument on Dec. 11, 2020.  On Jan.
21, 2021, the NRA filed its suggestion of bankruptcy, forestalling
my decision on the pending motions.  The matter now proceeds
exclusively between Plaintiff McEwen and Defendant InfoCision.

I. InfoCision Calls Placed for Unspecified Third Parties

In the FACAC, the Plaintiff has introduced new allegations and
expanded his internalregistry do-not-call claims (Count E and F) by
alleging he received unlawful calls that InfoCision placed on
behalf of one or more unspecified third parties for an unspecified
purpose.  InfoCision argues this undeveloped allegation is not
enough to raise a plausible claim for relief.

Judge Walker agrees.  He says the claims the Plaintiff attempts to
advance in Counts E and F based on the freestanding allegation
found in paragraph 89 are dismissed for failure to state a
non-speculative basis for relief.

II. Counts A and B

Although the pending motion does not seek the dismissal of Counts A
and B in whole or in part, Judge Walker is concerned about the
impact of Duguid on the Plaintiff's claims.  In Counts A and B, the
Plaintiff sets forth his claim that InfoCision used an ATDS and
prerecorded message when it called him on multiple occasions.
After the Duguid opinion, the ATDS portion of the claim requires an
allegation that InfoCision used a random or sequential number
generator to place a call to Plaintiff's cellphone, not merely a
claim that its dialing system has that capability.

Judge Walker holds that the Plaintiff's allegations do not state
that InfoCision used a random or sequential number generator to
place its calls to the Plaintiff.  However, the Plaintiff
separately supports Counts A and B with allegations that InfoCision
placed calls to members of the proposed class in which it delivered
a prerecorded voice message.  The prohibition against prerecorded
message delivery is a freestanding prohibition that is not limited
to telephone solicitation.  Yet even this aspect of Counts A and B
is problematic, as alleged.  Specifically, the Plaintiff has not
alleged he received a call that delivered a prerecorded message.
When the Plaintiff offers allegations concerning specific calls he
received, he states that he heard a pause before a representative
joined the call.

For obvious reasons, Judge Walker is concerned whether the
Plaintiff's allegations state a personal claim and whether the
Plaintiff has standing to pursue a claim on behalf of the
prospective class.  However, these concerns will need to await
further proceedings because the motion before the Court does not
press it, even though the concerns are acknowledged in the parties'
papers.

Conclusion

Judge Walker granted InfoCision's Motion to Dismiss.  Counts C, D,
E, and F concerning alleged violation of the do-not-call registry
rules are dismissed on the ground that the allegations do not
support a finding that the NRA calls were telephone solicitations
prohibited by the TCPA and/or the related FCC rules.  Furthermore,
the Plaintiff's claim concerning telemarketing calls he allegedly
received from InfoCision on behalf of unidentified third parties
for unidentified purposes is dismissed for failure to state a
non-speculative basis for relief.

InfoCision's Motion to Stay Counts 1 and 2 is denied as moot.

Due to the NRA's suggestion of bankruptcy, the matter will proceed
on Counts A and B solely against Defendant InfoCision.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum of
Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k4wdatm from
Leagle.com.


NCAA: Supreme Court Hears Student-Athletes' Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hertzel, writing for BlueGoldNews.com, reports that college
sports are broken and if they don't get a complete overhaul, they
will find themselves in deep trouble.

It has become professional sports -- on steroids -- and has lost
the charm it once had. Its hold on the public is going to go next
and this one you can't blame on the COVID-19 pandemic that took the
steam out of this past season.

This one goes on the players and on the NCAA, with the deep pockets
of television's assistance and the lure of the professional dollars
being the driving force.

And WVU is caught in the middle of it all.

One might say it's always been there, as far back as there were
college sports, for there were recruiting scandals and players who
would play under assumed names, so-called amateur football players
who played professional baseball under an assumed name back in the
1920s and before.

Recruiting always has been sports' dirty little secret, with a $100
bill behind every handshake.

Let's use WVU as an example of what is transpiring and how its
ability to control its own athletic department is creeping out of
the open door of the transfer portal or into the NFL, professional
basketball or even major league baseball.

Basketball season, for example, isn't over yet and already the
season was disrupted by the departure through the portal of Oscar
Tshiebwe, Emmitt Matthews Jr. and Jordan McCabe, while Taz Sherman,
Sean McNeil and now Deuce McBride, the glue that held the team
together and elevated it above an average team, have ventured into
the NBA draft to evaluate whether they should or should not leave.

In truth, there is no roster upon which Coach Bob Huggins can build
toward next year for he can have no idea of who will be here, or
who will be gone.

Football was no different. There was a coach vs. player flap even
before the year started that forced the football team's defensive
coordinator to leave.

Players -- some who had no complaint with a coach or playing time
-- transferred at will, including star players like Dreshun Miller
and Tykee Smith among them.

Fans try to attach themselves to the players on the team for the
moment, but they soon saw that their attachment to the players was
not reciprocated, each announcement on Twitter or Instagram
sounding more and more like a form letter, which in reality is what
it was.

"First of all, I would like to thank God because without him none
of this would have been possible," wrote Deuce McBride on his
Friday announcement that he was going to enter the NBA draft. "From
the first time I picked up a basketball my dream was to one day be
in position to play in the NBA.

"After conversations with my family and the WVU coaching staff, I
have decided I will be declaring for the 2021 NBA draft. Thank you
to everyone who helped me get to this point, I'm excited to go
through this process!!"

Following a crushing defeat to Syracuse a little more than a week
earlier, the carpet the Mountaineers ran out onto the Coliseum
court had been yanked from under the fans' feet, their heroes
moving forward.

That is the system as it is today. Even major league baseball
players have to wait for five years before they can declare for
free agency or until their contract runs out or until they are
released.

The players who are transferring, who are looking into professional
careers, are playing within the rules. It isn't they who are wrong.
It is the rules that are wrong.

And, the thing is, which each passing year the players get more and
more for their efforts. Once they truly were the downtrodden,
picked-on athlete who wasn't compensated for playing. That is no
longer the case, for they now receive an education and tutoring,
first class meals and facilities, room and board, and some stipend
money. More is on the way, as the right to profit from their own
name, image and likeness will soon be allowed.

Yet they are out for more and they bring in so much money -- it's
measured in the billions of dollars throughout sports -- that
concessions continue to be made to keep it going as it is, with a
parade of meaningless bowl games, with mock tournaments such as the
CBI, all of it looked at through a funhouse mirror of distortion.

They still cling to the image that education comes first, knowing
full well that is nowhere near the truth. If it were, would not the
Ivy League be college football and basketball powerhouses?

The professional sports aren't about to intervene. They have free
farm systems in both basketball and football.

Television isn't going to be of any help. They fill air time and
their pockets through college sports, which make up much of their
identity at what still is a reasonable cost considering what it
would cost to be producing or purchasing non-sports programming.

WVU has made it work for itself, but the costs keep rising and, in
the latest example of the changing times, WVU is caught at the
forefront.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of NCAA v. Alston on
Wednesday. The Alston is former WVU running back Shawne Alston,
whose name is used on the class-action suit that would redefine
'amateurism'.

The case boils down to lifting "strict limits on compensation to
student-athletes, forcing schools to compete for top recruits by
offering more than just scholarships," according to the Wall Street
Journal.

Despite the fact that they already are doing that in many ways,
Alston won in the lower courts.

This is how the Wall Street Journal summarized the case:

In its brief, the NCAA argues that the lower courts "erroneously
redefined amateurism" and that "eligibility rules limiting
athletics-based compensation for student-athletes" are required to
"preserve amateurism."

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Alston, schools would be
allowed to reimburse expenses for academic-related items such as
computers and science equipment.

Schools would also no longer be prohibited from offering
student-athletes internships after their eligibility expires.

Although these are relatively minor, incremental changes, the NCAA
has argued that rewards such as internships have been used as a
"thinly disguised vehicle for funneling" student-athletes
"professional salaries," and that "allowing pay-for-play would
'significantly'" affect the demand for college sports.

The Wall Street Journal quoted a survey by the National Bureau of
Economic Research from last September tht found less than 7 percent
of the NCAA's $8.5 billion in revenues finds its way to football
and men's basketball players through scholarships and living
stipends, estimating that if men's basketball programs in the top
conference split 50 percent of the revenue equally each player
would earn nearly $500,000 annually.

If the court were to rule in favor of Alston, it almost certainly
would force the Power 5 conferences in football and basketball to
form their own "NCAA" type of governing body and completely rewrite
the definition of college athletics and the rules by which they
operate.

Something has to give . . . and when it does there are plenty of
takers willing to profit from it. [GN]


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on March 31 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Neptune Wellness Solutions
Inc. ("Neptune" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NEPT) securities between
July 24, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Neptune investors have until May 17, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

In June 2019, Neptune acquired SugarLeaf Labs, LLC and Forest
Remedies LLC (collectively, "SugarLeaf"), a registered North
Carolina-based commercial hemp company providing extraction
services and formulated products.

On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced net loss of CA$73.8 million
for third quarter 2021 due in part to a CA$35.6 million impairment
of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million impairment of "property, plant and
equipment and right-of-use assets related to the acquisition of
SugarLeaf in July 2019," as well as accelerated amortization of
CA$13.95 million "also related to the SugarLeaf acquisition."

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on February 17, 2021, before the market opened, Neptune
issued a press release announcing the termination of an
at-the-market offering conducted by the Company, which would have
raised $18.6 million in gross proceeds. Immediately after, Neptune
issued a second press release announcing that the Company was
conducting a $55 million registered direct offering.

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
10.82%, to close at $1.73 per share on February 17, 2021, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the cost of
Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in the
SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had
acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital
reserves; (2) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise
more capital; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Neptune securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Neptune securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 5 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14354&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021
Class Period: May 11, 2020 - November 4, 2020

Allegations against BLUE include that: (i) data supporting
bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient
to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants
downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the
COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for
LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing;
(iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the
Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the
second half of 2021; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ:APA)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=14354&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021
Class Period: September 7, 2016 - March 13, 2020

Allegations against APA include that: (i) Apache intentionally used
unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of
available oil and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the
proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill
and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the
amounts purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ:NEPT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/neptune-wellness-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14354&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Class Period: July 24, 2019 - February 16, 2021

Allegations against NEPT include that: (i) the cost of Neptune's
integration of the assets and operations acquired in the SugarLeaf
Acquisition would be larger than the Company had acknowledged,
placing significant strain on the Company's capital reserves; (ii)
accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the company would
need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise more capital;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


NETFLIX INC: Certification of Class of Ohio Municipalities Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS,
OHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NETFLIX, INC., and HULU, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01872-JG (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "All Ohio municipalities in which one or more of the
      Defendants has provided video service (the Class);

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC; Nix Patterson, LLP;

      and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, LLP, as Class
      Counsel.

Netflix, Inc. is an American content platform and production
company headquartered in Los Gatos, California. Netflix was founded
in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph in Scotts Valley,
California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ezPwnc
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                  bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Michael Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
                  mangelovich@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          C. Cary Patterson, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          2900 St. Michael Drive, 5th Floor
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 223-3999
          E-mail: ccp@nixlaw.com

              - and -

          Peter Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560
          E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: 415-421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com

NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Transmission Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Nissan
transmission problems have caused a lawsuit that alleges the
vehicles lurch, jerk, shake and stall, creating dangers for vehicle
occupants and others on the road.

The Nissan transmission lawsuit alleges 2015-2016 Pathfinder and
2014-2016 Rogue SUVs are equipped with defective continuously
variable transmissions (CVTs) manufactured by JATCO, a Nissan
subsidiary.

According to the Nissan transmission lawsuit, the Rogues and
Pathfinders are dangerous to drive due to severe delays when trying
to accelerate.

Utah plaintiff Andrea Eliason purchased a 2016 Nissan Rogue in
March 2016, but she claims the SUV frequently jerks and forces her
to pull to the side of the road. According to the plaintiff, she
has "often been scared for her own safety and the safety of her
family while driving."

Eliason says regular service to the Rogue hasn't helped with the
transmission problems, and she says she wouldn't have purchased the
Rogue, or she would have paid less, if Nissan would have told her
the vehicle was allegedly defective.

The second owner who sued is Colorado plaintiff Wayne Balnicki who
purchased his 2015 Nissan Pathfinder in 2015. The transmission
lawsuit alleges the Pathfinder suffers from an "intermittent
shudder."

The plaintiff says he wouldn't have purchased the Pathfinder, or he
would have paid less, if Nissan would have told him the vehicle was
allegedly defective.

Nissan has allegedly known "about the defect for years, is unable
to fix it, but continues to sell defective vehicles anyways,
despite countless reports of safety concerns."

The Nissan transmission lawsuit says the automaker extended the
powertrain warranties in 2009 for 2008–2010 Rogues equipped with
CVTs. Also included were the Nissan Murano, Versa, Sentra, Altima,
Maxima and Cube.

The transmission class action also alleges Nissan issued multiple
technical service bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships regarding
problems with the Rogue and Pathfinder CVTs and how to handle
customer complaints about the transmissions.

Additionally, the automaker has issued service campaigns related to
the transmissions and many of the technical service bulletins have
been updated with new information over the years.

The Nissan transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Eliason, et al., v.
Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,
PLLC, and Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Several Nissan transmission lawsuits have been filed over the past
few years. [GN]


NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHAEL ANNE ELROD, et
al., v. NO TAX 4 NASH, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00617 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "All individuals who received, on July 16 or 17, 2020, one
or
      more pre-recorded calls to their cellular telephones from the

      phone number 615-348-5237;" and

   2. certifying the following class issues:

      -- whether Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
         Protection Act (TCPA);

      -- whether Defendants knowingly and willingly violated the
         TCPA;

      -- whether Defendants conspired to violate the TCPA; and

      -- whether Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory or
         injunctive relief and, if so, to what extent and in what
         form;

   3.  appointing Plaintiffs Elrod, Kaufman, Martin, and Brasfield
       as Representative Plaintiffs; and

   4. appointing the law firms of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,

      PLLC, and Spragens Law PLC as Class Counsel.

As directed by the Court, the Plaintiffs have filed a revised class
definition for the Court's review. The revised class definition
clarifies that Plaintiffs are proposing a class defined as "All
individuals who received, on July 16 or 17, 2020, one or more
pre-recorded calls to their cellular telephones from the phone
number 615-348-5237." This clarification is consistent with what
the Court suspected Plaintiffs had in mind but felt constrained to
confirm. As clarified, the proposed class definition is entirely
appropriate given the entire record to date in this case.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sY4XLq at no extra charge.[CC]

NORTH AMERICAN: Advance Trust Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA, as securities intermediary for Life Partners
Position Holder Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance,
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying action,
which consists of a claim for breach of contract, as a class action
on behalf of the following classes:

   The "COI Overcharge Class", which consists of:

   All current and former owners of Classic Term UL I or II issued
   or insured by North American Company for Life & Health
   Insurance, or its predecessors, during the Class Period.

   The COI Overcharge Class does not include defendant North
   American, its officers and directors, members of their immediate

   families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the
   foregoing; anyone employed with Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and

   any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her
   immediate family.

   In the alternative, in the event the Court declines to certify
   the COI Overcharge Class, ATLES requests the Court certify the
   following state-specific sub-classes:

   (a) The "Four Corners Class": All members of the COI
       Overcharge Class, excluding owners whose policies were
       issued in Alaska, Arizona, California, Iowa, Montana, New
       Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington.

   (b) The "Four Corners & Strict Contra Proferentem Class": All
       members of the COI Overcharge Class whose policies were
       issued in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
       Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, and Virginia.

   (c) The "Florida Class": All members of the COI Overcharge
       Class whose policies were issued in Florida.

ATLES also requests that this Court appoint it as the class
representative for the aforementioned COI Overcharge Class or
alternative classes and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed as
Class Counsel for the COI Overcharge Class or alternative classes.

North American Company for Life and Health Insurance is a Sammons
Financial Group member company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dPtIF6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
          Nicholas N. Spear, Esq.
          Lora Krsulich, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                  nspear@susmangodfrey.com
                  lkrsulich@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          R. Ronald Pogge, Esq.
          Robin G. Maxon, Esq.
          HOPKINS & HUEBNER, P.C.
          2700 Grand Avenue, Suite 111
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: 515-244-0111
          Facsimile: 515-697-4299
          E-mail: rpogge@hhlawpc.com
                  rmaxon@hhlawpc.com

OKONITE COMPANY: Walter Parrish Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER PARRISH,
Individually, and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public
Similarly Situated and the State of California, v. THE OKONITE
COMPANY, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09000-JFW-JC (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. granting the motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the Class as follows:

      "Any and all persons who are or were employed as an hourly-
      paid nonexempt employee by The Okonite Company, Inc. at its
      Santa Maria, California plant from April 6, 2016, until
      resolution of this lawsuit who were required to remain at the

      plant during meal-and-rest breaks or required to obtain
      permission to leave the premises during meal-and-rest
      breaks;"

   3. appointing Plaintiff Walter Parrish as class representative;

   4. appointing Mohammed K. Ghods, Jeremy A. Rhyne, and Ruben
      Escobedo as class counsel; and

   5. directing further proceedings regarding notice to the class.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Pqi7mE
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Rhyne, Esq.
          LEX OPUS
          100 N. Broadway, Suite 210
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone: (714) 558-8580
          Facsimile: (714) 558-8579
          E-mail: jrhyne@lexopusfirm.com

               - and -

          Ruben Escobedo, Esq.
          WORKWORLD LAW CORP.
          A Professional Corporation
          8 731 S. Lincoln Street
          Santa Maria, CA 93458
          Telephone: (805) 335-2476
          Facsimile: (805) 892-6213
          E-mail: ruben@workworldlaw.com

ONTRAK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on March 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ontrak, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OTRK) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in OTRK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ontrak-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14254&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Ontrak, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider
basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest
cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical
cost savings; (2) as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not
find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably
likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) because this
customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's
revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on
Ontrak's financial results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders have until May 3, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the OTRK lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


OPTUM GOVERNMENT: Fails to Reimburse & Pay Wages, Hatch et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAQUILLA HATCH and TRISTAN TRAYLOR, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPTUM GOVERNMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00274-LPR (E.D. Ark.,
April 8, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
Behavior Health Assessors/Community Health Workers (Medicaid
Assessors).

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiffs sometimes
worked as many as 43 to 46 hours per week, the Defendant refused to
compensate them for all hours they worked. Allegedly, the Defendant
instructed them to record only 40 hours worked per week regardless
of how many hours they worked in a week. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Medicaid Assessors were not
paid their lawful minimum wage and overtime premium at one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over
40 each week, the suit asserts.

The Defendant also allegedly failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and
other Medicaid Assessors for their mileage. Although the Defendant
required them to submit their mileage for reimbursement, the
Defendant instructed them to deduct 50 miles from their actual
mileage each day and from their reported mileage.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint seeking to recover damages from
the Defendant for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and all costs, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

Optum Government Solutions, Inc. provides government Medicaid and
health and human services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Renewed Bid for Conditional Cert. Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, LAURA J.
JOHNSON, JEFFERY MONDY, and JEROME GUNN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE,
INC., a Texas profit corporation; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit corporation; FLORIDA STAFFING
SERVICE, INC., a Florida profit corporation; and, TAMPA SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., a Florida profit corporation, each d/b/a:
PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE;
PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC;
PPS; and/or FW SERVICES, Case No. 0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
renewed motion for conditional certification:

   (a) conditionally certifying the national Proposed Collectives;


   (b) requiring Defendants to produce in an electronic or
       computer-readable format the full name, address(es), email
       address(es) and Social Security numbers for each of the
       class members;

   (c) ordering the parties to confer and make every attempt to
       reach a consensus on the language of the notice and consent

       form that will issue to potential opt-ins prior to
       requesting Court intervention, and ordering Plaintiff's to
       file a motion for approval of the proposed notice within 14

       days of the date of the Order granting the Renewed Motion;
       and

   (d) requiring posting of the notice at all of Defendants'
       locations where the similarly situated employees are
       employed.

Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc provides employment services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nflCJ3
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class/Collective are:

          Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
          CASSATA LAW, PLLC
          Boca Crown Centre
          7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (954) 364-7803
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          afrisch@forthepeople.com
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013

PAYCOR INC: Class Certification of BIPA Claims Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS and JUAN
BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others  similarly
situated, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiffs' Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA)
      claims as a class action;

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Stephan Zouras, LLP and Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane &
      Conway, APLC as Class Counsel; and

   4. authorizing court-facilitated notice of this action to class

      members.

The Defendant Paycordesigns, markets and sells biometric
timekeeping devices, software and payroll services to its customers
nationwide, and throughout Illinois, that require scans of
fingerprint or hand geometry as an authentication method to track
users' time worked and effectuate wage compensation. By way of its
biometric devices, software and networked databases, Paycor
collects, obtains and manages the biometric identifiers and
biometric information (biometric data) of thousands of individuals
throughout Illinois.

Paycor collected and obtained Named Plaintiffs Kellin Johns and
Juan Barron's biometric identifiers (i.e., fingerprints) and
biometric information when they worked for one of Paycor's
customers, Club Fitness, Inc., in Illinois, and used Paycor
biometric timekeeping devices to clock in and out for work. In
doing so however, Paycor failed to comply with the simple
requirements of the BIPA. Specifically, Paycor failed to inform
Plaintiffs and other users of the purposes for Paycor's collection
and obtainment, or to whom their biometric data was disclosed;
failed to gain informed written consent prior to its collection and
obtainment; and failed to establish and implement
publicly-available retention and destruction guidelines for the
biometric data Paycor collected and
obtained.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sOEvUd
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                  mshannon@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR
          KANE & CONWAY, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Albright Sues Over Treadmill's Risk to Kids
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON ALBRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC. and DOES 1–100,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02858 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and marketing of the Peloton Tread+
treadmill. Unknown to consumers, the product posed direct health
and safety risks to children. The Tread+ contains significant
design flaws that makes it defective, unfit for use in a home with
children, and unreasonably dangerous for its intended purpose.
After receiving many complaints and becoming the subject of an
investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the
CPSC issued a direct warning to consumers to stop using the
product. Despite CPSC's warning, the Defendants continue to
advertise the machine as perfectly safe. As a result of the
Defendants' omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and
Class members have been financially harmed, the suit alleges.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. is an exercise equipment and media
company, with its principal place of business at 125 West 25th
Street, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
         John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
         CUTTER LAW, PC
         401 Watt Avenue
         Sacramento, CA
         Telephone: (916) 448-9800
         Facsimile: (916) 669-4499

PLUG POWER: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Plug Power, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PLUG), XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL), Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BLU), and Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Plug Power, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG)

Class Period: November 9, 2020 to March 1, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021

On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. The share price continued to
decline by $9.48, or 19.4%, over three consecutive trading sessions
to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 202.

The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company 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; (2) that the Company was reasonably likely to
report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

For more information on the Plug Power class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PLUG

XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL)

Class Period: September 2, 2020 to March 2, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled
"XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed
that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future
class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too
technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised
timeline."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.09, or 13%, to
close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021. The share price
continued to decline by $2.69, or 19.4%, over two consecutive
trading sessions to close at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (2)
that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL featured were inactive
and had not placed an order since 2019; (3) that XL's technology
had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet
savings; (4) that XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll
out new products on the announced timelines; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the XL Fleet class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/XL

Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU)

Class Period: September 5, 2019 to July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

Bellus is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead
product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of
chronic cough (one that lasts over eight weeks) and other afferent
hypersensitization-related disorders.

Before markets opened on July 6, 2020, defendants revealed the
truth about BLU5937's efficacy. They announced that the drug had
failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other
treatments had not worked. Specifically, BLU-5937 was not
significantly better than a placebo at reducing the frequency at
which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a "clinically
meaningful and highly statistically significant" effect only on a
subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32 per day),
so the Company was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on those
patients.

On this news, indicating that Bellus had fallen even further behind
Merck in developing an FDA-approved treatment for refractory
chronic cough, the Company's stock price plummeted over 75% to
close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that defendants'
scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Bellus's
business, operations, drug products, drug product development,
competition, and present and future business prospects; (ii)
facilitated the Company's September 2019 public offering
("Offering"); (iii) created artificial demand for the Bellus common
shares sold in the Offering; (iv) enabled the Company to receive
approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of Bellus
common stock in the Offering; and (v) caused Plaintiff and the
Class to purchase Bellus publicly traded common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

For more information on the Bellus Health class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BLU

Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT)

Class Period: July 24, 2019 to February 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

On May 9, 2019, Neptune announced that it had signed a definitive
agreement to acquire the assets of SugarLeaf Labs, LLC and Forest
Remedies LLC (collectively, "SugarLeaf"), a registered North
Carolina-based commercial hemp company providing extraction
services and formulated products (the "SugarLeaf Acquisition"). On
July 24, 2019, Neptune announced the closing of the SugarLeaf
Acquisition.

On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2021,
missing analyst expectations. Among other results, Neptune reported
third quarter revenues of CA$3.32 million and a net loss of CA$73.8
million, down 63.81% and over 1,000% year-over-year, respectively.
Neptune attributed the net loss, in part, to a CA$35.6 million
impairment of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million impairment of
"property, plant and equipment and right-of-use assets related to
the acquisition of SugarLeaf in July 2019," as well as accelerated
amortization of CA$13.95 million "also related to the SugarLeaf
acquisition." Additionally, the Company disclosed that its "[g]ross
margin declined to a loss of 268.3%," which included a non-cash
CA$7.39 million "write-down of inventory and deposits to reflect
their net realizable value."

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

Then, on February 17, 2021, prior to the start of the day's trading
session, Neptune issued a press release announcing the termination
of an at-the-market offering conducted by the Company, selling
9,570,735 of its common shares and raising approximately $18.6
million in gross proceeds. Just minutes later, Neptune issued a
second press release announcing that the Company was conducting a
$55 million registered direct offering.

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell another $0.21 per share,
or 10.82%, to close at $1.73 per share on February 17, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the cost
of Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in
the SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had
acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital
reserves; (ii) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise
more capital; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the Neptune Wellness class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/NEPT

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


PLUG POWER: Faces Securities Class Action for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bashar Issa, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that a colossal of
law firms are banding on a class action lawsuit against Plug Power,
accusing the company of misleading investors.

Statistically, almost half of securities class action lawsuits are
dismissed.

The reclassification of R&D as COGS will not have a material impact
on gross margins. Still, all told, the company has work to do in
this regard.

Investment Thesis
The recently announced accounting errors have an immaterial impact
on Plug Power's investment thesis, which centers on growth in the
number of units sold and subsequent economics of scale that would
enable the company to achieve gross margin targets.

The recent Class Action is manageable, given the company's cash
position and probability of being dismissed. The plaintiff's main
argument is that the company withheld information from
shareholders, which, given the line of events, is a hard pill to
swallow. If the company knew it had to reinstate the financial
statements, it wouldn't have convened a conference call for the
fourth quarter. I believe that the company follows its external
auditor's lead, who has been part of the necessary financial
engineering that reflects the company's complex operating
environment.

The Class Action
More than 20 law firms are banding together on a class action suit
against Plug Power (PLUG) after the company notified the SEC of
accounting errors in previous financial statements. I believe the
issue will boil to whether PLUG management withheld information
from shareholders. The class-action suit covers investors investing
in the period between November 9, 2020, "a day after the company
filed its Q3 statement" until March 1, 2021, "the Q4 deadline".
PLUG became an accelerated filer in December 2020, and as a result,
was required to file an annual statement on March 1, 2021.

I believe that PLUG management wasn't aware of the need to
reinstate the previous statements. The company announced Q4 results
on February 25 and, only six days later, issued a press release
that they might have to reinstate previous financial statements. If
PLUG management knew about the problems before March 2, they
wouldn't have published Q4 results on February 25.

In an 8-K filing, PLUG stressed that it only received information
about the material errors only after it announced its results on
January 21, 2021:

On February 24, 2021, the Company and the Audit Committee discussed
those results with KPMG, and at that time, no material issues were
raised. However, after the company reported its 2020 fourth quarter
and year-end results, and in the course of finalizing the audit,
the Company and KPMG identified the restatement items cited above.
The company has since reevaluated its accounting and determined
that it needed to correct the previous accounting for those items.

It isn't easy to assess the outcome of any legal trial given the
many variables, including the lawyers' skills, the Judge's final
decision, and obviously the facts of the case. Statistically, data
from Harvard and Sandford show that about half of all securities
class action lawsuits between 2009 – 2018 were dismissed.

If PLUG settles, the settlement's size will depend on loss,
measured by the depreciation of shares since March 1, 2021, and the
number of plaintiffs. The average PLUG share price between November
9, 2020, and March 1, 2021, is $43, compared to an average of $40
since then. Not all shareholders witnessed loss. PLUG shares are up
4% YTD and up 90% since November 9, 2020. None of the investors
buying from November 9, 2020, until December 17, 2021, lost money.
This group constitutes 33% of the trading volumes of the class
action suit's plaintiffs.

Having said that, PLUG is not out of the woods on the class action
lawsuit front. Investors bought at record highs between $47 and $73
per share with an average of $60 per share, putting a market cap
for PLUG at 35 billion. Still, given the company's cash position
and the statistical probability of the case being dismissed, I
believe this issue is manageable.

Reclassification of R&D Expenses
One of the main issues raised in the company's communique was the
restatement of some R&D costs back to COGS, which would result in
squeezing gross margins. Gross margins have been an issue and a
focus of analysts for quite some time. The company needed to lower
the price to compete with traditional lead batteries, and gross
margins have been an issue for a long time. A closer look at the
figures reveals that R&D expenditures are small. Even taking an
extreme case where all the Company's R&D expenses are reversed back
to COGS wouldn't materially affect the company.

Currently, the company is making huge discounts on its products to
gain afoot to the door for its customers. For example, in FY 2020,
the company lost $40 million on its GenKey, which includes
aftermarket service and integration solutions.

Adjustments to Right of Use Assets and Finance Lease Obligations
PLUS sells fuel cells, and hydrogen infrastructure products, and
installation services. At this stage of the industry life cycle,
PLUG customers have the upper hand in negotiating sales deals, and
it happens that many PLUG customers wish to rent PLUG's products
rather than buy them. Since PLUG needs cash but cannot finance all
its customers, its management came up with a creative solution that
entails PLUG selling its product to Wells Fargo for money and then
rent it back before leasing it to its customers. The Wells Fargo
side of the equation is called sale/leaseback, a financial
engineering concept, and where PLUG is a lessee. The customer side
of the equation is financial/operating lease, where PLUG is the
lessor. In addition to being a lessee and a lessor for the same
asset, sale/leaseback and finance leasing includes estimates and
subjective judgments on valuations, including but not limited to
present values and discount rates.

The company announced that it intends to lower the Right of Use
Assets' carrying value, reflecting the leaseback contract's value
to Wells Fargo. The company also will adjust the finance lease for
some of its customers. The end result is a smaller book value per
share. This is generally an adverse event, but show me an investor
investing in PLUG for its assets' book value. PLUG is a growth
stock, and its value is derived from its position in a growing
industry. This is why management stressed that the adjustments
don't affect the cash position or future sales and is why all
except one analyst maintained their ratings.

Summary
PLUG uses complex accounting methods that reflect its operations'
complexity, including sale/leasebacks, valuation of ROUs, and
financing leases. Still, none of these hurt the core investing
thesis of PLUG, which depends on growth to achieve the economics of
scale necessary for improving its margins. I acknowledge that the
reclassification of some R&D expenses as COGS will have a
negligible impact on gross margins. Still, investors can't ignore
that the company is moving in the right direction, as demonstrated
by the number of units sold increasing in 2020, despite the
challenging environment. [GN]


PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Plug investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/plug-power-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company 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; (2) that the Company was
reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 7, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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


PLUG POWER: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) ("Plug") that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Plug securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Plug securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/plug-power-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Plug_Power

Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions
focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric
mobility and stationary power markets.

The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Plug filed its
quarterly report on a Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2020. Regarding Plug's disclosure controls and internal control
over financial reporting, the report stated, in relevant part that
Plug's "disclosure controls and procedures are effective . . . [and
that] [t]here were no changes in [Plug's] internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the last fiscal quarter
that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, [Plug's] internal control over financial
reporting."

The truth regarding Plug's weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting was revealed on March 2, 2021 when, before the
market opened, Plug filed a Notification of Late Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because Plug was completing a "review and assessment of the
treatment of certain costs with regards to classification between
Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
Plug stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these items
may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior period
financial statements."

Following this news, Plug's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. Plug's share price continued
to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%, over three consecutive trading
sessions to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Plug 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; (2)
Plug was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its
internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Plug's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Plug investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


PLUG POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) ("Plug") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Plug securities between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Plug securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/plug-power-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Plug_Power

Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions
focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric
mobility and stationary power markets.

The truth regarding Plug's weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting was revealed on March 2, 2021 when, before the
market opened, Plug filed a Notification of Late Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because Plug was completing a "review and assessment of the
treatment of certain costs with regards to classification between
Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
Plug stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these items
may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior period
financial statements."

Subsequently, on March 16, 2021, Plug announced that it will have
to restate financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 as
well as quarterly filings for 2019 and 2020. As a result of the
restatement, Plug will not file its form 10K as planned and said it
will do so "as soon as possible."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Plug 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; (2)
Plug was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its
internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Plug's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Plug investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


PLUG POWER: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
purchaser of Plug Power, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) filed a class action
complaint against the Company and its officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021. Plug Power provides
comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions focused on
systems used to power electric motors in the electric mobility and
stationary power markets.

If you purchased shares of Plug Power Inc. (PLUG) between November
9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, you have until May 7, 2021, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.

Plug Power, Inc. (PLUG) Misled Shareholders Regarding its Internal
Controls Over Financial Reporting

According to the complaint, on November 9, 2020, Power Plug
reported its third quarter 2020 financial results in a letter
posted on its website. The same day, Power Plug filed its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020,
affirming its previously reported financial results. The Company
also noted that its "disclosure controls and procedures are
effective" and that "no changes in the Company's internal controls
over financial reporting … occurred during the last fiscal
quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting."

On February 25, 2021, Plug Power released its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results on its website. Notwithstanding,
on March 2, 2021, Plug Power filed a Notification of Late Filing
with the SEC stating that it could not timely file its annual
report for the period ended December 31, 2020. Specifically, the
Company was completing a "review and assessment of the treatment of
certain costs with regards to classification between Research and
Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the recoverability of right
of use assets associated with certain leases, and certain internal
controls over these and other areas." The Company stated that "[i]t
is possible that one or more of these items may result in charges
or adjustments to current and/or prior period financial
statements." On this news, Plug Power's stock price fell $3.68, or
7%, to close at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. The price
continued to decline over 19% over the next three trading sessions,
to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against Plug Power, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

Contacts:
Lauren Levi
Robbins LLP
llevi@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]


POST FOODS: May 19 Claims Submission Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------
Sarina Petrocelly, writing for Our Community Now, reports that if
you've bought Post cereal in the last NINE years, you may be
eligible for personal compensation.

As a result of a court ruling on a class action lawsuit against
Post Foods, LLC, the cereal giant may be made to pay back millions
in compensation directly to consumers. The case stems from the
argument that the language used on the cereal boxes and in
marketing materials insinuates the contents were healthier than
they actually were.

Specifically, the plaintiffs stated that the added sugar in certain
cereals contradicted their claims of being good for your health.
The product lines named in the lawsuit include:

   -- Honey Bunches of Oats
   -- Great Grains
   -- Raisin Bran
   -- Bran Flakes
   -- Honey Bunches of Oats Granola
   -- Selects
   -- Honeycomb
   -- Shredded Wheat
   -- Alpha-Bits
   -- Waffle Crisp
   -- Golden Crisp

If you purchased any of the cereals listed above during the time
period of August 29, 2012, through November 2, 2020, you may be
eligible for compensation. Simply go to the class action lawsuit
website and submit a claim. You must have made the purchase for
household use, not retail sale, and you have until May 19, 2021 to
submit online or by mail. Click here for a claim form that you can
print and mail in. The form is available in both English and
Spanish.

The actual compensation sent out will be based on the total number
of claims received. In total, Post has settled for $15,000,000 for
the plaintiffs, legal fees, and consumer compensation.

If you're on the other side of the fence and would like to object
to this class action lawsuit, you can do so in writing. All
objections must be sent to the court before May 19, 2021.

For more information about the settlement, you can call (844)
970-1302 or send an email to info@AddedSugarClassAction with any
questions. [GN]


PRIMESOURCE BUILDING: Hodgens Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICKY HODGENS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRIMESOURCE BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-2249,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on April 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00362 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, failure to timely pay all final wages, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair
competition.

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. is a global building products
distributor, headquartered in Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                         
         Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1400 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Telephone: (650) 843-4000
         Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
         E-mail: melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com

                 - and –

         Rebecca N. Friedman, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: rebecca.friedman@morganlewis.com

PSD FREEPORT: Class in Taveras Labor Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE TAVERAS, Plaintiff v. PSD FREEPORT INC. d/b/a
ATLANTIC AVENUE DELI; PHILIP SONG; LOUIS R. DELEO and JOSEPH R.
DELEO, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-6243 (MKB) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Ramos E. Reyes, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, and

   (ii) granted in part and denied in part his motion to
        conditionally certify a collective action.

Plaintiff Taveras brings the action against Defendants, Louis DeLeo
and Joseph DeLeo ("DeLeo Defendants"), and Atlantic Avenue Deli and
Philip Song ("AAD Defendants"), alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. LAB. L. Section 190, et seq.

Atlantic Avenue Deli ("deli") is a delicatessen in Freeport, New
York.  From at least 2000 until June 2018, the deli was owned and
operated by the DeLeo Defendants.  In June 2018, the DeLeo
Defendants sold the deli to Defendant Song.  Concurrent with their
respective ownership interest in the deli, the DeLeo Defendants and
Song each had the authority to: (1) hire and fire employees; (2)
supervise and control employee work schedules and the work
environment; (3) determine the rates and methods of payment of
employees; and (4) maintain employment records for the Defendants.

In 2000, the DeLeo Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work in the
deli kitchen.  In this role, the Plaintiff was responsible for
various tasks, including preparing customer orders and cleaning.
Relevant to the instants motion, he alleges that he was never paid
overtime to which he was entitled.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Nov. 13, 2019, alleging
violations of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the FLSA
and NYLL; failure to pay spread-of-hours under the NYLL; and
failure to provide a wage statement and notice under the NYLL.  On
Sept. 4, 2020, the Plaintiff withdrew his minimum wage
allegations.

On Sept. 17, 2020, the case was referred to mediation and discovery
was stayed pending its completion.  Mediation was unsuccessful.
During discovery, the Defendants produced weekly "time records" for
employees from May 28, 2018 through Jan. 13, 2019.  These
timesheets contain employee names and the "hours" they worked,
their hourly "rate," and the "total" they were paid.

The Plaintiff argues that these documents demonstrate that the
Defendants failed to compensate any employee at the statutorily
mandated overtime rate.  During the Dec. 3, 2020 telephone
conference, he informed the Court that he intended to file a motion
to certify a collective action based on this information.  He
claims that he was "unaware of how his coworkers were paid" until
the production of these documents.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion, seeking leave
to amend his complaint to allege collective action allegations
pursuant to the FLSA and class action allegations premised upon the
Defendants' violations of the NYLL and to bring the allegations set
forth in the Plaintiff's original Complaint into conformity with
factual developments learned during discovery.  The Defendants
submitted oppositions and the Plaintiff replied.  On March 12,
2021, the District Judge referred these motions to Magistrate Judge
Reyes,

The Plaintiff has moved: (1) to amend the Complaint pursuant to
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allege a
collective action under the FLSA and class action under the NYLL;
and (2) to conditionally certify a collective action and distribute
notice to the putative collective pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).  The Defendants oppose the motions.

I. Motion to Amend

The Defendants oppose the proposed amendments as futile.  They
argue that the proposed collective allegations are futile because
the Plaintiff fails to specifically identify any other employee's
compensation rates/structures or reference their respective job
duties and therefore, does not properly allege that he is similarly
situated to other employees.

Magistrate Judge Reyes holds that the Plaintiff has met his burden
of a modest factual showing that he and other employees were
similarly denied overtime to which they were entitled.
Accordingly, the proposed amendments are not futile.  The Plaintiff
has also demonstrated good cause to amend the Complaint.  The only
prejudice the Defendants might suffer is having to engage in
additional discovery related to other deli employees who may join
the action.  The Magistrate Judge holds that it is insufficient to
deny a motion to amend.  Accordingly, the Defendants will not be
prejudiced by the proposed amended complaint.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is granted.

II. Motion for Conditional Certification

The Plaintiff requests conditional certification of a collective as
well as discovery of contact information of potential opt-in
plaintiffs and to distribute notice to the putative collective.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and all other deli employees were
victims of the Defendants' "widespread" practice to not "compensate
any employee at the statutorily mandated rate of one and a half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of fort.
To support his claim, the Plaintiff only offers the time records
from May 28, 2018 through Jan. 13, 2019 that were produced by the
Defendants during discovery.  These timesheets suggest that
employees were compensated at the same base rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40.  They contain no
indication of the employee's job title or whether they were a
managerial employee.

The Defendants argue that these records are insufficient to
establish that the Plaintiff and other deli employees are similarly
situated because he did not explain how his job duties and title
were similar to that of his colleagues.  Similarly, they argue that
the timesheets fail to establish that other employees were
similarly situated to the Plaintiff because at least one of the
employees on the timesheets was a manager.

Magistrate Judge Reyes holds those details are not necessary now.
He says the appropriate question is not whether the Plaintiff's job
title and duties were identical to that of his colleagues, but
whether they were subject "to a common policy to deprive them of
overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week.  He also
holds that under both the FLSA and the NYLL, some employees, such
as managers, are exempt from the overtime pay requirements.  The
timesheets suggest that at least eight other employees were not
paid overtime, and the documents contain no indication that these
employees were managers or otherwise exempt.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of showing that
he and his coworkers "together were victims of a common policy or
plan that violated the law."  Potential opt-in plaintiffs are
similarly situated to the Plaintiff if they, like the Plaintiff,
assert that they were denied overtime pay to which they were
entitled.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to certify a
collective action is granted only as to non-exempt employees.

II. Proposed Notice

The Plaintiff submits a proposed notice and requests authorization
to mail notices to "all persons employed by the Defendants from
Nov. 13, 2013 to the present."  Magistrate Judge Reyes folds that
the proposed collective is too broad because it does not
distinguish between exempt and non-exempt employees.  While such a
proposal does not render the motion defective, he finds the
collective must be narrowed to deli employees who, like the
Plaintiff, were entitled to overtime pay.  Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge finds that notice will be sent to non-exempt deli
employees who worked for the Defendants at any point during the
three years preceding the filing of the motion for conditional
certification.

The Defendants seek to add the contact information of their
attorneys to the proposed notice, including the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers for their respective counsel.  The Magistrate
Judge finds that Courts in the Circuit have generally concluded
that the defendants' counsel's contact information is appropriate
for inclusion in a notice of collective action.  Therefore, the
defense counsel's contact information should be added to the
notice.  The Magistrate Judge also approves a 60-day notice period
for the putative Plaintiffs to opt in.  Furthermore, following the
Court's decision to limit the collective, the proposed notice
should be modified so that it is addressed only to non-exempt deli
employees.

The Plaintiff requests the names, addresses, telephone numbers,
e-mail addresses, and dates of employment with the Defendant from
potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  In general, it is appropriate for
courts in collective actions to order the discovery of names,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of
employment of potential collective members.  Thus, Magistrate Judge
Reyes directs the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with the
contact information requested.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Magistrate Judge Reyes granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion.  He granted the
Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to include an FLSA
collective action.

The Plaintiff will file the amended complaint by April 16, 2021.
His motion for conditional certification of a collective of
non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants in the three-year
period prior to the filing of the motion for conditional
certification is granted.  Within 14 days of the Order, the
Defendants are directed to provide the Plaintiffs with a
computer-readable list of the requested contact information of all
non-exempt employees during the aforementioned period.  The parties
are directed to meet and confer on a revised discovery schedule to
be submitted for review within 14 days of entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj5tb764 from Leagle.com.


PUBLIX SUPER: Baked Goods Lack Nutrition Labels, Copeland Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTI COPELAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00552-RDP (N.D. Ala., April 20, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract,
breach of warranty, and injunctive relief under the Alabama
Declaratory Judgment Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's baking, packaging, and selling
baked products without placing the required nutrition labels. The
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act requires foods to bear food
labeling that conforms to the nutrient content claims and certain
health messages to comply with certain specifics. Despite being
notified of their nutrition labeling requirements, Publix has
continued to skirt their legal obligation to the law and to the
American public. Publix has not to date placed either the old
nutrition label or the new label on their subject bakery goods, the
suit alleges.

Publix Super Markets, Inc. is an American supermarket chain
headquartered in Lakeland, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
         2539 John Hawkins Pkwy., Suite 101-149
         Hoover, AL 35244
         Telephone: (205) 995-0068
         Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
         E-mail: cmtlaw@aol.com

QUTOUTIAO INC: Roche Freedman Provides Update on Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Freedman LLP, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
represents Lead Plaintiff James Pappas in the federal securities
class action, In re Qutoutiao, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:20-cv-06707 (S.D.N.Y.).

Investors who purchased American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of
Qutoutiao, Inc. ("QTT") in its September 2018 initial public
offering ("IPO") or April 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO")
are encouraged to contact the firm before May 10, 2021.

Mr. Pappas filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
violations of the federal securities laws in this case on behalf of
anyone who (a) purchased or otherwise acquired QTT ADSs pursuant or
traceable to its September 2018 IPO; (b) purchased or otherwise
acquired QTT ADSs pursuant or traceable its April 2019 SPO; and/or
(c) purchased or otherwise acquired QTT securities between
September 14, 2018 and December 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

QTT offers a mobile application called Qutoutiao, meaning "fun
headlines" in Chinese, that provides a customized feed to its users
of aggregated articles and short videos from professional media and
freelancers. On September 14, 2018, QTT issued its IPO and sold
13.8 million ADSs at a price of $7.00 per share. Then on April 5,
2019, QTT issued its SPO and sold 3.3 million ADSs at $10 per
share.

The class action alleges that Defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
information in QTT's Offering Documents and in public statements
during the Class Period. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements that:
(i) mischaracterized QTT's targeting of users in Tier-3 and Tier-4
cities as due to their having more time and disposable income to
spend on the internet when in fact, advertisers wanted to run
non-compliant ads in those cities because regulators were more
lenient and users were less aware of their rights in those cities;
(ii) inaccurately described the benefits of, and reasons for,
replacing QTT's third-party advertising agent, Baidu, with Dianguan
by not disclosing that the change allowed QTT to avoid the
oversight Baidu had been providing which had prevented it from
selling more non-compliant ads; (iii) misleadingly touted QTT's
advertising revenue without disclosing that a significant number of
ads whose claims could not be substantiated and thus were
considered false advertisements under applicable regulations or
provided links to illegal online gambling platforms; (iv)
misleadingly touted QTT's 2017 and 2018 revenue without disclosing
that the aggregate revenue of its subsidiaries reporting in China
was at least RMB 187.6 million and RMB 620 million less,
respectively; (v) negligently promoted QTT's ability to monetize
user traffic without disclosing that such monetization required it
to set up separate teams with different processes and procedures
for qualified versus unqualified advertisers in order to sell
non-compliant ads; and (vi) failed to adequately warn investors
that certain "Risk Factors" listed in the Offering Documents had
already materialized at the time of the Offerings as QTT was
violating the applicable advertising laws and regulations by
running non-compliant ads so QTT would inevitably face increasing
regulatory scrutiny, reputational harm and decreased revenue when
the truth became known.

The truth was partially revealed on December 10, 2019 through a
report published by Wolfpack Research entitled "QTT: Fake Revenue,
Non-Existent Cash, Undisclosed Related Parties." The Wolfpack
Report alleged, among other things, that (1) QTT's "revenue is
generated solely by the accounting department" so only RMB 798
million of its RMB 3.02 billion reported revenue was actual revenue
and (2) QTT "exists to enrich its Founder and CEO, Eric Tan, and
promote his VC fund's other ventures by creating its own in-house
'advertising agent' in order to direct significant amounts of ad
traffic to undisclosed related parties owned by Tan" and remove
restrictions that had been preventing QTT from doing so, thereby
"perpetrat[ing] the unmitigated ad fraud that [Wolfpack] observed
in [its] sample." On this news, QTT's share price fell 4% to close
at $2.86 per share on December 11, 2019, on heavy trading volume.

Then on July 15, 2020, the truth about QTT's revenue was further
revealed when China's state-controlled broadcaster, CCTV, aired its
annual show documenting the use of improper ads on QTT's platform
(the "CCTV Exposé"). The CCTV Exposé resulted in the temporary
suspension of the QTT App from Chinese app stores. On these
revelations, the price of QTT's ADSs fell more than 24%. Further,
the CCTV Exposé forced QTT to finally come clean and enact
remedial measures to halt its illegal practices.

As a result, on December 16, 2020, QTT had to report that its
revenue for the third quarter of 2020 had plummeted, dropping 19.7%
year-over-year with a remarkable 23.1% drop in advertising revenue.
The year-over-year growth justifying investors' interest was gone,
replaced with a revenue decline. As QTT conceded, this significant
revenue drop, which caused the ADS price to fall by another 24%,
was due to the "remedial measures undertaken by [QTT] in response
to the report by [CCTV] on certain advertisements." Simply put, QTT
had been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. And the stark drop
in revenue following QTT's corrective actions unequivocally
confirms that—contrary to its Offering Documents and other Class
Period statements—the use of nonconforming advertisements had
been central to QTT's plan for revenue growth. Defendants' false
and material misstatements caused a significant decline in the
value of QTT's securities and resulted in millions of dollars in
losses to investors.

Roche Freedman LLP is actively investigating the wrongdoings
alleged in the Amended Complaint. If you believe you have suffered
damages as a result of Defendants violations of the federal
securities laws or have further inquiries regarding this matter,
please contact Vel Freedman (vel@rcfllp.com) at (305) 306-9211, Ivy
T. Ngo (Ingo@rcfllp.com) at (646) 876-3568, or Constantine
Economides (Ceconomides@rcfllp.com) at (305) 851-5997. [GN]


REPRO MED: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 31 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Repro Med Systems, Inc. ("Repro
Med") (NASDAQ: KRMD) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Repro Med between August 4, 2020 and
January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for investors under the federal securities
laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) starting in January
2020, Repro ramped up the use of allowances, including growth
rebates, to retain key customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as
the rebates accrued, Repro's net sales were reasonably likely to
decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about Repro's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Repro Med
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May
25, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE: Miller Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMISON MILLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED, LLC
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 20STCV49160, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03381 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure
to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due at
separation, failure to reimburse business expenses, illegal wage
deductions, failure to provide sick time and/or notice of available
sick time on wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Roadrunner Temperature Controlled, LLC is a trucking company in
Nebraska. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
         Telephone: (310) 315-8200
         Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
         E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                 ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com

               - and –

         Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
         Telephone: (415) 844-9944
         Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
         E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kadin Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL S. KADIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-02566, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21511-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, common law negligence, negligent misrepresentation
and violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the New York General Business Law by removing stocks from
their trading platforms in the midst of an unprecedented stock
rise, thereby depriving retail investors the ability to invest in
the open-market.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
         GUCOVSCHI LAW, PLLC
         630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
         New York, NY 10111
         Telephone: (212) 884-4230
         Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
         E-mail: adrian@gucovschi-law.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Stock Market Trading, Best Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUEKA BEST, RASHEED BEST, JACOB ROSMARIN, and ARIEL RUBENSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21534
(S.D. Fla., April 21, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of
good faith & fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, common law
negligence, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Florida Securities and Investor
Protection Act, the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants prohibited their
customers from buying multiple publicly traded stock options,
including but not limited to GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment
(AMC), Nokia (NOK), BlackBerry Limited (BB), Bed Bath & Beyond
(BBBY), Express (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS), and Naked Brand
Group (NAKD), during an unprecedented rise in valuation of the
these stocks. The Defendants' actions not only deprived their
customers from taking advantage of the rise of the stocks
valuation, but also manipulated the free and open market, causing a
substantial decrease in the stocks valuation, in violation of
federal securities laws and state laws, alleges the suit.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
         GUCOVSCHI LAW, PLLC
         630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
         New York, NY 10111
         Telephone: (212) 884-4230
         Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
         E-mail: adrian@gucovschi-law.com

ROCHESTER, NY: Police Dep't Sued Over Excessive Force Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
13WHAM News reports that protestors and advocates for police reform
in Rochester are filing a federal class action lawsuit against the
Rochester Police Department, current and former city officials, and
hundreds of members of law enforcement over claims of excessive
force -- particularly against people of color.

The lawsuit, which spans nearly 100 pages, details a four-decade
narrative making the case that the department employs use of force
tactics that are "inhumane, racist, and antithetical to the
functioning of a civilized society." In a copy of the lawsuit
obtained by 13WHAM News, 12 plaintiffs say their First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in different situations
ranging from traffic stops to domestic disputes to peaceful
demonstrations.

"This unprecedented document shows that we don't suffer from a few
bad apples," said plaintiff Reynaldo Deguzman, "but are plagued by
a rotten tree whose roots have poisoned our community for
decades."

"We will not be moved, because we know what we are owed," said
Stanley Martin of Free the People ROC, another plaintiff on the
lawsuit. "We know what we deserve, and we know what's been stolen
from us. For too long, our lives, our humanity and our freedoms
have been stolen. We have seen the ways our city government has
evaded responsibility and failed to take accountability for their
actions."

Among the demands of its plaintiffs are a federal jury or judge
ruling current police conduct, policies, and practices to be
unconstitutional and appointing an independent federal monitor to
oversee reform of how the department handles demonstrations,
department use of force, and racially-based policing practices.

"A culture of violence and impunity"
Some of the examples of the "violent, unconstitutional force" cited
in the lawsuit include 17 instances in which people were killed by
police, including the more recently cases involving Daniel Prude
and Tyshon Jones. The earliest case is of Denise Hawkins, an
18-year-old Black woman who was "shot and killed by a young, white
RPD officer . . . who responded to the domestic dispute between her
and her husband" in 1975.

Several of the plaintiffs reference the September 2020 protests
over the death of Daniel Prude and how police responded then. The
significant number of tear gas canisters fired into the crowd, the
use of pepper spray, 40 millimeter blunt-impact projectiles,
thousands of pepper balls being fired at protesters' eye level, the
use of flash-bang grenades, LRAD use, and intimidation using police
dogs during the demonstrations outside the Public Safety Building
are all listed by witnesses as tactics employed by Rochester Police
officers.

"When the people of Rochester gathered together to speak out
against police brutality here, the RPD responded not with an
apology, but with force," plaintiff Nick Robertson said on
April 5.

"Many protesters were harmed by this excessive use of force," he
continued. ". . . This violent response was in keeping with the
RPD's pattern of using unjustified force, especially against people
of color."

Deguzman was injured during a protest he was documenting, he says.
When he put down his equipment to do a battery change, he says a
supervising officer ordered other officers to block him from
recording an arrest being made.

An officer told him, "A media badge isn't a free pass", he says,
and shot him in the back of the neck with a pepper ball. The photo
of the injury is part of the evidence in the lawsuit.

"I wasn't able to turn my head left for over a week," Deguzman
said. "I still wear and suffer from several of the injuries. And
this is just physical. This is discounting the mental costs."

Beyond citing the media reports and personal accounts from people
at those protests, the lawsuit points to the doctoral thesis by
former Rochester Police Department Investigator Charles LoFaso, The
Effect of Race, Place, and Time on Police Use of Force: How Social
Context Influences Legal Decision-Making.

Analysis of five years' worth of reports provided by the Rochester
Police Department between October 9, 2011 and June 30, 2016 shows a
total of 3,368 use-of-force incidents. Nearly two-thirds of the use
of force cases going beyond handcuffing - 66.8 percent - happened
in cases involving Black people. An additional 11.5 percent
happened with Hispanic people.

"The time is now," said Daniel Prude's brother, Joe Prude, who
spoke in solidarity on April 5 with those who are part of the
lawsuit. "My brother died for no reason, and I can't sit back –
and I won't sit back. This pain is starting to be unbearable."

Previous reform attempts
Most recently, the Police Accountability Board was established to
effect change and accountability. A lawsuit filed by the Rochester
Police Locust Club Union has temporarily halted any disciplinary
powers established by the board from being used. An appeal of that
decision is pending.

Previous attempts at reform for the department include the Civilian
Review Board in 1992, which was created the same year RPD Chief
Gordon Urlacher was convicted in a federal embezzlement case
involving the department's "Highway Interdiction Team" known as the
HIT Squad. Members of the HIT Squad were also indicted, but were
ultimately acquitted.

The Civilian Review Board was only given advisory powers by
Rochester City Council, according to the lawsuit, and kept the
disciplinary and investigative powers in the hands of the police
chief.

The lawsuit filed on April 5 makes the case that the reform plan
being filed by the City of Rochester in response to Governor Andrew
Cuomo's Executive Order 203 on police reform is "aspirational" or
focuses on "already-required goals" that do not effective true
change as seen by the plaintiffs in the case.

"I feel that there's a racism problem within the Rochester Police
Department," said plaintiff Dynasty Buggs. "I don't feel that they
have our best interests as City of Rochester residents, and I don't
feel safe, no longer, with them. I don't feel like they are here to
protect and serve us. The RPD needs to know how to deal with
people, especially in the Black and Hispanic community."

"Various efforts to reform the department have failed," said
Robertson. "It is clear that the RPD either cannot or will not
police itself. With this class action lawsuit, we are asking the
court to ensure that there is real accountability and change in the
RPD."

Similar lawsuits, investigations
The class action lawsuit filed on April 5 is being handled by Baker
& Hostetler LLP, Neufeld Scheck & Brustin, LLP, Easton Thompson
Kasperek Shiffrin LLP, Roth & Roth, LLP, and the Law Office of
Joshua Moskovitz, P.C. Baker & Hostetler investigated excessive
force complaints against the police department in Columbus, Ohio.

Lawsuits similar to this one, alleging a pattern of excessive force
by police over years, have been brought up across the country over
the last year. The New York Attorney General's Office is currently
litigating a lawsuit against the New York Police Department over
its handling of the George Floyd protests during the summer of
2020. The lawsuit, which claims excessive force against people
demonstrating, calls for the appointment of a federal monitor to
oversee reform in the department.

Earlier this year, three men sued the Rochester Police Department
and sought a federal monitor's oversight over their arrests in May
2018 after they say they were assaulted and wrongfully arrested by
a Rochester Police officer.

"This lawsuit is different because it lays out the history going
back decades," said attorney Elliot Shields. "More detail than any
other lawsuit that's ever been filed against the Rochester Police
Department. The difference is, we've gathered more stories than any
other lawsuit has gathered and laid it out in a comprehensive way
to show that based on the narrative that we've put together and
based on the numbers -- if you read the lawsuit, the numbers that
we're able to show based on the RPD's own data that they've
published -- the history of systemic racism and use of excessive
force against people of color in the City of Rochester is
undeniable."

The City of Rochester released the following statement on April 5
afternoon in response to the lawsuit:

Mayor Warren welcomes a review by the United States Department of
Justice. In fact, in September of last year, Mayor Warren formally
called upon them to conduct a thorough investigation of the
Rochester Police Department and to offer reforms to address any and
all civil rights violations that might be found. Everyone wants a
Rochester that encompasses safer more vibrant neighborhoods, more
jobs and greater educational opportunities; and promoting a police
department that works with its citizens leads to that goal. In
addition, the City's recently adopted Executive Order 203 response
to reform and reinvent policing in Rochester includes meaningful
reforms including: the ability for the Mayor to fire officers for
cause, revising the federal consent order that effectively caps the
number of minority officers at 25%, requiring newly hired officers
to live in the city and numerous other changes to limit the use of
force by officers. Mayor Warren is dedicated to implementing these
reforms building upon her record of ensuring that all officers wear
and use body-worn cameras, eliminating red light cameras and
creating Rochester's Person In Crisis teams. Also, under Chief
Herriott-Sullivan, at Mayor Warren's direction, RPD has adopted a
revised protest response plan to ensure a proportional and just
response to community actions.

13WHAM News will continue to update this story as more information
becomes available. [GN]


ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Root, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROOT) ("Root") on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired: (a) Root securities between October 28, 2020 and March
8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root
Class A common stock issued in connection with Root's initial
public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the
"IPO").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Root securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 18,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
atinfo@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/root-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=root

Root provides insurance products and services in the United States.
Root has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a
direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through
mobile applications, as well as through Root's website. Leading up
to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an innovator in
the personal insurance space with a new data- and technology-driven
business model that was ready to disrupt traditional insurance
markets and capture disproportionate market share, in part because
of Root's telematics-driven approach to insurance-i.e., the
collection and transmission of vehicle-use data through devices.

On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8 million
shares of its Class A common stock to the public at $27.00 per
share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million. On October
29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on a Form 424B4 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement,
the "Offering Documents"). Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented Root's cash flow needs and auto-insurance
business prospects.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive
cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii)
accordingly, Root would foreseeably require significant cash
infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the
defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven
advantages, several of Root's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

Root investors may, no later than May 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 4
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio against Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT) ("Root") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired: (a) Root securities between
October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common stock issued in
connection with Root's initial public offering conducted on or
about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO").

Shareholder Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Root securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 18,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/root-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=root.

Root provides insurance products and services in the United States.
Root has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a
direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through
mobile applications, as well as through Root's website. Leading up
to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an innovator in
the personal insurance space with a new data- and technology-driven
business model that was ready to disrupt traditional insurance
markets and capture disproportionate market share, in part because
of Root's telematics-driven approach to insurance -- i.e., the
collection and transmission of vehicle-use data through devices.

On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on a Form
S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective on October 27, 2020 (the "Registration
Statement"). On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling
26.8 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at
$27.00 per share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million.
On October 29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on a Form 424B4 with
the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together
with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
Throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented Root's
cash flow needs and auto-insurance business prospects.

The truth about Root's cash flow needs and auto-insurance business
prospects was revealed on March 9, 2021, when Bank of America
Securities analyst Joshua Shanker ("Shanker") initiated coverage of
Root with an "Underperform" rating on the premise that Root is
unlikely to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root
"will require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital
markets to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that
insurers Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico
would continue to impede Root's profitability, with Progressive and
Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of amount
of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data" used to
price their auto insurance.

Following this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or
1.46%, to close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing
a total decline of 54.93% from the offering price.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive
cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii)
accordingly, Root would foreseeably require significant cash
infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the
defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven
advantages, several of Root's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

Root investors may, no later than May 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


ROOT INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on April 5 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
behalf of investors that purchased Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT)
securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or Root Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Root, Inc., you may,
no later than May 18, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Root,
Inc.

On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection
with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on October 27, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On
October 28, 2020, Root's underwriters conducted the IPO, selling
26.8 million shares of the Company's Class A common stock to the
public at $27.00 per share for total approximate proceeds of $725
million.

On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to
close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total
decline of 54.93% from the Offering price.

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

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

Contact:

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


ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Renaud, writing for WCBD, reports that a lawsuit has been filed
against Roper St. Francis alleging a breach of private patient
data, including financial and medical information, was
compromised.

The lawsuit states the data breach happened last year between
October 14th and 29th; it alleges that "negligent acts and
omissions" led to a breach of private patient data, including
financial and medical information.

It also states Roper St. Francis Healthcare has had a history of
data breaches dating back to 2019.

"At all relevant times, Roper knew the data it stored was
vulnerable to cyberattack based upon these repeated and ongoing
data breaches," the lawsuit claims. "Specifically, Roper St.
Francis had three previous hacking incidents before the one
complained of herein: (a) The first reported on January 29, 2019
that effected 35,253 people; (b) The second reported on September
3, 2020 that affected 6,000 people; and (c) The third reported on
September 8, 2020 that effected 92,963 people."

The two incidents noted on September 3rd and September 8th stemmed
from a data breach involving Blackbaud.

The company informed Roper St. Francis Healthcare that an
unauthorized party had gained access to Blackbaud's systems between
Feb. 7 and May 20.

"We merely seek to hold Roper accountable for its continued
negligent actions in allowing these preventable data breaches from
happening and to compensate current and former patients for the
harm inflicted," said Attorney Brent Halversen. "We seek to provide
all patients whose private data was compromised credit monitoring
services as partial compensation for the harm each has suffered,
not just the hand full that Roper thinks are the worst cases."

The Richter Firm, The Solomon Law Group, Slotchiver & Slotchiver,
LLC and Brent Souther Halversen, LLC are part of the class action
lawsuit, which was filed March 24th in the ninth judicial circuit
for Charleston County.

The lawsuit seeks:

1. Plaintiff and Class members be awarded economic and non-economic
damages

2. Plaintiff and the Class members compensatory, consequential and
actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. Plaintiff and the Class members statutory and injunctive
relief;

4. Plaintiff and the Class members seek punitive damages in an
amount to be proven at trial;

5. Plaintiff and the Class members prejudgment interest, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

News 2 reached out to Roper St. Francis Healthcare for a statement.
We are waiting to hear back. [GN]


RT PIZZA: Court OKs Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
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. Case
7:20-cv-00057-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr.
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action under
      the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defined as:

      "all individuals who were employed by Defendants within the
      period beginning three years prior to the entry of this Order

      to the present who held the position of delivery drivers and

      were not properly reimbursed for vehicle expenses under the
      FLSA."

   2. directing Defendants to produce the full names and last known

      addresses of any individuals who fall within the foregoing
      definition of the conditionally certified collective (this
      information shall be referred to collectively as the
      "Employee Information");

      -- The Defendants shall provide the Employee Information in
         an electronic format (Microsoft Word or Excel) that may be

         used by Plaintiff to address and mail the Court-approved
         Notice to Potential Plaintiffs. This information must
         be produced to Plaintiffs within 14 days of the entry;
and
         
    3. authorizing that the Notice submitted by the Parties to the

      Motion may be immediately mailed to those individuals
      whose names are being provided to the Plaintiff.

The first Round Table Pizza restaurant was opened in 1959, and the
company has over 400 restaurants. The company is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32RSHBb at no extra charge.[CC]

SANTA CLARA: Judge Tosses COVID Tuition Refund Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in
California has dismissed a class action brought by three Santa
Clara University law students who sought a tuition refund after
their classes moved online last spring due to COVID-19.

In her March 29 decision, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the
Northern District of California wrote that references to on-campus
classes and activities on the university's website, course
catalogues and bulletins do not constitute a specific promise to
students that classes would be held in-person -- as the plaintiffs
argued. Statements made in those documents are too general to
"impose contractual obligations" on the university, Koh found.
[GN]


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Sequential Brands Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG), CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC: CYDY), Lordstown
Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) and Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG)

Class Period: November 3, 2016 to December 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 On February 28, 2018,
Sequential Brands Group issued a press released entitled
"Sequential Brands Group Announces Fourth Quarter and Full Year
2017 Financial Results" which belatedly announced the goodwill
adjustment.

On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $6.80 per
share, or 8%, to close at $76.00 per share on February 28, 2018.

Then on December 11, 2020, the SEC filed a Complaint alleging that
the Company failed "to take into consideration clear, objective
evidence of likely goodwill impairment, which avoided and delayed a
material write down to goodwill in the fourth quarter of 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017 (the 'Relevant Period')."

On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $2.03 per
share, or 11%, to close at $16.20 per share on December 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, the Company knew
or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2) the
Company avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill in
late 2016 through 2017; (3) the Company understated its operating
expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income
from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017;
(4) the Company's internal controls were deficient; (5) the Company
has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties,
deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control
violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Sequential Brands class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SQBG

CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC: CYDY)

Class Period: March 27, 2020 to March 9, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

CytoDyn is focused on the development and commercialization of a
drug named "Leronlimab" which has long been promoted as a potential
therapy for HIV patients. Since the beginning of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, however, CytoDyn has begun to aggressively tout
Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19.

Beginning on March 5, 2021 CytoDyn began issuing press releases
that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these
releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the
Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant.

After closing at $4.05 on March 5, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped
over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021,
CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35.

The complaint, filed on March 17, 2021, alleges that defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and
misleading statements concerning Leronlimab being used as a
treatment for Covid-19.

For more information on the CytoDyn class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CYDY

Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE)

Class Period: August 3, 2020 to March 17, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

According to its website, Lordstown is an automotive company
founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty
electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. The Company's
purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric
full-size pickup truck.

On March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing
report on Lordstown entitled: "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake
Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno."
In this report, Hindenburg noted that Lordstown has "no revenue and
no sellable product," and wrote that the Company "has misled
investors on both its demand and production capabilities." The
Hindenburg report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are largely
fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company
is experiencing delays and making ‘drastic' design modifications,
putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production,"
rather than the Company being "on track" for a September 2021
production start.

On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.

Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call disclosing that Lordstown had received an inquiry
from the SEC. Remarkably, although Lordstown also issued a press
release and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth quarter and full year
2020 financial results after trading closed on March 17, 2021, the
Company failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in
those filings.

On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in
aftermarket trading.

The complaint, filed on March 18, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be customers who made these
purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or
would not have credible demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii)
Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production
of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Lordstown Motors class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RIDE

Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT)

Class Period: Securities purchased between October 28, 2020 and
March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or
Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or
"Offering").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2021

On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective on October 27, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"). On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the
IPO, selling 26.8 million shares of the Company's Class A common
stock to the public at $27.00 per share for total approximate
proceeds of $724.43 million.

On March 9, 2021, Bank of America ("BofA") Securities analyst
Joshua Shanker ("Shanker") initiated coverage of Root with an
"Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely
to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will
require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets
to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that insurers
Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would
continue to impede the Company's profitability, with Progressive
and Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of
amount of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data"
used to price their auto insurance.

On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to
close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total
decline of 54.93% from the Offering price.

The complaint, filed on March 19, 2021, alleges that the offering
documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the offering documents and defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for
at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the
Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to
meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the defendants'
touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages,
several of the Company's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a
result, the offering documents and defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein. For
more information on the Root class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ROOT

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Nov. 3, 2016 - Dec. 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SQBG
Contact An Attorney Now: SQBG@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

The lawsuit alleges that Sequential Brands artificially inflated
reported values of assets held on its balance sheet. Specifically,
over the past several years, the company regularly assured
investors that Sequential Brands' financial statements, including
its accounting for goodwill and operating expenses, complied with
GAAP.

In truth, according to the complaint, by late 2016 the company knew
its goodwill was likely impaired, it delayed write-downs in late
2016 through 2017, and it understated operating expenses and net
losses (thereby overstating operating income).

The truth began to emerge on Nov. 9, 2017, when Sequential Brands
reported a charge of $36.5 million related to certain
indefinite-lived intangible assets and listed its goodwill at $304
million. About three months later, on Feb. 28, 2018, Sequential
Brands announced it charged off the $304 million goodwill. These
events sent the price of Sequential Brands shares crashing lower.

Then, on Dec. 11, 2020, the SEC sued the company, alleging that in
Dec. 2016, it "failed to take into consideration clear, objective
evidence of likely goodwill impairment, which avoided and delayed a
material write down to goodwill in the fourth quarter of 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017."

This news sent the price of Sequential Brands shares crashing lower
again.

Most recently, on Apr. 16, 2021, the company reported dreadful Q4
and FY 2020 financial results, disclosing that the company's Q4
total revenue fell to $23 million, sending the company's share
price sharply lower again.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Sequential Brands
intentionally cooked the books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Sequential Brands investor and have significant
losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation,
click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Sequential Brands should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email SQBG@hbsslaw.com.

                         About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]



SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Sequential Brands Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQBG) between November 3, 2016 and December 11, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Sequential securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sequential class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, Sequential knew
or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2)
Sequential avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill
in late 2016 through 2017; (3) Sequential understated its operating
expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income
from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017;
(4) Sequential's internal controls were deficient; (5) Sequential
has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties,
deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control
violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Sequential was at
greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a
result, defendants' statements about Sequential's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Sequential class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

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


SHIFTKEY LLC: Fails to Pay Travel Nurses' OT, Brown Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEOTA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIFTKEY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01891 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Travel Nurse from
December 2020 until March 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified her and other
similarly situated travel nurse as independent contractors.
Although they regularly worked over 40 hours per week, the
Defendant paid them at their regular hourly rate only for all hours
they worked. The Defendant allegedly denied them of their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendant for herself and
other similarly situated Travel Nurses, including overtime premiums
for all hours worked over 40 in any week, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

Shiftkey, LLC is a healthcare staffing firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SHIRBIT INSURANCE: Faces Class Actions Over Security Breach Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calcalist reports that Shirbit published its financial reports on
April 4 which revealed the severity of the damage caused by the
cyberattack it experienced in November. Shirbit's losses for the
fourth quarter were capped at NIS 8 million ($2.4 million) and
erased its annual 2020 profits, marking its earnings at only NIS
800,000 ($240,000), compared to NIS 26 million ($7.8 million) in
2019. The loss stems, among other factors, from the company's
inability to renew its insurance policies during December after the
company's servers were shut down.

The direct losses, aside from the hack, include four class-action
lawsuits amounting to NIS 1.2 billion ($360 million) which have
been filed against the company. The filed lawsuits claimed that the
company did not address the security breach issue appropriately, in
line with its obligations, and thereby relinquished its customers'
details which led to the widespread exposure of their information
some of which was highly sensitive. In addition, the company chose
to cut back on cybersecurity costs at the expense of its insured
customers and managed the incident without the expected
transparency. The four lawsuits are at the initial stages. At this
time, the complete details remain unclear and it has not been
decided which of those lawsuits will be examined in full-detail by
the courts, leaving the company's legal counsel unable to estimate
whether the suits will be heard.

Shirbit is managed by CEO Zvi Leibushor. The majority of its
activity involves providing insurance for government employees'
vehicles, having repeatedly won a government tender to do so.
According to the report, 25% of the company's mandatory car and
property insurance is conducted through group insurance and large
factories.

The company's premiums in 2020 amounted to NIS 453 million ($136
million) compared to NIS 532 million ($160 million) in 2019,
showing a decline of 15%. During the fourth quarter, when the
company's systems were hacked, the premiums dropped to NIS 91.5
million ($27.5 million), a decline of 8% compared to the
corresponding quarter.

Phoenix Insurance Ltd is currently in talks to acquire Shirbit.
Shirbit was founded in 2000 and is fully owned by Chairman Igal
Ravnof, who is demanding the company be sold for NIS 100 million
($30 million). The Phoenix group is offering around NIS 60 million
- 70 million ($18 million - 21 million) for the company, due to
concerns over the hacking incident which may harm Phoenix's future
operations. [GN]


SNAP FINANCE: Wesley TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI WESLEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. SNAP FINANCE, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00148-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class:

      "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Snap
      Finance LLC placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2)
      directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
      service, but not assigned to a current or former Snap Finance

      LLC accountholder, (3) in connection with which [Snap Finance

      LLC] used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from
      February 27, 2016 through the date of class certification;"

   2. appointing her as the representative for the proposed class;

      and

   3. appointing Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as counsel for the

      proposed class.

"The Federal Government receives a staggering number of complaints
about robocalls -- 3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone. The States
likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30
years, the people's representatives in Congress have been fighting
back." Barr, 140 S. Ct. 2335 at 2343. But it is not only the
people's representatives who are fighting back against these
ubiquitous, annoying calls. The people -- like Ms. Wesley -- are
too. And as Chief Justice Roberts said of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) during the oral argument in Barr: "It's an
extremely popular law. Nobody wants to get robocalls on their cell
phone."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3evbaJs
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Greene, Esq.
          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: jgreene@aklawfirm.com
                  jscott@aklawfirm.com

SO3ALPHA CORP: Faces Callejas Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CALLEJAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SO3ALPHA CORP. d/b/a CARNEVAL BAR & GRILL,
and MIKE CRUZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01897 (E.D.N.Y., April
8, 2021) files this complaint against the Defendants pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for their alleged failure to pay
overtime.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt cook
at the Defendant's restaurant from on or about March 21, 2020 until
on or about March 10, 2021.

According to the complaint, throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week and his work shift would excess 10 hours in single day.
However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at
the statutory rate of one and one-half times of his regular rate
for hours worked over 40 per week. Instead, he was only paid at the
rate of $16 per hour straight time for all hours worked. In
addition, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a
weekly wage statement/pay stub, failed to maintain accurate and
sufficient time and pay records, failed to establish, maintain, and
preserve for not less than 6 years payroll records, and failed to
provide notice in writing at the time of hire, the suit says.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid "spread
of hours" premium, liquidated damages and statutory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and litigation costs and disbursements,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court
determines to be just and proper.

SO3Alpha Corp. d/b/a Carneval Bar & Grill operates a restaurant. As
the President and Chief Executive Officer of SO3Alpha Corp, Mike
Cruz exercises control over the terms and conditions of his
employees' employment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102


SOS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of SOS
Limited ("SOS" or the "Company") (NYSE: SOS) from July 22, 2020,
through February 25, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased SOS securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit SOS Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) SOS had misrepresented the
true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the
principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and
FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities
fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the
type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have
purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 26, 2021 Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto rigs to create an illusion
of success.

On this news, SOS's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell
$1.27 per share, or 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADS on February
26, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 1, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased SOS securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/soslimited-sos-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-384/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
http://www.bernlieb.com[GN]


SOS LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) between
July 22, 2020 and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 1, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased SOS securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SOS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2070.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose information that resulted in a scheme
that: (1) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or
existence of at least one of its principal executive offices listed
in its SEC filings; (2) HY International Group New York Inc. and
FXK Technology Corporation were either undisclosed related parties
and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (3) the Company had
misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it
claimed to have purchased; and (4) as a result, the Company'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.

To join the SOS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2070.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Baker's Bid for Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Julius Wayne Baker, Petitioner v. Bryan K. Dobbs,
Respondent, Civil Case No. 9:20-3383-HMH-MHC (D.S.C.), Judge Henry
M. Herlong, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Beaufort Division:

    (i) denied the Petitioner's motion for a class action; and

   (ii) dismissed without prejudice the Petition and without
        requiring the Respondent to file a return.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate
judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.  It must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the
record in the case, Judge Herlong adopts Magistrate Judge Cherry's
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it in his Opinion &
Order.  Therefore, the Petitioner's motion for a class action is
denied and the Petition is dismissed without prejudice and without
requiring Respondent to file a return.  A certificate of
appealability is denied because the Petitioner has failed to make
"a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7cdz5b3c from Leagle.com.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Class Action Over Abandoned Mines Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Aleah Burggraff, writing for KOTA TV, reports that last April, a
sinkhole formed in Hideaway Hills revealing an abandoned gypsum
mine.

While the full extent of the surface and subsurface mine is
unknown, the discovery of railroad tracks and carts suggests it's
substantially bigger than first presumed.

"We have discovered two mines, not one mine," said attorney Kathy
Barrow. "So, we are even more concerned about the danger to the
residents in the subdivision."

The dangers of the abandoned mines left the homes in the area
worthless and forced some families to evacuate their houses.

Another collapse could be sudden and lead to several problems.

"There could be gas explosions from those collapses. Kids running
and falling in a sinkhole, even in this yard right here from last
April, there are already other sinkholes forming," said geological
consultant Nick Anderson.

The land that Hideaway Hills sits on was intended to be used for
pasture and not a housing development.

The gypsum itself creates a greater threat when exposed to air.

"The gypsum now that it's exposed to the surface continuously
erodes away as it's exposed to water and air. So, it's a constantly
changing situation," said Anderson.

"Things are very dangerous out in Hideaway Hills. We have people on
land that is shifting. We actually had a client today; her window
frames have opened up around her windows and she has a horizontal
crack going across her basement," said Barrow.

Paula Running Shield moved into the development in 2018 and first
noticed these cracks in her walls only a couple of weeks ago.

When she first heard of the sinkhole, she hoped she would not be
affected, but now she's concerned for her family.

"It would be good to get the answers with the testing and know if
we are able to stay here or what the future looks like for our
children. Especially with the school if we need to move them,"
expressed Running Shield.

A class-action lawsuit against the state of South Dakota has been
filed and is currently pending. [GN]






SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Allows COVID Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that while it has been a
bumpy ride for many proposed class actions against airlines over
COVID-related cancellations, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has
cleared a proposed class action against Southwest Airlines for
takeoff.

U.S. District Judge John Gallagher of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania rejected the Dallas-based airline's motions to dismiss
the case, captioned Bombin v. Southwest Airlines. [GN]



ST. LOUIS, MO: Earnings Tax Refunds Class Action Not Unreasonable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the theory behind a
class-action lawsuit seeking refunds of St. Louis' 1% earnings tax
for thousands of homebound employees isn't inherently unreasonable:
Since the tax applies only to city residents or nonresidents who
work in the city, it shouldn't apply (goes the theory) to the
employees whose workplace is normally downtown but who, due to the
pandemic, spent all of 2020 working instead from their kitchen
tables in the suburbs.

The problem with that argument, though, is that the very definition
of workplace has now changed, probably permanently, with many
companies likely to continue allowing some portion of their staff
to work from home. The rationale for the tax is that earnings
through a city-based company are made possible in part by city
services and infrastructure. That remains true whether the
employees are earning their paychecks in the office or remotely.

St. Louis' earnings tax isn't the rarity it might sound like, given
the controversy often surrounding it, but in fact it's a revenue
tool used by many urban centers around America. Sometimes called a
"commuter tax," it's designed to capture revenue from people who
work in the city, using city services, but who live outside the
municipal boundaries -- an extremely common phenomenon since the
suburbanization boom of the mid-20th century.

In St. Louis, the tax provided about $180 million last year, or
more than one-third of the city's general revenue. About
three-fourths of that money comes from those who live outside the
city.

When the tax was originally created in the late 1940s, working for
a St. Louis-based office almost always meant physically working in
St. Louis. So the advent of remote work -- which last year went
from a still-unusual novelty to a common situation -- was
inevitably going to test the boundaries of the tax.

Clayton attorney Bevis Schock, who filed the class-action suit in
late March, is seeking refunds of earnings taxes withheld last year
from remote workers -- along with a ruling that the city cannot
impose taxes on such workers in the future. The city's defense will
be complicated by the fact that, in the pre-pandemic past, it has
allowed refunds to people for days they traveled and worked outside
their St. Louis offices. But those were temporary exceptions, not
the fundamental shift in the nature of office work that's now at
hand.

Cities will face enough challenges in the post-pandemic economy
without being further bled of crucially needed funding. Yes, part
of the rationale for the earnings tax was for streets, police
protection and other amenities for those commuting workers. But
it's also to provide services to those businesses, which will still
rely on the city for a stable downtown base into which all those
workers can report -- in person or otherwise. [GN]



ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Earnings Tax Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
KMOV.com reports that a lawsuit filed in federal court is seeking
civil class action status to give those who paid the 1% City of St.
Louis earning tax a refund if they worked outside of the city.

Before 2020, refunds were paid to nonresidents who worked outside
of St. Louis based on the number of days worked outside of the
city. But, the lawsuit claims, the City and City's Collector of
Revenue refuse to pay refunds to employees forced to work virtually
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The tax is supposed to be pay for services in the city, police
roads, water whatever and they weren't using those services when
they weren't in the city so they don't owe the money," said
attorney Bevis Shock, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of several
clients who have worked remotely over the past year.

The city's argument for not issuing refunds for remote work is
because employees are still utilizing computer services and
databases from their St. Louis-based company.

The earnings tax makes up about one-third of the City's revenue,
according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit estimates 75% of the earnings
tax comes from nonresidents. [GN]



STATE FARM: Class Certification Denial in Van Tassel Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES VAN TASSEL; JEREMY PLANK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-35121 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order denying class certification, the order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the case schedule, and several orders
denying their motions for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles Van Tassel and Jeremy Plank sought to
certify a class of State Farm insureds in the state of Washington,
alleging that State Farm breached its contracts with the class
members and violated state consumer-protection laws by failing to
properly compensate class members for "diminished value" damages
after auto accidents.  The district court denied class
certification, and the Plaintiffs prevailed on their individual
breach-of-contract claims against Defendant-Appellee State Farm
after a two-day jury trial.

After entry of the final judgment, the Plaintiffs appealed the
district court's order denying class certification, the order
denying their motion to amend the case schedule, and several orders
denying their motions for reconsideration.

First, the Plaintiffs primarily challenge the district court's
denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of State Farm insureds in the state of Washington who
purportedly suffered diminished value damages covered under their
underinsured motorist policies.  To obtain class certification,
they were required to satisfy the four threshold requirements of
Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.  In addition, because the Plaintiffs sought
certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), they were required to
demonstrate predominance of common questions over individualized
ones and superiority of a class action over individual litigation.
Failure to establish any one of these requirements defeats class
certification.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that individualized questions, rather than
common questions, predominated.  It finds that the district court
determined that State Farm processed claims on a case-by-case basis
depending on the documentation insureds submitted, resulting in a
number of individualized questions regarding liability for
diminished value damages.

The Ninth Circuit finds that this individualized process for
identifying and calculating diminished value damages distinguishes
the Plaintiffs' case from Moeller v. Farmers Insurance Co. of
Washington, 267 P.3d 998, 1003 (Wash. 2011), in which the insurer
took the position that its policy excluded coverage of diminished
value across the board, and Achziger v. IDS Property Casualty
Insurance Co., 772 F. App'x 416, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2019), in which
the insurer conceded at oral argument that it used a universal
formula to calculate diminished value damages.  Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate predominance, it follows that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification.

Next, the Plaintiffs also appeal the district court's order denying
their motion to amend the case schedule.  A party seeking
modification of a scheduling order must generally show "good
cause."

The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's refusal to modify a
scheduling order for abuse of discretion and holds that it did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the case
schedule, which State Farm opposed, because the Plaintiffs failed
to establish good cause for delaying the trial.  It finds that the
Plaintiffs' reliance on its decision in Achziger is misplaced
because that case is distinguishable on its facts.  Achziger, an
unpublished memorandum disposition, did not change the applicable
law regarding class certification, which Plaintiffs had ample
opportunity to brief in the district court.

Finally, the Plaintiffs appeal the district court's orders denying
reconsideration of the class certification issue and the
case-schedule issue.

The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's denial of a motion
to reconsider for abuse of discretion.  Because the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and motion to amend the case schedule, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration, which essentially
presented the same arguments as the initial motions the district
court denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4d5jnvph from Leagle.com.


STRATEGIC CAPITAL: Face Hoover Suit Over Tax-Savings Strategy
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. Jackson Hoover, Matthew S. Greiner, Heather Greiner, Edward
William Spratt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Strategic Capital Partners, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01299-SDG (N.D. Ga., March 30, 2021) involves a multi-year
fraudulent scheme by a group of supposedly independent and
respected professionals.

The tax-savings strategy at the heart of the scheme involved the
donation of inflated real estate for purported conservation
purposes -- the Syndicated Conservation Easement Strategy (the SCE
Strategy).

Allegedly, the Defendants used the same SCE Strategy to effect
numerous conservation easement transactions that differed in name
and location but not in substance. These professionals aggressively
promoted and sold numerous SCE Strategy transactions to Plaintiffs
and other Class members, who were told the transactions were legal
and an entirely legitimate way to serve the environment and reduce
their tax bill. Because this complex scheme has been widespread,
occurred over a number of years, and involved numerous
transactions, the Plaintiffs describe the scheme in this Complaint
by way of two representative transactions: (a) the DeSoto tract in
Shelby County, Alabama ("DeSoto Syndicate Transaction"), and (b)
the Turtle River tract in Glynn County, Georgia (the "Turtle River
Syndicate
Transaction"), the suit says.

As a result of their reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations and
omissions, the Plaintiffs paid Defendants substantial fees for
their participation in the fraudulent SCE Strategy, have been or
are being assessed back taxes, penalties, and interest, and have
paid significant professional fees in connection with the IRS
disputes, added the suit.

The Defendants are a group of conservation easement professionals
and other advisors and consultants who deliberately banded together
to give only the appearance of legitimacy to the SCE Strategy for
their own financial gain.

The Defendants include Ricky B. Novak; James Freeman; Bridge
Capital Associates, Inc.; Morris Manning & Martin, LLP; Timothy
Pollock; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC; Jon R. Langford,
CPA, PC; John R. Langford; Bennett Thrasher, LLC; Van Sant and
Wingard, LLC; Martin H. Van Sant; Thomas F. Wingard; Clark-Davis,
PC; Claud Clark III; Atlantic Coast Conservancy, Inc.; Robert D.
Keller; Georgia-Alabama Land Trust, Inc. f/k/a Georgia Land Trust,
Inc.; AquaFusion, Inc.; Credo Financial Services, LLC; and Oxygen
Financial, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeven R. Sloan, Esq.
          David R. Deary, Esq.
          W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
          Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.
          John McKenzie, Esq.
          Donna Lee, Esq.
          Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
          LOEWINSOHN DEARY SIMON RAY LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 572-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
          E-mail: davidd@lfdrlaw.com
                  ralphc@ldsrlaw.com
                  jevens@ldsrlaw.com
                  wilsonw@ldsrlaw.com
                  johnm@ldsrlaw.com
                  donnal@ldsrlaw.com
                  tylers@ldsrlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
          THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 3220
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 892-4400
          E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com

SUB ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Hernandez Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PEDRO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUB ENTERPRISES and JOEL REICH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01874 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waterproofing
installer between April 2016 and March 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay him
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate. Instead, the
Defendant paid him at a fixed rate regardless of the number of
hours he actually worked in a given workweek. Allegedly, the
Defendants always paid him $800 by check per week up and until
October 2019 regardless of the number of hours he actually worked
in a given workweek, and $160 per day starting October 2019 and up
and until his separation in March 2020 regardless of the number of
hours he actually worked in a given workweek. In addition, the
Defendants failed to provide him with a wage notice or wage
statements.

The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action complaint on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated waterproofing
installers seeking actual and statutory damages from the
Defendants, as well as prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Sub Enterprises is a company that provides water proofing services
owned by Joel Reich. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 571-0700
          Fax: (212) 505-2001
          E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com


SUNLAND TRADING: Faces Henry's Bullfrog Suit Over Fake Honey Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY'S BULLFROG BEES, a California apiary; SAVE GOLDEN PRAIRIE
HONEY FARMS, LLC, a Kansas not for profit corporation; and KELVIN
ADEE d/b/a ADEE HONEY FARMS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SUNLAND TRADING, INC.; LAMEX FOODS, INC.;
BARKMAN HONEY, LLC; DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC.; TRUE SOURCE HONEY, LLC;
INTERTEK TESTING SERVICES, NA, INC.; and NSF INTERNATIONAL, Case
No. 2:21-at-00296 (E.D. Cal., March 29, 2021) is a class action on
Plaintiffs' own behalf, and on behalf of a class of domestic
commercial beekeepers to recover compensation for injuries to their
businesses and property caused by the Defendants' knowing
involvement and participation in the scheme in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, and the California's Cartwright Act, and Unfair
Competition Law, and to enjoin Defendants' wrongful conduct.

The Importer and Packer Defendants are some of the largest honey
importers and packers in the United States. Certifier Defendant
True Source holds itself out as a honey industry watchdog. For
years, the Defendants have allegedly participated in a worldwide
conspiracy to defraud the United States honey market knowingly and
intentionally by flooding it with fake honey that is adulterated,
impure, or mislabeled, which True Source knowingly and
intentionally falsely certifies as genuine.

The Plaintiffs are commercial beekeeping farms in the business of
selling honey. According to the complaint, the Defendants' wrongful
conduct has suppressed prices in the domestic honey market, making
it difficult -- if not impossible -- for domestic commercial
beekeeping farms like Plaintiffs to compete. As a direct
consequence of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and
other Class members have suffered lost sales, lost profits, and
have effectively been blocked from selling their honey in the
marketplace.

Plaintiff Henry's Bullfrog Bees, a sole proprietorship, is an
apiary located in Winters, California engaged in the business of
selling honey.

Plaintiff SAVE Golden Prairie Honey Farms, LLC is a not-for-profit
honey production and beekeeping supply business located in
Manhattan, Kansas.

Plaintiff Adee, doing business as Adee Honey Farms, is a citizen of
South Dakota and owns the country's largest domestic commercial
beekeeping farm, with over 80,000 hives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800,
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, New York 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  cramirez@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK
          FITZGERALD, PC
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

SUZUKI HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO ACEVEDO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUZUKI HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC D/B/A
SUZUKI, SATSUKI, AND THREE PILLARS; YUTA SUZUKI; and OYOKATA TOSHIO
SUZUKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03261 (S.D.N.Y., April 14,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the Defendants as bartender.

SUZUKI HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC owns and operate a Japanese
restaurant, sushi bar, and bar, located at New York, NY, under the
names "Suzuki, Satsuki, and Three Pillars."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SYMETRA LIFE: Davis Sues Over Unauthorized Cash Value Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS E. DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00533 (W.D. Wash., April 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract, conversion,
and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of deducting charges
from the Plaintiff's and Class members' cash values in excess of
the amounts specifically permitted by the terms of their life
insurance policies. Although the policies authorize the Defendant
to use only its expectations as to future mortality experience when
determining cost of insurance rates, the Defendant uses other
factors, not authorized by the policies, when determining such
rates, including without limitation, expense experience. The
Defendant has allegedly caused material harm to the Plaintiff and
Class members by improperly draining monies they have accumulated
in the cash values under their policies.

Symetra Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm with its
principal place of business located in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
         Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
         TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
         1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 682-5600
         Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
         E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                 rsolomon@tousley.com

                 - and –

         John J. Schirger, Esq.
         Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
         Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
         MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
         4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Telephone: (816) 561-6500
         Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
         E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                 mlytle@millerschirger.com
                 jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

                 - and –

         Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
         Ethan Lange, Esq.
         Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
         E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                 lange@stuevesiegel.com
                 perkins@stuevesiegel.com

TAMIAMI CENTRAL: Casco Sues Over Maintenance Workers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAUL ARMANDO VILORIO CASCO, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAMIAMI CENTRAL PLAZA LLC, and HORIZON
PROPERTIES OF MIAMI, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21364-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
maintenance worker from on or about the year 2007 through February
28, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite working more than 40 hours per
week, approximately 68 hours a week, the Defendants failed to
properly pay him overtime wages at the applicable overtime rate of
one and one-half times his regular rates of pay. He added that he
received his wages on a bi-weekly basis a total of $1,460 which is
equivalent to an hourly rate of $21.47/hr. The Defendants, however,
did not change its pay practices despite having knowledge of its
failure to pay overtime wages, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
maintenance workers seeking to recover compensatory and liquidated
damages from the Defendants, as well as reasonable attorney's fees
and litigation costs, pre-judgment interest, and all other relief
as the Court deems reasonable under the circumstances.

The Corporate Defendants operate related business which managed
properties within Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq.@gmail.com

                - and –

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
          Miami, FL 33161
          Tel: (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORNELAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC.,
a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
3:18-cv-06453-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
July 15, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. determining that a class action is proper as to the First,
      Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of
      Action contained in the Class Action Complaint pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that:

      1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
         impracticable;

      2) there are questions 13 of law and fact common to the
         Class;

      3) the class representative's claims are typical of the
         claims of the Class; and

      4) the class representative will fairly and adequately
         protect the interests of the Class.

   2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal

      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

   3. certifying a class of:

      "all current and former non-exempt retail store employees
      employed by Defendant Tapestry, Inc. d/b/a Stuart Weitzman
      (Defendant) in the State of California, who were required to

      go through a security checkpoint during a meal period, rest
      break, and/or at the end of a shift during the period from
      September 4, 2014 to the present."

   4. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      a. Security Checkpoint -- Meal Break Subclass:

         "All current and former 25 non-exempt retail store
         employees who were employed by Defendant in the State of
         California at any time from September 4, 2014, through the

         present, who were required to go through a security
         checkpoint during a meal period;"

      b. Security Checkpoint -- Rest Break Subclass:

         "All current and former non-exempt retail store employees

         who were employed by Defendant in the State of California

         at any time from September 4, 2014, through the present,
         who were required to go through a security checkpoint
         during a rest break;"

      c. Security Checkpoint -- Minimum Wage and Overtime
Subclass:

         "All current and former non-exempt retail store employees

         who were employed by the Defendant in the State of
         California at any time from September 4, 2014, through the

         present, who were required to go through a security
         checkpoint at the end of a shift, or while otherwise off
         the clock."

      d. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

         "All current and former non-exempt retail store employees

         who were employed by Defendant in the State of California

         at any time from September 4, 2014, through the present,
         and who separated from their employment with Defendant
         during the period from September 4, 2014 to the present."

      e. Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:

         "All current and former non-exempt retail store employees

         who were employed by Defendant in the State of California

         at any time from September 4, 2014, through the present.

   5. finding the Plaintiff John Ornelas to be an adequate
      representative and certifying him as the class
      representative; and

   6. finding the Plaintiff's counsel and his respective firms,
      namely Michael H. Boyamian, Armand R. Kizirian, and Heather
      M. Zermeno of Boyamian Law, Inc. and Thomas W. Falvey of the

      Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, as adequate class counsel
      and certifying them as class counsel.

Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company. It is based in New York City and is the parent company of
three major brands: Coach New York, Kate Spade New York and Stuart
Weitzman. Originally named Coach, Inc., the business changed its
name to Tapestry on October 31, 2017.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nmkxyX
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          Heather M. Zermeno, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  armand@boyamianlaw.com
                  heather@boyamianlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5200
          Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
          E-mail thomaswfalvey@gmail.coms

THE SOURCE WATER: Pelaez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BENITO PELAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SOURCE WATER CORP. d/b/a TWEED'S
RESTAURANT AND BUFFALO BAR and EDWIN TUCCIO, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01891 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) seeks equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around 2013
until in or around July 2020. He worked as a dishwasher from the
beginning of his employment until in or around mid-2015, as prep
cook from in or around mid-2015 until in or around mid-2019, and as
a cook from mid-2019 until the end of his employment.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
hours worked more than 40 per week. Instead, he was only paid at a
fixed rate for all hours worked, despite routinely working more
than 40 hours per week. In addition, the Defendants did not pay him
spread of hours pay of one additional hour's pay at the full
minimum wage rate for every day in which his shifts exceeded 10
hours. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide him at the time
of his hire a notice containing his rate of pay, the designated
payday, or other information required by NYLL, and with a wage
statement with each wage payment, the Plaintiff contends.

The Source Water Corp. operates a steak and seafood restaurant.
Edwin Tuccio is an officer, director, shareholder and/or person in
control of the restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


TK FOOD CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardenas Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TK FOOD CONCEPTS LLC (D/B/A SALT &
CHARCOAL), TERUYUKI TAKAYAMA, and HIROKAZU ANEGAWA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02086-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cardenas was employed by the Defendant as cook.

TK FOOD CONCEPTS LLC owns and operate a Japanese steakhouse,
located at Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Salt & Charcoal".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANS EXPRESS: Court OKs Preliminary Settlement Approval in Pulliam
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHALL PULLIAM, PARSHOO
BADLU, and SEAN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TRANS EXPRESS, INC.; NATIONAL EXPRESS LLC;
and NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-04038-SJ-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hon. Ramon E.
Reyes, Jr. entered an order granting plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the class settlement, scheduling of a
final approval hearing, and related relief.

Preliminary Settlement Approval

   -- For purposes of settlement only, there shall be one class,
      defined as follows:

      "All persons employed by Defendant Trans Express Inc. in
      either a bus driver or dispatcher job in any workweek from
      July 12, 2013 through the date of preliminary approval or 30

      days of the signing of this agreement, whichever is first
      (the "Class" and "Class Members")."

      All individuals encompassed within the above definition are
      eligible to participate in this Settlement.

    --The Parties agreed to settle this case for a Gross Settlement

      Fund of up to $607,500.00. The "Net Settlement Fund" means
      the remainder of the Gross Settlement Fund after deductions
      for: (i) Court-approved attorneys' fees of $170,000 and costs

      not to exceed $27,000, as described in Section 14 of the
      Settlement Agreement;  (ii) any payroll taxes owed by
      Defendants; and (iii) Court-approved Enhancement Awards to
      Named Plaintiffs as described in Section 3 of the Settlement

      Agreement.

    --Participating Class Members as defined in the Settlement
      Agreement, shall receive their individual settlement sum
      under the Settlement Agreement to be determined on a pro rata

      basis based on the points allocated to each Class Member.

    --A Participating Class Member's Settlement Award shall be
      determined by the formula set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants purportedly violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) for
reasons set forth in their Complaint. Prior the filing this
Lawsuit, the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL) filed a
Complaint for the same FLSA violations on behalf of most Drivers
employed during the FLSA's statute of limitations.

A copy of the Court's order: dated April 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aASHdr at no extra charge.[CC]

TRANS WORLD: Final Approval of Settlement OK’d in Spack FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA
SCHMIDT, Individually and on behalf of all others, v. TRANS WORLD
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and RECORD TOWN, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:

   1. confirming as final its certification of the Class for
      settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary

      Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from
      Class Members to such certification;

   2. approving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and

      certifying the collective class under the FLSA;

   3. confirming as final the appointment of Plaintiffs Carol
      Spack, Tabitha Schmidt, and Natasha Roper as representatives

      of the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
      and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   4. confirming as final the appointment of Mashel Law, L.L.C. as

      Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

      Procedure 23 and for individuals who opted into the
      Litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   5. finding the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28

      U.S.C. section 1715 (CAFA), have been satisfied;

   6. granting the Motion for Final Approval and finally approving

      the settlement;

      --The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable
and
        adequate in all respects and that it is binding on Class
        Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the
        procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.

      --The Court specifically finds that the settlement is
        rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs' claims
        given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of
        further litigation.

      --The Court finds that the proposed settlement is
        procedurally fair because it was reached through vigorous,

        arm's length negotiations and after experienced counsel had

        evaluated the merits of Plaintiffs' claims through factual

        and legal investigation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa
        U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 117 (2d Cir. 2005);

   7. granting the plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
awards
      Class Counsel $133,200.00, which is approximately 33 1/3% of

      the Settlement Fund;

   8. awarding Class Counsel reimbursement of their litigation
      expenses in the amount of $32,537.07, which are expenses
      the Court finds were necessarily and reasonably incurred by
      Class Counsel in prosecuting the Litigation;

   9. approving and finds the service awards for Plaintiffs Carol
      Spack, Tabitha Schmidt and Natasha Roper in the amount of
      $5,000.00 each in recognition of the services they rendered
      on behalf of the class; and

  10. approving the requested service awards in the amount of
      $250.00 to the Discovery Opt-In Plaintiffs who participated
      in discovery; and

The Parties entered into a final settlement totaling a maximum
amount of $400,000 in a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release
and Plaintiffs filed for preliminary approval of the settlement,
which Defendants did not oppose.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aAT87k at no extra charge.[CC]


TRANSUNION: High Court Hears Oral Arguments in FCRA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Brem, writing for Jurist, reports that the US Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 30 in the class action certification
case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The class accuses TransUnion of
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by producing
incorrect credit reports.

Sergio Ramirez and other class members matched persons listed on
the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons List, which designates individuals
and entities who may not deal with US persons. Class members
received requested credit reports in the mail but in a separate
envelope a notice of their possible inclusion on the OFAC list as
well. Consequently, many members, like Ramirez, missed the OFAC
notice and did not contact authorities to rectify the confusion.

Because of a mistaken credit report, Ramirez "was hindered in
obtaining credit at a Nissan dealership, suffered humilation in
front of his family, and canceled a vacation."

Counsel for the petitioner, Paul Clements, argued that Ramirez is
an atypical representative of the class, and the class should not
have been certified because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(3) requires that "the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class."

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that while all
class members faced the same risk of injury, they did not face the
same actual injury that Ramirez experienced. Clements constructed a
similar argument in front of the Supreme Court, saying the risk to
other class members never materialized, separating those members
from Ramirez.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the FCRA was passed to
protect Americans from the specific harm suffered by Ramirez and
other class members. She stated that all class members suffered the
"exact same" harm of the possibility of an incorrect and defamatory
credit report.

The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify exactly
what the rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement means and how it
should be implemented. [GN]


TROUSDALE COUNTY, TN: Court Denies Wildburs' Bid for Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS WILDBUR, Plaintiff v. TROUSDALE COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00212 (M.D.
Tenn.), Judge Eli Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division:

   (a) granted the Plaintiff pauper status;
   (b) denied without prejudice his Motion for Leave to Amend;
   (c) denied his Motion for Class Action; and
   (d) denied as moot his Motion to Comply.

Mr. Wildbur, an inmate at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in
Hartsville, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and an inmate trust account statement.  The
Plaintiff alleges that, on an "almost daily" basis since arriving
at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in 2016, he has been led to
and from the phones "at knifepoint or under the fear of harm" in an
effort by gang members to force his family to pay for his safety.
As a result, the Plaintiff or his family has paid a total of "over
$250,000" to four different gangs at Trousdale Turner.  The
Plaintiff has also been hurt in the past if his family refused to
pay, or if he reported this issue to staff members.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants -- the Trousdale County
Commissioner, CoreCivic, TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker, and
Contract Monitor Chris Brun -- follow an "unspoken rule, policy or
custom" to "knowingly allow" gangs to "control or rule" Trousdale
Turner.  He alleges that CoreCivic, Acting Warden Byrd, and
Trousdale Turner staff have been "repeatedly alerted" of the
"violent acts against the Plaintiff and others who are similarly
situated," but that they "ignore or cover up" them.  The Plaintiff
also alleges that Trousdale Turner staff is "inadequately
trained."

The Plaintiff requests $250,000 to compensate for the gang
payments, additional unspecified monetary damages, and a lifetime
bar on being housed in CoreCivic facilities.

The Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Amend, a Motion for
Class Action, and a Motion to Comply.  The Complaint is before the
Court for an initial review under the appropriate statutes.

I. Application to Proceed as a Pauper and Motion to Comply

The Court may authorize an inmate to file a civil suit without
prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a).  The Plaintiff
filed a copy of his trust account statement signed by an
appropriate prison official, which Judge Richarson construes as an
application to proceed as a pauper.  It appears that the Plaintiff
cannot pay the full filing fee in advance without undue hardship,
so his application will be granted.  In the Motion to Comply,
however, the Plaintiff alleges that Trousdale Turner officials are
denying inmates' requests for trust account statements.  Because
the Plaintiff obtained a signed trust account statement and will be
granted pauper status, the Judge denied as moot this motion.

II. Initial Review

The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.  It also must liberally
construe pro se pleadings and hold them to "less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

The Plaintiff asserts two undeveloped claims.  First, he asserts
that the Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, but he
does not explain the basis of this claim, and no First Amendment
claim is apparent from his factual allegations.  Judge Richardson
opines that it is insufficient to state a claim.

Second, the Plaintiff asserts that the application of Tennessee's
"private prison contract laws" "directly caused the constitutional
violations" alleged in the Complaint.  He does not name the
particular law to which he is referring, though it appears that
Trousdale Turner Correctional Center operates "pursuant to the
County Correctional Incentives Act of 1981, Tenn. Code Ann. Section
41-8-101, et seq."

But the Plaintiff's theory of liability under the County
Correctional Incentives Act is unclear, and Judge Richardson is not
required to scrutinize a pro se complaint to determine whether
there is a cause of action other than the one pleaded by the
Plaintiff that is more advantageous to him.  Accordingly, he says,
the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Tennessee's "private
prison contract laws."

The Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the Eighth Amendment (as
applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment).  He brings
the claim against the Defendants in their individual and official
capacities.  As to the individual-capacity claims, Judge Richardson
finds that the Plaintiff fails to state an individual-capacity
claim at this juncture.  He finds that (i) the individual-capacity
framework is not appropriate for Plaintiff's claim against
CoreCivic, (ii) the Plaintiff fails to allege personal involvement
sufficient to state individual-capacity claims against the three
individual Defendants, and (iii) it is not sufficient to allege
that the Trousdale County Commissioner, Commissioner Parker, and
Contract Monitor Brun encouraged or directly participated in any
allegedly unconstitutional conduct.

Turning to the Plaintiff's claims against CoreCivic and the three
individual Defendants in their official capacities, "individuals
sued in their official capacities stand in the shoes of the entity
they represent."  The Trousdale County Commissioner represents
Trousdale County, while TDOC employees Tony Parker and Chris Brun
represent the TDOC.

Liberally construing the Complaint as required, Judge Richardson
holds that concludes that the Plaintiff states an ongoing Eighth
Amendment failure-to-protect claim against CoreCivic based on its
alleged de facto policy of knowingly allowing gang-affiliated
inmates to control daily operations inside Trousdale Turner
Correctional Center.  He also concludes that the Plaintiff fails to
state a claim against Trousdale County, as represented by the
Trousdale County Commissioner in his or her official capacity, and
the County Commissioner will be dismissed as a party.  Lastly,
without making any representation regarding whether the Plaintiff
will ultimately receive this requested injunctive relief even if he
ultimately does establish an Eighth Amendment violation, the Judge
will not dismiss this request as to TDOC Commissioner Parker in his
official capacity at this time.

III. Motion for Leave to Amend

The Plaintiff requests leave to amend "to cure any deficiencies in
pleadings," and to add the former and current wardens of Trousdale
Turner as Defendants "at a later date."

Judge Richardson that the first request is unclear.  To the extent
the Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend to avoid sua sponte
dismissal of the action, that is unnecessary.  To the extent the
Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend for some other reason,
including to add certain Defendants, the Plaintiff is still within
the window of time in which he may amend the Complaint once as a
matter of course.  Accordingly, this motion  will be denied without
prejudice.

IV. Motion for Class Action

The Plaintiff requests that the Court "classify" his case and the
two other cases as a "class action" because they include
substantially similar claims.  One case was filed at the same time
as this one by Trousdale Turner inmate Colin Savage -- Savage v.
Trousdale Cnty. Comm'r, et al., No. 3:21-cv-00212, Doc. No. 1 (M.D.
Tenn. Mar. 15, 2021).  The other was filed more than a year ago by
Trousdale Turner inmate Martin Hughes -- Hughes v. Tenn. Dep't of
Corr., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00924, Doc. No. 7 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 5,
2019).  Each Complaint and Motion in these cases was signed by the
named (pro se) plaintiff but drafted by Hughes.  However, "pro se
prisoners cannot adequately represent a class."  Accordingly, this
motion will be denied.

V. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Richardson (i) granted the Plaintiff
granted pauper status, (ii) denied denied without prejudice his
Motion for Leave to Amend, (iii) denied his Motion for Class
Action, and (iv) denied as moot his Motion to Comply.  The Judge
concludes that the Plaintiff states an arguably non-frivolous
Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against CoreCivic.  This
claim, along with the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief
from TDOC Commissioner Parker in his official capacity, will be
referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent
with the accompanying Order.  All other claims and the Defendants
are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/t8ynyjx3 from Leagle.com.


TRUSTEE VACATION: Missouri Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Barban Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BARBAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRUSTEE VACATION
TRUST, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00897-MTS (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Motion was filed by Defendants Bluegreen Resorts Management,
Inc., and Vacation Trust, Inc.

The Plaintiffs consist of approximately 175 individuals who are
beneficiaries of the Bluegreen Vacation Club Amended and Related
Trust Agreement.  They state that they bring the suit as a "mass
action" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), see 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(11)(A);and they seek an accounting and enforcement
of a second amended and restated fair share vacation use management
trust agreement, dated March 14, 2008.

The Defendants seek to dismiss the suit on multiple grounds,
including that CAFA provides subject matter jurisdiction to
district courts for mass actions only upon removal of a mass action
from state court; that each Plaintiff's claim in a mass action must
exceed $75,000 in order for the district court to have jurisdiction
over that his claim; that the Defendants are not subject to
personal jurisdiction in Missouri; and that venue in the district
is improper.

Judge Schelp finds that the Defendants are plainly correct that
CAFA requires that each Plaintiff in a mass action have a claim
that exceeds $75,000 in order for a federal court to have
jurisdiction over that Plaintiff.  Subsection (a) sets the
jurisdictional amount requirement as an amount exceeding the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Plaintiffs assert that "at least three" of the approximately
175 of them have claims that individually total more than $75,000.
They, though, do not even indicate which three of them do, and so
the Court must dismiss them all.  Since all the Plaintiffs will be
dismissed, and the Plaintiffs' ability to refile as a mass action
in the Court is anything but certain due to the numerosity issue
alone, Judge Schelp declines to decide whether CAFA provides
original jurisdiction to federal district courts over "mass
actions" filed there in the first instance.

With that said, Judge Schelp's Memorandum and Order should not be
read to indicate that he is inclined to find that CAFA provides
district courts with original jurisdiction over mass actions filed
there in the first instance.  If CAFA does so, it is far from
clear.  The Judge is not reaching or expressing any opinion on the
remaining grounds of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, Judge Schelp granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  An Order of Dismissal will accompany his Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ewukcm from Leagle.com.


TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Decertify Class of Senior Consultants
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KUDATSKY,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the
Defendant Tyler asks the Court to enter an order decertifying all
Senior Implementation Consultants (Senior Cs) and all individuals
who were not within the Enterprise Resource Planning group (non-ERP
Ics).

This motion is brought on the grounds that the Plaintiff cannot
establish commonality and predominance for Senior ICs and non-ERP
Cs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and will inevitably
and necessarily devolve into a series of time-consuming
mini-trials. Thus, decertification of all Senior ICs and non-ERP
ICs in this matter is necessary, the Defendant says.

The Plaintiff Kudatsky brings this class action on behalf of
himself and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementation
Consultants (ICs) employed by the Defendant Tyler during the 3-year
period covered by the relevant statute limitations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

On November 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this action seeking
unpaid overtime based on the alleged misclassification of Cs as
overtime exempt.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3niRlZS
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Morris, Esq.
          Paulo B. McKeeby, Esq.
          Michael A. Correll, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (469) 680-4200
          Facsimile: (469) 680-4299
          E-mail: PMcKeeby@reedsmith.com
                  MCorrell@reedsmith.com
                  BMorris@reedsmith.com

UNITED STATES: Baylor University Students File Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Guz, writing for Kcentv.com, reports that two Baylor
University students are part of a class-action lawsuit against the
U.S. Department of Education where they, along with 31 other
students across 18 states, claim they regularly face discrimination
at their federally funded Christian colleges and universities.

The lawsuit, which was filed by the Religious Exemption
Accountability Project (REAP), aims to strike down Title IX's
religious exemption.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based
discrimination. However, it contains an exemption for religious
entities, including federally funded Christian colleges and
universities like Baylor. As a result, these institutions are
allowed to enforce policies that are discriminatory against LGBTQ+
students, the lawsuit claims.

The class-action lawsuit argues this exemption is unconstitutional
and allows the department to "breach its duty" to LGBTQ+ students
attending religious colleges and universities.

In the lawsuit, the two Baylor students are identified as Veronica
Bonifacio Penales and Jake Picker. Penales describes herself as
queer while Picker defines himself to be bisexual. Both students
give accounts on the discrimination they say they've faced from the
university itself.

Penales says she has been harassed online and on campus by other
Baylor students because of her sexuality. She describes incidents
where a Bible with anti-LGBTQ+ passages were highlighted and left
at her dorm room with a note saying, "I'm praying for you." She
also says she frequently gets Post-It notes on her dorm door with
the slur "fa*."

Penales said she reported these incidents to Baylor, but nothing
was done by the Texas Baptist university.

"The school's common response to my reporting hate on campus is
that I should go to counseling," Penales said in the lawsuit. "As a
result, I stopped reporting incidents."

"Baylor encourages its students who 'struggle' with same-sex
attraction attend its counseling center," the lawsuit claims.

According to Baylor's Human Sexuality policy, "we believe that
Baylor is in a unique position to support our students, including
those who identify as LGBTQ, because of our Christian mission and
the significant campus-wide resources available."

However, the lawsuit claims "Baylor's policies show that the
school's 'love your neighbor' lifestyle does not extend to sexual
and gender minority students."

According to Baylor's statement on human sexuality:

"Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human
sexuality is a gift from GOD and that physical sexual intimacy is
to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity . . .
Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex
outside marriage and homosexual behavior."

Additionally, Baylor's civil rights policy states: "As a
religiously controlled institution of higher education, Baylor is
exempt from compliance with select provisions of certain civil
rights laws."

Its policy also forbids "advocacy groups which promote
understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical
teaching," according to the statement on human sexuality.

"Baylor claims to love its LGBTQ+ students, yet they refuse to
grant us access to any form of student support system," said
Picker, who is a leader in the unofficial LGBTQ+ Gamma Alpha
Epsilon club.

Baylor's policy states that they expect students to refrain from
joining groups that "promote understandings of human sexuality that
are contrary to biblical teaching."

"They treat our existence like there is something inherently wrong
with us," Picker said.

The lawsuit highlights how, for the past 10 years, Picker's club
has repeatedly asked the university to approve it as an official
club, but Baylor has denied their request every time, "cutting off
an important source of representation and restricting the ability
of LGBTQ+ students to support one another."

Yet in February 2021, the Faculty Senate voted in favor of the
chartership, but the ultimate decision is up to Baylor's Board of
Regents and President Dr. Linda Livingstone. The club is still
waiting on a decision.

"Charter Gamma or continue unequal treatment of students[?]," the
club said in an Instagram post. ". . . We must continue to put on
the pressure."

Though Penales and Picker are identified in the lawsuit because
they Baylor will unlikely discipline them for identifying as
LGBTQ+, the students still could "face discipline if they openly
show affection for a same-sex partner on campus," the lawsuit
states. Thus, the lawsuit argues Baylor's stances "creates a
hostile environment for its LGBTQ+ students."

"Baylor has made its LGBTQ+ students feel like they are less than
and undesirable," the lawsuit claims.

6 News has reached out to Baylor University for comment. The school
issued the following statement:

"Baylor University maintains certain rights to exercise its freedom
of religion under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws
without interference by the government. This includes exemptions
for religiously affiliated institutions that uphold traditional
religious beliefs about marriage and sexuality. As part of our
Christian mission, Baylor continues to strive to provide a loving
and caring community for all students, including our LGBTQ
students." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Devos Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in Sweet Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Elisabeth Devos filed a petition for writ of mandamus
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Theresa Sweet,
Alicia Davis, Tresa Apodaca, Chenelle Archibald, Jessica Deegan,
Samuel Hood, Jessica Jacobson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Secretary of the United States
Department of Education, the United States Department of Education,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-mc-14073-JEM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

In June 2019, student loan borrowers, including the Plaintiffs,
filed a class action complaint as a standard Administrative
Procedure Act challenge to the Department's alleged delay in
issuing decisions on loan-forgiveness applications.

The Plaintiffs in the case have served a third-party subpoena
commanding Secretary DeVos to sit for a deposition in Vero Beach,
Florida, where she maintains a residence. Because the subpoena is
abusive and such depositions are barred under Morgan, Secretary
DeVos moved to quash in the Southern District of Florida, says the
suit.

Ms. DeVos, the former Secretary of Education, asks this Court to
issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to take all
steps necessary to stay, reverse, and deny transfer of this matter,
and then to quash the subpoena without delay. Secretary DeVos seeks
to remedy three violations: (1) the Magistrate Judge's unlawful
exercise of the judicial power; (2) the improper transfer of the
Motion to Quash; and (3) the District Court's refusal to exercise
its duty to avoid undue burden on third parties and quash an
improper subpoena. Each of those issues is appropriate for this
Court's mandamus review.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: ELISABETH DEVOS, Case No.
21-11239, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, filed on April 15, 2021. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner ELISABETH DEVOS is represented by:

          Jesse Panuccio, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          401 E Las Olas Blvd Ste 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0011
          E-mail: jpanuccio@bsfllp.com  

Defendant-Mandamus Respondent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is
represented by:

          Emily M. Smachetti, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          99 NE 4th St.
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 961-9003

               - and -

          U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida
          U.S. ATTORNEY SERVICE - SFL
          99 NE 4th St. 5th Fl.
          Miami, FL 33132-2111
          
Plaintiffs-Mandamus Respondents THERESA SWEET, ALICIA DAVIS, TRESA
APODACA, CHENELLE ARCHIBALD, JESSICA DEEGAN, SAMUEL HOOD, and
JESSICA JACOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Manuel Juan Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          11780 US Hwy 1 Ste 500
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400

               - and -

          Rebecca Ellis, Esq.
          Margaret O'Grady, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston ST
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130  

Defendants-Mandamus Respondents SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION are represented
by:

          Kevin Hancock, Esq.
          R. Charles Merritt, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L St NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 307-0162
          E-mail: kevin.p.hancock@usdoj.gov
                  robert.c.merritt@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Former BYU Students File Title IX Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Thorington, writing for Standard Journal, reports that a
class action lawsuit, featuring two former Brigham Young
University-Idaho students, was filed on March 31 against the U.S.
Department of Education over the students' Title IX rights.

There are 33 plaintiffs, LGBTQ students from 25 religious colleges,
in the lawsuit. Paul Southwick, an attorney located in Portland,
Oregon is representing the plaintiffs who claim they have
experienced discrimination from their college institutions.

"Unfortunately, as society has become a lot more accepting and the
law has offered a lot more protections, often many religious
colleges have not and have either remained stagnant or have
actually made it more difficult for LGBTQ students on their
campuses," Southwick said.

The lawsuit aims for a federal court to declare religious exemption
to Title IX unconstitutional as a violation of the First
Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion and a
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of
Equal Protection of the laws for LGBTQ Americans.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law passed as part of the
Education Amendments of 1972. This law protects people from
discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities
that receive federal financial assistance.

The Department of Education grants private religious universities
exemption from Title IX. The lawsuit argues this is
unconstitutional because the government provides public taxpayer
dollars to these institutions.

"When the government provides public funds to private actors, like
the colleges and universities represented by Plaintiffs, the
Constitution restrains the government from allowing such private
actors to use those funds to harm disadvantaged people," the
lawsuit says. "This Constitutional principle remains true even when
the private actors are operating according to sincerely held
religious beliefs, and it remains true whether the people they are
harming are racial or ethnic minorities, sexual or gender
minorities or those who reflect multiple, intersecting
identities."

One of the plaintiffs, Chandler Horning, graduated from BYU-Idaho
in April 2020. He told the Standard Journal he spent two semesters
on campus because he was taking classes online before then. Those
two semesters felt like a lifetime for him.

"While I was on campus, I realized this is actually incredibly
difficult for me and I don't know if I can do this," Horning said.
"It's just incredibly difficult being LGBT closeted."

Horning said he felt anxiety, depression, stress and fear every day
while he was on campus. He had come out as gay before, but put
himself back in the closet while he was on campus.

A March 2021 report published by the Religious Exemption
Accountability Project and College Pulse concludes sexual and
gender minority students enrolled at Christian colleges and
universities experience more harm, isolation and less inclusion on
their campus, leaving them with different mental health outcomes
and college experiences than straight students.

College Pulse is a survey research and analytics company that
focuses on college students in the U.S.

According to the lawsuit, BYU-Idaho has a page on its counselling
center website specifically discussing same sex attraction that
says: "Sadly, anxiety, depression, social difficulties, feelings of
isolation, and even suicidal thoughts may arise for individuals
experiencing same-gender attraction." The resources on this page
lead only to LDS-approved materials.

Horning said those feelings often arise from the social environment
LGBTQ students are in. Acting out on his sexuality could have
resulted in his expulsion and eviction from BYU-Idaho housing.

"You can be gay and go to BYU-Idaho. That's no problem. It's the
dating and anything homosexual that you do in your actions that
would get you kicked out," he said. "It's a snitch culture,
literally, your friends are the police, your classmates are the
police."

Horning's upbringing in the LDS church as a child and a teenager
coded him to date women, even though he knew he was attracted to
men, he said. He was closeted and not ready to face what would
happen if he came out at 17 years old.

"I did what every Mormon kid does and applied to a church school,"
he said.

Another plaintiff, Rachel Moulton, was a BYU-Idaho student who left
the university at the end of 2020 to protect her mental health
after learning "BYU's toxicity was not limited to in-person
learning," according to the lawsuit.

"They compared LGBTQ+ people, who just wanted the right to marry
the person they love, to agents of Satan who were attacking the
family," Moulton said in the lawsuit.

Moulton's complaint in the lawsuit says the university taught her
and other LGBT women that they could be happy marrying a man, even
though they "struggle with same-sex attraction." LGBTQ students are
also taught they would no longer experience same-sex attraction in
the afterlife, according to the lawsuit.

This led Moulton to feel suicidal ideation because she would do
"anything not to be gay," even if it meant ending her own life, the
lawsuit says. Moulton attempted suicide halfway through her first
semester at BYU-Idaho.

Moulton is now attending therapy, trying to reconcile being gay and
being an LDS church member, according to the lawsuit.

"I know I am a child of God," she said. "I know now that being gay
and being a child of God can both be true. This acceptance of
myself has healed me from a lot of the religious trauma I
experienced earlier in my life."

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include current students, recently
expelled students, and recent alumni who suffered conversion
therapy and/or other discipline from their colleges. Some
plaintiffs are using a pseudonym for their safety.

Southwick said stories such as Horning's and Moulton's are
important, but they are one of many that are experienced by LGBTQ
students at religious universities. Since filing the case, more
than 30 people have asked to be part of the lawsuit and Southwick
expects more, he said.

"We want the department to know that it's not just one or two
kids," Southwick said. "We want the department to intervene on
behalf of the many and on behalf of the kids that are still at
BYU-Idaho or at other schools and are still suffering."

BYU-Idaho students have formed an unofficial LGBTQ support group,
but they are not allowed to meet on campus, the lawsuit says.

Horning said the student club Understanding Same Gender Attraction
saw new students coming to meetings every week.

"They wish there was another way out, but there just wasn't
unfortunately," Horning said.

Many LGBTQ students try to transfer out of their religious
institutions, Southwick said. Horning tried to do the same during
his senior year but was unable to do so.

Religious institutions require students to take religion or Bible
study-type courses, Southwick said. Those credits are not
transferable to fulfill degree requirements at secular schools,
which leads to a greater financial burden should those students
choose to attend another university.

Horning said he felt relief after graduating, knowing that he could
let go of his worries of what other people on campus thought or
worries of someone going to the university's honor office to try
and get him expelled.

"I don't want anyone to go through what I went through while
they're trapped at a school because they can't transfer out,"
Horning said. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Landlords Sue After CDC Extends Ban on Evictions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott McClallen, writing for The Center Square, reports that
landlords are struggling after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) extended a national ban on certain evictions
apparently to slow the spread of COVID-19.

The CDC extended the moratorium, first enacted in Sept. 2020,
through June 30.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit
civil rights group, filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on behalf of Asa
Mossman of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and other housing providers.

John J. Vecchione, NCLA senior litigation counsel, told The Center
Square he believes statute doesn't authorize this action.

"We don't see any ending point because the supposed basis for this
is COVID exists," Vecchione said in a phone interview. "There's no
reasonable or foreseeable stopping point given the basis they state
for their order."

NCLA represents landlords across the United States who haven't been
paid in months and can't even evict people from their own property,
Vecchione said.

"Some of these folks aren't big landlords," Vecchione said. "They
have one or maybe two properties to supplement their income during
retirement. And they have to provide a habitable living place, even
though the tenants aren't fulfilling their side of the bargain."

Roughly 8 million independent landlords own 24 million units of the
44 million total rental units, estimates Chicago-based landlord
company Avail.

"If they aren't given any support by the state or the government,
many of these people could lose their property," Vecchione said

If landlords default on their mortgage because tenants aren't
paying and a bank forecloses on the property, the bank can evict
the tenants -- the exact action the order aimed to prevent.

Vecchione asserted it's unfair for landlords who invested in
providing homes to tenants to assume the entire financial burden,"
Vecchione said. "These people could be making up to $99,000 a year
and not pay their obligations. It's really outrageous," he said,
adding not all tenants in arrears contracted COVID-19.

"This is an example of the administrative state way overreaching,"
he said.

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in a statement, "The
COVID-19 pandemic has presented a historic threat to the nation's
public health. Keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or
congregate settings -- like homeless shelters -- by preventing
evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.


The order prevents tenants earning up to $99,000 ($198,000 for
joint filers) from being evicted for nonpayment of rent, if they
state in writing that they've lost income, had unexpected medical
bills, and that their eviction could cause move into a homeless
shelter or other crowded living space.

Renters can still be evicted for criminal activity, for threatening
others' safety property damage, or other lease violations.

The CDC argues evicted tenants might move into crowded living
situations such as with family or friends, which could spread
COVID-19, despite a climbing number of nationwide vaccinations.

In its lawsuit, NCLA argues that agencies have no inherent power to
make law or to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium order. Some
courts have agreed.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled
that the nationwide moratorium exceeded the agency's statutory
authority. Likewise, the Western District of Tennessee ruled
similarly in Tiger Lily, LLC, et al. v. United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, et al.

The CDC order threatens anyone who violates the order with up to
$500,000 in fines per event or jail time if the action results in
death.

The complaint argues the order violates the U.S. Constitution
because the CDC hasn't identified Congressional power to halt
evictions or preempt state landlord-tenant laws. [GN]


UNITED STATES: LGBTQ+ Students Suffered Abuses, Hunter Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth HUNTER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and Suzanne
GOLDBERG, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Case
No. 6:21-cv-00474-AA (D. Or., March 29, 2021) is a class action
filed by 33 Plaintiffs seeking to put an end to the U.S. Department
of Education's complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions
thousands of LGBTQ+ students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded,
religious colleges and universities.

The Plaintiffs seek safety and justice for themselves and for the
countless sexual and gender minority students whose oppression,
fueled by government funding, and unrestrained by government
intervention, persists with injurious consequences to mind, body
and soul.

According to the complaint, the Department's inaction leaves
students unprotected from the harms of conversion therapy,
expulsion, denial of housing and healthcare, sexual and physical
abuse and harassment, as well as the less visible, but no less
damaging, consequences of institutionalized shame, fear, anxiety
and loneliness. The U.S. Department of Education is duty-bound by
Title IX and the U.S. Constitution to protect sexual and gender
minority students at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities,
including private and religious educational institutions that
receive federal funding.

The religious exemption to Title IX, however, seemingly permits the
Department to breach its duty as to the more than 100,000 sexual
and gender minority students attending religious colleges and
universities where discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity is codified in campus policies and
openly practiced.

When taxpayer-funded religious institutions require sexual and
gender minority students to hide their identity out of fear, or to
behave contrary to their fundamental sexual or gender identity, the
unsurprising consequences are intense pain, loneliness and
self-harm. Students perceive that their campus, and even their
government, believes that they are inferior in dignity and worth.
The status quo, where the Department leaves such students on their
own in this perilous limbo, results in concrete, verifiable and
widespread harms. Each Plaintiff has their own story of oppression
to tell, and each Plaintiff represents thousands more whose stories
deserve to be heard, the suit says.

Religious exemptions may be constitutionally permissible, or even
compelled, when the government regulates private action, even where
some amount of harm to members of the community is involved.
However, when the government provides public funds to private
actors, like the colleges and universities represented by
Plaintiffs, the Constitution restrains the government from allowing
such private actors to use those funds to harm disadvantaged
people. This Constitutional principle remains true even when the
private actors are operating according to sincerely held religious
beliefs, and it remains true whether the people they are harming
are racial or ethnic minorities, sexual or gender minorities or
those who reflect multiple, intersecting identities.

Allegedly, while the statutory religious exemption to Title IX may
permit, or even require, the Department to refuse assistance to
sexual and gender minority students like the Plaintiffs, the
Constitution forbids such inaction. The Plaintiffs ask this Court
to declare that the religious exemption to Title IX, as applied to
sexual and gender minority students, is unconstitutional and that
the Department must enforce the protections of Title IX at all
taxpayer-funded educational institutions, including at those
institutions that discriminate and cause harm on the basis of
sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Plaintiffs include Veronica Bonifacio PENALES; Alex DURON; Zayn
SILVA; Rachel MOULTON; Victoria Joy BACON; Avery BONESTROO; Nathan
BRITTSAN; Hayden BROWN; Brooke C.; Gary CAMPBELL; Tristan CAMPBELL;
Natalie CARTER; Rachel HELD; Lauren HOEKSTRA; Chandler HORNING;
Louis JAMES; Jonathan JONES; Ashtin MARKOWSKI; Cameron MARTINEZ;
Joanna MAXON; Mackenzie MCCANN; Darren MCDONALD; Scott MCSWAIN;
Faith MILLENDER; Jaycen MONTGOMERY; Journey MUELLER; Jake PICKER;
Danielle POWELL; Megan STEFFEN; Spencer J. VIGIL; Lucas WILSON; and
Audrey WOJNAROWISCH.

The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the
ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the
United States government.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Carlos Southwick, Esq.
          RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
          PAUL SOUTHWICK LAW, LLC
          8532 N. Ivanhoe St. No. 208
          Portland, OR 97203
          Telephone: (503) 806-9517
          E-mail: paul@paulsouthwick.com

               - and -

          Rachel Erica Livingston, Esq.
          PAUL SOUTHWICK LAW, LLC
          8532 N. Ivanhoe St. No. 208
          Portland, OR 97203
          Telephone: (503) 806-9517
          E-mail: rachel@paulsouthwick.com

UNITED STATES: Liberty University Student Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
University Business reports that Lucas Wilson said he received
conversion therapy from a student club called Band of Brothers at
Liberty University from 2008 to 2012, when he was an undergraduate
student.

Wilson, now 30, said when he visited campus prior to enrolling, he
saw an ad for "struggling with same-sex attraction."

"The biggest factor in why I chose Liberty was ultimately the
conversion therapy program because I, in fact, believed that one
could become straight," Wilson said.

He is now one of 33 LGBTQ students who are suing the Department of
Education in a class-action lawsuit. The students allege that they
faced discrimination at 25 federally funded Christian colleges and
universities in 18 states. [GN]



UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Faces Willis Tort Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Intermodal
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Willis v. Universal
Intermodal Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01716 (N.D. Ill., March
30, 2021).

The suit arises from diversity-tort/non-motor vehicle-related
issues.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Universal Intermodal was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corey Rogoff, Esq. of Proskauer, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that private companies with cutting-edge technology have become
particularly attractive targets for special purpose acquisition
companies (SPACs). These private companies may choose to go public
via SPAC for a number of reasons that include the ability to share
projections with investors, better valuation prospects and deal
execution certainty. Much like companies that go public by way of a
traditional IPO, however, companies that go public via SPAC can
also become subject to Section 10(b) securities class actions. The
risk for this type of company may be particularly acute given its
high growth prospects or the volatility that may accompany its
securities. An example of a company that went public via SPAC that
was quickly confronted with this type of action is Velodyne.

In 1983, David Hall founded Velodyne as a company known for
producing specialized audio equipment. However, in 2006, he
patented an invention known as a multi-beam spinning LiDAR sensor
that would become the backbone of his company. LiDAR sensors use
light to determine an object's distance in the same way sonar
sensors use soundwaves. LiDAR is thought to be key to the future of
self-driving vehicles and how these vehicles can navigate obstacles
and environments in real time.

A SPAC called Graf Industrial Corp. successfully completed its
merger with Velodyne Lidar on September 29, 2020. Between November
2020 and February 2021, Velodyne made numerous public statements
and SEC filings regarding its financial health and the goings-on of
its Board.

However, on February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced David Hall had
been removed from his position as Chairman and his wife Marta Hall
was removed from her role as Chief Marketing Officer following an
Audit Committee investigation. The company disclosed the
investigation concluded "Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved
inappropriately with regard to Board and Company processes, and
failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in
their dealings with Company officers and directors."

Shortly thereafter, on March 2, 2020, a sole plaintiff filed a
purported class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Velodyne Lidar, as well as
two officers who served during the class period. In his complaint,
the plaintiff alleges defendants made materially false or
misleading statements regarding Velodyne's directors and the
existence of the internal investigation during the class period
(November 2020 to February 2021). Among these alleged misstatements
is the company's February 18, 2021 announcement that a director
linked with the SPAC vehicle resigned and that his "decision to
resign was not a result of any disagreement with the Company."
Notably, the complaint does not include any allegations relating to
Velodyne's merger with Graf Industrial.

Velodyne has not yet filed its response to the complaint, and the
Court has not made any statements about class certification. We
will continue to monitor this case and actions facing de-SPAC
public companies. [GN]


VELODYNE LIDAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Velodyne Lidar,
Inc. ("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 2,
2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Certain Velodyne directors failed to
maintain an attitude of respect, honesty, integrity, and candor
with the Company's officers and directors. The Company had launched
investigations into this matter. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Velodyne, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


VIRGIN SCENT: Faces Class Action Over Benzene Level in Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against a hand sanitizer manufacturer, accusing Virgin Scent Inc.,
doing business as ArtNaturals, of selling its products with a
dangerous level of benzene.

In an April 2 class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, plaintiff Lauren Slaughter
asserted three claims on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, including Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(California Civil Code Sections 1750), Violation of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and Breach of the
Implied and Express Warranties, Fraud and Deceit. [GN]


VIZIO INC: May 17 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Purchased a VIZIO LCD Television in the State of California?
A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights.

Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding
VIZIO LCD televisions. The case name is Jeffrey Koenig, et al. v.
Vizio, Inc., and the case number is Case No. BC702266. Plaintiff's
lawsuit claims that VIZIO labeled its LCD televisions as having a
"Hz" rating twice as high as its actual refresh rate, causing
damage to Class Members. VIZIO denies all of Plaintiff's
allegations and contends that it properly labeled each television
with the correct "Hz" specification.

This is only a summary. The Court has not made any determination
about who is right. There is no money available now, and no
guarantee there will be. For additional details, please read the
Long-Form Notice available to download at
www.refreshrateclassaction.com.  

Who is Included?

You are a member of the Class if:

   * You purchased one of the VIZIO LCD television models listed on
www.refreshrateclassaction.com/Home/ModelsList between April 30,
2014 and the present in the state of California.

The following are NOT members of the Class:

   * VIZIO; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of VIZIO; any
entity in which VIZIO has a controlling interest; any officer,
director, or employee of VIZIO; any successor or assign of VIZIO;
anyone employed by counsel in this action; any judge to whom this
case is assigned; his or her spouse and immediate family members;
and members of the judge's staff.

A more detailed Notice, including the exact Class definition and
exceptions to Class membership, is available at
www.refreshrateclassaction.com.

Your Rights and Options

DO NOTHING: If you are a Class Member and do nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Class and you will be able to share in any
money or benefits that may be recovered in this case. You will be
bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, including any
judgment in VIZIO's favor, and you will give up your right to sue
VIZIO as part of any other lawsuit for the claims made in this
case.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS: If you exclude yourself from the
Class (i.e., opt out), you will not be entitled to money or
benefits if they are awarded or recovered. You will not be bound by
any orders or judgments of the Court and you will not give up your
right to sue VIZIO as part of any other lawsuit for the claims made
in this case. The deadline to exclude yourself from the Class is
May 17, 2021. Specific instructions on how to request exclusion are
included in the Long-Form Notice available to download at
www.refreshrateclassaction.com.

The Trial

The Court has not yet determined whether a trial is required in
this case and has not yet scheduled any trial in this matter. If a
trial date is set in this matter, the date and location of the
trial will be posted to the website www.refreshrateclassaction.com.
The Plaintiff will have to prove his claims at trial. There is no
guarantee that the Plaintiff will win or obtain money for the
Class. You may hire your own lawyer at your own expense, but you do
not have to.

Want More Information?

Go to www.refreshrateclassaction.com, call 877-933-3286, or write
to Koenig v. VIZIO Class Action, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217. [GN]


VOLVO CARS: Laurens Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIER LAURENS and KHADIJA
LAURENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-08798-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on May 17, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification of:

      "All individuals who purchased the T8 in Florida, Illinois,
      and New York;"

      For Count IV: All individuals who purchased the T8 in
      California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
      Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and
      Washington; and

   2. appointing Class Representative, and that Plaintiff's
      attorneys, Fausto Sanchez and David M. Levine of the law firm

      Sanchez Fischer Levine, LLP, as appointed Class Counsel.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC manufactures, markets, and sells
automobiles.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32NbvBL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
          Mt. Laurel, New Jersey
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ross@kazlg.com

               - and -

          David Levine, Esq.
          SANCHEZ FISCHER LEVINE, LLP
          1200 Brickell Ave, Ste. 750
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone.: (305) 925-9947
          Fausto Sanchez, Esq.
          E-mail: fsanchez@sfl-law.com
                  dlevine@sfl-law.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Robert A. Roth, Esq.
          Karlin E. Sangdahl, Esq.
          Oliver Beiersdorf, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60606

VROOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM) between
November 11, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 21, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Vroom securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Vroom class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2063.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vroom had not demonstrated that
it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its
salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) as a result,
the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move through
its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) as
a result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely
to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Vroom class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2063.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

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


VROOM INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Vroom, Inc.
("Vroom" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 9,
2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 21, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Vroom failed to demonstrate any ability
to control and scale its salesforce to meet the demand for its
products. The Company discounted aged inventory to sell through the
retail channel and liquidated product through wholesale channels.
As a result, the Company's gross profit per unit was likely to
decline. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about Vroom, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


WAKEFERN FOOD: Quarles Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Almondmilk
-------------------------------------------------------------
TARA QUARLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-01488 (E.D.
Pa., March 29, 2021) alleges that the Defendant deceptively
represents its vanilla almondmilk beverages Product's
"characterizing" flavor as vanilla.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff relied upon this
representation when she purchased the Product. The Plaintiff's
interpretation of Defendant's representation was reasonable.

The Defendant's Product is sold in two sizes (32 oz. and 64 oz.)
with multiple vanilla representations on each label. The 32 oz.
size sells for $1.79, and the 64 oz. size sells for $1.99. The
front label of both sizes of the Product states "Vanilla" in a
bold, blue font. Further, the Defendant prominently places a pair
of vanilla bean pods and a vanilla flower on the front label, the
suit says.

The Defendant manufactures distributes, markets, labels and sells
vanilla almondmilk beverages under its Wholesome Pantry brand.

During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased the Vanilla
Almondmilk at the ShopRite store located at 6301 Oxford Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19111.

Because the representations indicate the Product's main or
"characterizing" flavor is vanilla, from the multiple use of the
word "Vanilla" and multiple pictures of the vanilla flower and
vanilla pods, federal and state regulations require that the front
label must truthfully disclose to consumers the source of that
flavor.

The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on these representations and
were injured both in the price paid for the Product as well as the
premium paid for the Product over a similar product not bearing
this deceptive representation.

The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant
on behalf of herself and Class Members who purchased the Products
during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Wakefern Food, founded in 1946 and based in Keasbey, New Jersey,
U.S., is the 73rd largest private non-governmental company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste. 102
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (888) 412-5291
          E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT PEARLSTONE,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-02856-HEA (E.D. Mo.),
Plaintiff Scott Pearlstone asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
      adequate;

   2. granting final approval to the Settlement;

   3. approving the Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys'

      fees, costs, expenses, and an incentive award;

   4. confirming appointment of Myles McGuire, Paul T. Geske, and
      Brendan Duffner of McGuire Law, P.C. as Class Counsel;

   5. approving the form and methods of the Notice Plan and finding

      that it satisfied Due Process; and

   6. granting such further relief as the Court deems reasonable
      and just.

The Settlement Class Members' unanimous support for the Settlement
is not unexpected, because the Settlement and the relief it
provides are a terrific outcome for the Settlement Class. Under the
Settlement, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc has agreed to establish
a fund of $5,000,000; and Settlement Class Members who timely
submit a valid claim.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RY0fAd
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          Brendan Duffner, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW , P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
          Chicago, Illinois 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcpgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com
                  bduffner@mcgpc.com
                  sbeckham@mcgpc.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Lanny Darr, Esq.
          DARR FIRM
          307 Henry Street, Ste. 406
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 208-6828
          Facsimile: (618) 433-8519
          E-mail: darr@darrfirm.com

WALGREEN BOOTS: Lowe Sues Over Gender-Based Pricing Bias
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIGETTE LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others situated v.
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WALGREEN CO., Case No.
3:21-cv-02852-SK (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of imposing a "pink tax" on functionally
identical "women's versions" of hair regrowth treatment products.

This is a class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased
Walgreens Minoxidil Topical Aerosol 5% (Foam), Hair Regrowth
Treatment for Women (the "Women's Product") in the State of
California.

According to the complaint, Walgreens distributes its own brand of
hair regrowth treatment products under the "Walgreens" label,
including the Women's Product and Walgreens Minoxidil Topical
Aerosol 5% (Foam), Hair Regrowth Treatment for Men (the "Men's
Product"). The Women's Product and Men's Product are collectively
hereinafter referred to as the "Products."

The pink tax refers to gender-based pricing discrimination, in
which products or services marketed to female consumers cost more
than those of similar or equal value marketed to male consumers.

The complaint alleges that Walgreens participated in gender-based
pricing discrimination through its packaging and labeling of the
Women's Product and Men's Product. Walgreens' advertisements,
marketing representations, and labeling of the Products are
misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, the
complaint asserts. Walgreens designs its packaging to mislead
consumers into thinking that the Women's Product is unique or
specially formulated to make it specifically appropriate for women
as opposed to men, it adds.

This practice also violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act"), which prohibits businesses from participating in
pricing discrimination towards consumers based upon, inter alia,
their sex or gender. These unfair and unlawful business practices
result in women paying substantially higher prices for goods than
those made available to men, says the complaint.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a holding company that operates
as one of the biggest pharmacy store chains in the United States.
Walgreen Co. is a subsidiary of WBA and part of WBA's Retail
Pharmacy USA division. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
     Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Green, Esq.
     SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
     Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 788-4220
     Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
     E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
             nschubert@sjk.law
             agreen@sjk.law


WALMART INC: Class Action Seeks COVID-19 Screening Time Back Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Burden, writing for HRDrive, reports that a group of Walmart
employees have alleged that the company failed to pay them for time
spent in mandatory COVID-19 screenings before each shift, in
violation of Arizona law (Arrison, et al. v. Walmart, Inc. and
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00481 (D. Ariz, March 22,
2021)).

Employees in the class action lawsuit claim that the nationwide
retailer in the spring of 2020 implemented a company-wide policy
requiring workers to undergo a COVID-19 screening each shift.
Workers had to arrive before their scheduled shift to complete a
questionnaire, screening and body temperature scan.

The workers claimed that it took about 10 to 15 minutes to wait in
line and undergo the screening and that they were not permitted to
clock in during that time. The plaintiffs alleged that Walmart has
shown that the time should have been compensated because in
November 2020, it began adding five minutes to each employee's
daily recorded time to partially compensate for the screening.

Dive Insight:
Nothing in federal nondiscrimination law prevents employers from
screening employees entering a worksite for coronavirus-related
symptoms, according to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
guidance. Likewise, employers may administer COVID-19 tests to
employees, according to the commission.

But the question of compensability remains. In discussing federal
wage and hour law, Samantha Bononno, a partner at Fisher Phillips,
said last summer that a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case, Integrity
Staffing Solutions v. Busk, may prove useful: The court held that
post-shift security checks for warehouse workers were not
"principle activities" and, as a result, are not compensable under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"On the whole though, otherwise non-compensable activities can
become hours worked depending on when they take place," she
continued. "Thus, a review of the principles is only the starting
point to an employer's analysis. A thoughtful plan (such as
staggering arrivals and ensuring that no compensable activities
have occurred already) to minimize the risks, when possible, is
key."

State and local laws also may create additional responsibilities of
which employers may need to be aware. [GN]


WARDEN CARR: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuits against WARDEN CARR, FMC-Carswell, et
al., the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class under Rule 23.

As the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule
23(a)(4), the Court says it need not reach or analyze the
additional requirements of Rule 23(b). Nevertheless, the Court
concludes that, in the alternative, even if the Plaintiffs
satisfied Rule 23(a)(4), their motions must still be denied for
failure to satisfy Rule 23(b).

Each of the Plaintiffs previously filed a handwritten complaint to
initiate their case. In each case, the Court previously issued a
deficiency order directing the Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint on the Court's prisoner civil-rights complaint form, and
to either pay the applicable fees or file an application to proceed
in forma pauperis along with a certificate of inmate trust account.
Neither of the Plaintiffs has replied.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "LESLIE GARRISON v. WARDEN CARR, FMC-Carswell, et al., Case No.
   4:21-cv-00488-P (N.D. Tex.);" and

   "DOMINGA BALDERAS, v. WARDEN CARR, FMC-Carswell, et al., Case
   No. 4:21-cv-00496-P (N.D. Tex.)"

A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3erp92W at no extra charge.[CC]

WELL PET: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Bush Suit W/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLA BUSH, KIMBERLY DEHAVEN, NANCY MUNIE, and MONIQUE
SALERNO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELL PET, LLC; and DOES 1 through 2, Civil Action No.
21-10059-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted WellPet's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Bush, DeHaven, Munie, and Salerno filed the putative
class action against WellPet, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.  They allege that WellPet breached an
express (Count I) and/or implied (Count II) warranty; unjustly
enriched itself at plaintiffs' expense (Count III); violated the
consumer protection laws of New York (Counts IV and V), California
(Counts VI, VII, and VIII), Massachusetts (Count IX), and other
states (Count XII); violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq. (MMWA)(Count X); and negligently
misrepresented material facts (Count XI) when it advertised its pet
food as "grain free" despite the presence of trace amounts of
gluten in the finished products.

WellPet is a company that manufactures, sells, and/or distributes
Wellness-brand pet food products.  It advertises the products sold
under two of its lines, the "Core" line and the "Complete Health"
line, as "grain free."  The Plaintiffs are pet owners who purchased
pet food from the Core and Complete Health lines because of the
representation that the products were grain free.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs, through their counsel,
"commissioned an independent laboratory to" to test WellPet's Core
and Complete Health line pet foods.  The testing "revealed" that
WellPet's pet food "had significant gluten content."  Armed with
this revelation, the Plaintiffs repaired to the federal district
court, arguing that the gluten ingredient renders the "grain free"
label false and misleading.

WellPet moved to dismiss on March 16, 2021.

I. Breach of Warranty (Counts I, II, and X)

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court cannot assume the gluten
content in the tested products is a trace or negligible amount
because the Complaint refers to a "significant gluten content."

But significant is not as clear a term as the Plaintiffs suggest,
Judge Stearns holds.  Is a significant gluten content 3 parts per
million in every product tested (i.e., a statistically significant
trace level of gluten)? Or is it 10,000 parts per million in some
of the products (i.e., significantly large level of gluten)?
Nothing in the Complaint makes the latter more plausible than the
former.  And without such clarification, the Judge cannot
reasonably make an inference that significant means a high level.

Judge Stearns also holds that the Complaint does not plausibly
demonstrate that WellPet breached any implied warranty not to
include grain in the products for the same reasons it does not
demonstrate that WellPet breached an express warranty.  To the
extent the Plaintiffs argue breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, their claims fail for an independent reason.  The
Plaintiffs have not shown that the presence of gluten renders the
products unsuitable for their intended and ordinary use.  The value
of grain free food is that it allegedly is "easily digestible" and
contains "more protein and animal fats and fewer carbohydrates than
grain-based pet foods." The addition of gluten, a protein, does not
undermine or otherwise diminish this benefit.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the MMWA, 15 U.S.C. Sections
2301, et seq., is coextensive with state law.  Thus, in the absence
of any surviving state law warranty claim, the MMWA claims
necessarily fail.

II. Consumer Protection Act Violations (Counts IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX, XII)

The consumer protection laws of New York, Massachusetts, and
California prohibit deceptive practices and/or unfair conduct in
business transactions.  The Plaintiffs allege both types of
misconduct.

First, the Plaintiffs argue that WellPet's advertising is deceptive
because the products contain gluten and thus allegedly are not
grain free.

As Judge Stearns has already explained, the argument is based on
common logical fallacy, that is, a non sequitur, the first premise
of which (gluten is a grain) is demonstrably false.  To the extent
that WellPet may be faulted for failing to disclose the possibility
of gluten cross-contamination of its "grain free" products, the
Judge cannot discern how this disclosure would have had any
material impact on the Plaintiffs' purchasing decisions (their
conclusory allegations to the contrary notwithstanding).  The
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased grain free pet food because
it "contains more protein and animal fats and fewer carbohydrates
than grain-based pet foods."  As gluten is a protein, its presence
in the products does nothing to detract from the benefits the
Plaintiffs sought to obtain from grain free pet food.  The claims
accordingly fail.

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that WellPet engaged in unfair conduct
because it charged them a substantial price premium for its
products on the false promise that the products would be grain
free.  But for the reasons he discussed, Judge Stearns finds that
the Plaintiffs have not shown that the presence of gluten had any
bearing 0n the promise that products were grain free or otherwise
rendered the product less valuable than the price charged.  The
claims accordingly fail.

III. Unjust Enrichment (Count III)

The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is premised on WellPet
having "misrepresented the grain content of the Mislabeled Pet
Foods by claiming they were 'grain free.'"  As Judge Stearns
previously determined that the presence of gluten does not render
the "grain free" promise false (which, in turn, means that WellPet
did not misrepresent the grain content of its products), the unjust
enrichment claim fails.

IV. Negligent Misrepresentation (Count XI)

The Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim14 is premised on
WellPet having misrepresented "the grain content of the Mislabeled
Pet Foods."  As Judge Stearns previously determined that the
presence of gluten does not render the "grain free" promise false
(which, in turn, means that WellPet did not misrepresent the grain
content of its products), the negligent misrepresentation claim
fails

V. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiffs request that, if the Court allows the motion to
dismiss, it grants them leave to amend.  Judge Stearns, however,
would need the benefit of a proposed Amended Complaint to determine
whether the Plaintiffs have a good faith basis for maintaining the
lawsuit (or whether as the Defendants suggest, any amendment would
be futile).

Order

For these reasons, Judge Stearns dismissed the Complaint, albeit
without prejudice.  Should the Plaintiffs seek to amend, they will
have 21 days from the date of the decision to file a proposed
Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/sz7zx7sd from Leagle.com.


WEST TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
NORMANE MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WEST TREE SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00322-JM (E.D.
Ark., April 20, 2021) is a collective action brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA).

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff generally worked more than
50 hours each week.  However, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees sufficient
overtime wages under the FLSA and under the AMWA within the
applicable statutory limitations period.

West Tree Service, LLC is a tree service business. The Defendant
employed Plaintiff as a General Foreman from August of 2006 until
March of 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     Kirkpatrick Plaza
     10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


WESTIN DIA: Joint Bid to Certify Settlement Class Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY BARLOW,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WESTIN DIA OPERATOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01612-DDD-KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff and the
Defendant ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes:

      "all employees who worked at the Westin Denver International

      Airport hotel as Service Express and/or In-Room Dining
      employees between May 1, 2018, and February 10, 2021;"

   2. appointing Timothy Barlow as the Class Representative;

   3. appointing the undersigned attorneys from the Sawaya & Miller

      Law Firm as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the Notice and Opt-out Forms and to be sent to
      the Settlement Class Members;

   5. approving Rust Consulting, LLC, as Settlement Administrator;

   6. authorizing notice to the Settlement Class and order that:

      A. The Settlement Administrator shall mail and email the
         Notices approved by the Court to all Settlement Class
         Members within 14 days of the Settlement Administrator's
         receipt of a list of all members of the Settlement Class,

         including, to the extent reasonably available, their full

         names, last known home addresses, last known telephone
         numbers, last known email addresses, and last four digits

         of their Social Security Numbers;

      B. The Settlement Class Members shall have 60 days from the
         date on which the Notices are sent to opt out of, object
         to, or remain in the Settlement;

      C. The Settlement Administrator shall conduct skip tracing
         and other efforts in conformity with the standards of the

         class administration industry to locate any Settlement
         Class Members whose Notices are returned as
undeliverable;

      D. The Settlement Administrator shall perform a second
         mailing of the Notices to any Settlement Class Member
         whose Notices were initially returned as undeliverable,
         and for whom an alternate address was located through its

         skip tracing and other efforts;

   7. directing the parties to file a joint motion seeking final
      approval of the Settlement no later than 30 after the
      termination of the notice period; and

   8. scheduling a final fairness hearing to occur no earlier than

      45 days after the end of the notice period.

This putative wage and hour class action centers around a currently
unresolved issue of Colorado law: whether mandatory service charges
-- such as those charged by Westin DIA to guests and challenged by
Barlow -- are "tips" or "gratuities" under the Colorado Wage Act
and its implementing

A copy of the joint motion to certify class dated April 15, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dPsz0g at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
          THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: 303.839.1650
          E-mail: aharrison@sawayalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradford J. Williams, Esq.
          Steven Gutierrez, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART, LLP
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8121
          E-mail: bjwilliams@hollandhart.com

WESTLAKE SERVICES: Guevara Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GUEVARA and JOSE OLIVA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC;
DON HANKEY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV15142 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide employment records, failure to
pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal
periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

Mr. Guevara and Mr. Oliva worked for the Defendants from 2016 until
August 21, 2020 and from December 2011 until October 2020,
respectively.

Westlake Services, LLC is a financial services company
headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                                   
   
                  
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

WOODBRIDGE INVESTMENTS: Baker, et al. Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE WOODBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs Mark
Baker, Jay Beynon Family Trust DTD 10/23/1998, Alan and Marlene
Gordon, Joseph C. Hull, Lloyd and Nancy Landman, and Lilly A.
Shirley will move Court on June 25, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who from July 1, 2012 through December 1, 8
2017
      invested in Woodbridge FPCM promissory notes or Woodbridge
      units;"

      Excluded from the class are Comerica, its parents,
      subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any
      entity in which Comerica has a controlling interest or which

      has a controlling interest in Comerica. Also excluded from
      the class are investors who recovered the principal they
      invested in Woodbridge, and the judicial officers to whom
      this matter is assigned and their staff and immediate family

      members;"

   2. appointing them as class representatives;

   3. appointing the law firm of Girard Sharp LLP as lead class
      counsel and a Plaintiffs' executive committee consisting of
      the law firms Berger & Montague, P.C.; Cohen Milstein Sellers

      & Toll PLLC; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Levine Kellogg
      Lehman Schneider & Grossman LLP; Sonn Law Group P.A.; and
      Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32OOb6M
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs ares represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Trevor T. Tan, Esq.
          Makenna Cox, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  ttan@girardsharp.com
                  mcox@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-875-3000
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
          TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202.408.4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
          Lawrence A. Kellogg, Esq.
          Jason Kellogg, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER
          & GROSSMAN LLP
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          22nd Floor, Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
                  lak@lklsg.com
                  jk@lklsg.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq.
          SONN LAW GROUP P.A.
          One Turnberry Place
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305.912.3000
          E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com

               - and -

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com

WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS) ("Workhorse") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities
between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Workhorse
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com;
or click
https://www.ktmc.com/workhorse-group-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=workhorse.

Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United
States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation
Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear
acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package
delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the
NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3
billion.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants continued to indicate that Workhorse would secure the
NGDV contract.

However, on February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS
issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards
Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal
Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh
Defense -- not Workhorse -- had won the lucrative NGDV contract.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that USPS was going
to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV, and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had
concealed the fact that -- as revealed by the postmaster general in
explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle
-- electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and
astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Workhorse investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


WORLD WRESTLING: June 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

          Plaintiff,

     vs.

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., VINCENT K. McMAHON, GEORGE
A. BARRIOS, and MICHELLE D. WILSON,
                          
          Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE") during the period from February 7, 2019
through February 5, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
("Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed
Settlement Class, and WWE, Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios,
and Michelle D. Wilson (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class
action (the "Action") in the amount of $39,000,000 (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, either
in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on June 15, 2021,
at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14B of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 22, 2020;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement, www.WWESecuritiesSettlement.com, or
by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

WWE Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 6389
Portland, OR 97228-6389
800-817-4526

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than June 10,
2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than May 25, 2021. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than May 25, 2021.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: April 5, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
URL// www.WWESecuritiesSettlement.com
http://www.labaton.com[GN]


XL FLEET: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company")
(NYSE: XL) securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your XL Fleet investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/xl-fleet-corp/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled
"XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed
that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future
class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too
technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised
timeline."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.09, or 13%, to
close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69, or
19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to
inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales
and backlog; (2) that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL
featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3)
that XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered
only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) that XL lacks the supply chain
and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 7, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company")
(NYSE:XL), formerly known as Pivotal Investment Corp. II
("Pivotal") (NYSE:PIC), on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired XL or PIC securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2,
2021 (the "Class Period").

XL Fleet investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/xl-fleet-corp/, for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.

On September 18, 2020, Pivotal, a publicly traded Special Purpose
Acquisition Company, announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement to merge with XL. According to the complaint,
in connection with the proposed transaction, Pivotal filed a
defective Registration Statement with the SEC which contained
numerous materially false and misleading statements about XL
Fleet's business, operations, and prospects. Following the filing
of the Registration Statement, shares of the Company's stock
increased in value to over $32.00 per share by December 23, 2020.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters published a report entitled "XL
Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report also alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Following this report, shares
of the Company's stock fell over 34% in value over the following
week, to close at $10.48 per share on March 8, 2020.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased XL Fleet's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. XL
Fleet nvestors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this
opportunity to actively participate in the action.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.[GN]



XL FLEET: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on March 31 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
XL Fleet Corp. ("XL" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) securities from
October 2, 2020 through March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until May 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to
be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled
"XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed
that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future
class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too
technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised
timeline." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by
$2.09 per share, or approximately 13%, to close at $13.86 per share
on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share
price continued to decline by $2.69 per share, or approximately
19.4%, over two consecutive trading days to close at $11.17 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (2) that at least 18 of the
33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an
order since 2019; (3) that XL's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) that XL
lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on
the announced timelines; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired XL securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

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

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

Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 31 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

XL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1
NEPT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/neptune-wellness-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1
VRM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vroom-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL)

XL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2020 -
March 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, XL Fleet
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured
to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported
sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL
featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3)
XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5%
to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL lacks the supply chain and
engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ:NEPT)

NEPT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 24, 2019 -
February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/neptune-wellness-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Neptune
Wellness Solutions Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the cost of
Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in the
SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had
acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital
reserves; (ii) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise
more capital; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRM)

VRM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 9, 2020 -
March 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vroom-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14244&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Vroom,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Vroom had not demonstrated that it was
able to control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to
meet the demand for its products; (2) as a result, the Company was
forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail
channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) as a result,
the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely to
decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of XL Fleet Corp. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=14805&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
Class Period: October 2, 2020 - March 2, 2021

Allegations against XL include that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33
customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an
order since 2019; (3) XL's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL
lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on
the announced timelines; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

XPO LOGISTICS: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 19, 2021, Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a transportation and
logistics company and certain of its executives. Labul, et al. v.
XPO Logistics, et al., No. 3:18-cv-2062 (SRU), slip op. (D. Conn.
Mar. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the company misrepresented
the extent to which it relied on a single customer to drive revenue
growth and the financial impact of declining business from that
customer. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege the existence of material misrepresentations, scienter, or
loss causation, and therefore dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various statements
regarding its revenue growth in the first quarter of 2018, which
were allegedly misleading because they omitted that the company's
largest customer "accounted for more than half" of total growth
during that time. Id. at 12-13. In addition, plaintiffs alleged
that, after that customer began withdrawing a portion of its
business, the company made misrepresentations by reaffirming its
financial targets, stating that there were "no material changes to
the risk factors previously disclosed," and by attributing
declining shipping volume to causes other than the decline in that
customer's business. Id. at 32-33.

With respect to the statements regarding revenue growth, the Court
held that plaintiffs' allegations regarding growth in 2017 and 2019
were insufficient to establish the portion of growth that the
customer contributed in the first quarter of 2018. Id. at 13.
Moreover, the Court determined that the alleged misstatements
concerning customer diversification and the contribution of
different business lines to revenue growth would not be rendered
misleading even if the largest customer had accounted for a large
portion of revenue growth. Id. at 14-15. The Court further held
that plaintiffs failed to establish that statements regarding the
company's financial targets and declining shipping volume were
false when made; the fact that one customer was withdrawing some
business was not enough, the Court held, to show that the company
would not meet its financial projections or that overall shipping
volume would decline. Id. at 34.

The Court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege
that the alleged omissions were material. The Court emphasized that
plaintiffs' allegations failed to quantify the extent of the
customer's contribution to revenue growth in the quarter in
question or the "scale of the alleged discontinuation" by the
customer, and there was no indication that the alleged
misrepresentation changed the underlying financials of the company.
Id. at 17-18, 39. Moreover, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the
materiality of the growth-related statements was shown by a
subsequent stock drop, the Court noted that the stock drop followed
an announcement that the customer had pulled back a portion of its
business, and that the "drop in stock price therefore does not
suggest that the disclosure of [the company's] alleged reliance on
[a single customer], without more, would have triggered a similar
market reaction." Id. at 18-19. While plaintiffs alleged that the
company ultimately "would be losing two-thirds of $900 million
projected business" from the customer, the Court observed that the
ultimate decrease in the company's overall revenue was only 3.7% in
2019, and the complaint did not "shed adequate light on the
likelihood of [the customer] pulling two-thirds of its business" at
the time of the challenged statement. Id. at 40. For the same
reasons, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument under Item 303 of
Regulation S-K—requiring the disclosure of "known trends or
uncertainties"—holding that plaintiffs failed to establish any
material omission or that defendants had "actual knowledge" of a
trend. Id. at 41-42.

The Court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
scienter. First, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegation that the
company had a motive to conceal its reliance on its largest
customer so as to inflate its stock price prior to pursuing an
acquisition of another company. Id. at 22. The Court explained that
this argument was speculative and that a "‘generalized desire' to
achieve a lucrative acquisition" is not the sort of "concrete
benefit" that can be used to infer scienter. Id. at 23-24. The
Court also rejected plaintiffs' attempt to establish scienter
through allegations of recklessness, concluding that plaintiffs'
allegations "may establish that [one executive] had a broad
understanding of [the company's] diversification levels, sources of
growth, and [the company's] largest customers," but did not
specifically address the customer's role in the company's growth.
Id. at 26-27. In addition, the Court explained that the fact that
one executive "had access to reports providing overall tonnage
numbers" was "irrelevant" because those numbers did not indicate
that a specific customer was reducing its business with the
company, and a statement that the company knew the customer "wasn't
going to stay . . . forever and ever" did not show that the
executive knew of specific plans for the customer to leave at the
time he made the challenged statements. Id. at 43-44.

With respect to the element of loss causation, the Court held that
plaintiffs' allegations relating to revenue growth were
insufficient because none of the alleged corrective disclosures
specifically mentioned the customer's role in generating the
company's growth. Id. at 29-30. The Court rejected the theory that
the losses alleged were a "foreseeable materialization of the risk
concealed," because plaintiffs had not quantified the extent to
which the omitted information contributed to the losses. Id. at 28,
30. The Court stated that for similar reasons plaintiffs failed to
allege loss causation with respect to their allegations relating to
the decline in business from the primary customer. Id. at 46.

Because the Court had previously permitted plaintiffs to replead,
the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Id. at 48. [GN]


XTO ENERGY: Cook Children's Sues Over Improper Royalty Fee Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------
COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION a/k/a W.I. COOK FOUNDATION, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-00141-JCB (E.D. Tex., April 13, 2021) seeks to remedy the
Defendant's systematic breach of express duties under the leases to
pay royalties to the Plaintiff and members of the Class for natural
gas "used off the lease."

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the gas royalty clause
requires royalty to be paid on gas, including casinghead gas, used
off the premises ("Off Lease Use of Gas" or "OLUG"). Gas is
typically used off the lease premises to power the equipment that
performs compression, dehydration, treatment, or processing
services, or to pay in-kind for off-lease services by allowing the
midstream service provider to keep all or part of the gas or its
constituents for later sale on its own account.

The Defendant allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of
royalty from the Plaintiff and the members of the Class by falsely
representing on the check stubs provided monthly to the Plaintiff
and the members of the Class that the Defendant was paying royalty
on the full volume and value of production from their wells, when
in fact, it was not.

XTO Energy, Inc. operates as an oil company. The Company acquires,
develops, and explores oil and gas properties, as well as offers
processing, marketing, and transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Drez III, Esq.
          Jacob T. Fain, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP
          100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-7788
          Facsimile: (817) 332-7789
          E-mail: david.drez@wickphillips.com
                  jacob.fain@wickphillips.com

               -and-

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 West 75 th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com


YOUTUBE INC: Musician Files Copyright Infringement Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Maxwell, writing for TorrentFreak, reports that Grammy
award-winning musician Maria Schneider wants a court to order
YouTube to hand over huge amounts of data relating to copyright
infringement on the platform. In summary, Schneider wants to
identify all users who had a takedown notice filed against their
account since 2015 to determine whether YouTube's repeat infringer
policies come up to scratch.

Last summer, Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider filed a
class action lawsuit against YouTube, claiming massive deficiencies
in its copyright enforcement measures.

Schneider claims that YouTube restricts access to its takedown
tools, profits from infringement, and fails to terminate repeat
infringers. Noting that 98% of YouTube copyright issues are
resolved with Content ID, Schneider says that YouTube has "entirely
insulated" huge numbers of users from its repeat infringer
policies.

"This two-tiered system essentially trains YouTube's billions of
uploading users that there is essentially minimal risk to uploading
to their hearts' content," the complaint reads.

As previously reported, Schneider was joined in the class action by
a company called Pirate Monitor, which alleged that many of its
copyrighted works appeared on YouTube in breach of copyright.
YouTube, however, claims that the company itself uploaded those
works before sending its own takedown notices.

Lawsuit Claims That Content ID Should Not Shield Repeat Infringers

Determined to show that YouTube's approach to copyright enforcement
is lacking, Schneider's legal team is demanding that the video
platform hands over information about infringement on the platform.
This should include information about actions carried out under
Content ID and following regular takedown notices.

"Both elements of this two-tiered system are relevant to the claims
here including because of their role in establishing whether
Defendants should be prohibited from taking advantage of safe
harbors against copyright liability granted by the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512 ('DMCA')," a
new filing from Schneider reads.

"Those safe harbors are not available absent 'a policy that
provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of'
uploaders 'who are repeat infringers'."

The issue of how Internet services deal with repeat infringers is a
thorny one that can lead to huge damages awards, as illustrated by
the $1 billion award in the RIAA's lawsuit against Cox
Communications. Schneider's lawsuit aims to show that YouTube is
negligent too, since infringements dealt with under Content ID do
not result in action against uploaders' accounts.

"Infringement caught by Content ID is excluded entirely.
Defendants' failure to assess penalties, including copyright
strikes and termination for these repeat infringers: (i) fails to
satisfy the reasonableness requirement to track and terminate
repeat infringers as required for the safe harbors; (ii) encourages
and incentivizes users to continue posting infringing content; and
(iii) creates the constructive (if not actual) knowledge of
infringement that is an independent basis to deny access to the
DMCA safe harbors," the filing reads.

Lawsuit Demands Massive Access to YouTube Infringement Records
To show the scale of infringement on YouTube (and YouTube's alleged
failure to properly deal with repeat infringers), Schneider is
demanding that YouTube hands over large amounts of data. Precisely
how large remains to be seen but describing the request as 'broad'
is likely to underestimate the request.

In summary, Schneider initially asked YouTube to provide copies of
every single takedown notice filed with the platform. That request
was rejected, with YouTube instead agreeing to only hand over
notices filed by the plaintiffs, claiming that beyond that would
amount to a huge burden, even if it had the information in a
deliverable format.

In what appears to be a counteroffer, Schneider narrowed her
demands - but not by much. She now wants YouTube to identify EVERY
person that has filed a copyright takedown notice since January 1,
2015. That information should include information such as dates,
the works allegedly infringed, and the URL of the targeted
content.

Schneider also wants the details of EVERY YouTube user targeted by
these takedown notices including their account names, email
addresses, and IP addresses used to upload the content targeted by
the notices.

Schneider further demands a full accounting by YouTube detailing
all steps taken to resolve every takedown notice, any evidence the
platform holds on registrations of copyright works listed in
notices, the outcome in every case, and whether YouTube still holds
copies of the works listed in notices.

YouTube Refuses to Play Ball
YouTube appears to be less than impressed with Schneider's demands.
Indeed, according to the April 2 filing, the Google-owned platform
is only prepared to hand over one month's worth of takedown notices
but according to Schneider, that "ignores the purpose and need of
this discovery and thus is not a meaningful compromise."

Indeed, in its responses to Schneider's requests for information,
YouTube describes the demands as "overly broad" and "unduly
burdensome" almost three dozen times. Whether the judge will agree
with that position remains to be seen. [GN]


[*] Ballard Spahr Attorney Discusses GAO Arbitration Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Levin, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that consumer advocates often contend that Congress should
prohibit arbitration agreements with class action waivers because
servicemembers and other consumers need class actions to effectuate
their statutory rights. However, a report issued by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to Congress last month contains data
that refutes that argument.

The GAO report studied the impact of mandatory arbitration
agreements on claims by servicemembers under the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The USERRA generally
provides protections for individuals who voluntarily or
involuntarily leave civilian employment to perform service in the
uniformed services. The SCRA generally provides protections for
servicemembers on active duty, including reservists and members of
the National Guard and Coast Guard called to active duty. In
particular, the GAO report examined (1) the effect that mandatory
arbitration has on servicemembers' ability to file claims under the
USERRA and the SCRA, and (2) the extent to which data are available
to determine the prevalence of mandatory arbitration clauses and
their effect on servicemembers claims.

The GAO report concluded that existing data was insufficient to
answer these specific questions definitively and that data on the
outcome of specific claims pursued through arbitration were
"limited." Nevertheless, the data that it did uncover shows that
servicemembers can effectuate their USERRA and SCRA rights in an
individual arbitration. The report discussed instances in which
arbitrations administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority "specifically enforced servicemembers' rights under
USERRA." In one case, the arbitrators awarded $172,000 to a
servicemember who pursued a USERRA claim against his employer. The
arbitrators also found the employer liable for the servicemember's
attorneys' fees and costs, totaling over $262,000, as well as the
costs of administering the arbitration, totaling more than $36,000.
In another case, the arbitrators ruled against a servicemember's
claim under the USERRA but assigned the costs of the arbitration to
the employer, specifically citing USERRA's protections against fees
and costs.

The GAO report also shows that arbitration clauses do not preclude
servicemembers from pursuing many USERRA and SCRA claims
administratively, without the need for class actions. The report
stated that "mandatory arbitration clauses have not prevented DOJ
[Department of Justice] from initiating lawsuits against employers
and other businesses under USERRA or SCRA" and that
"[s]ervicemembers may also seek administrative assistance from
federal agencies, and mandatory arbitration clauses have not
prevented agencies from providing that assistance." Indeed,
administrative remedies may benefit servicemembers even more than
class actions because any recovery by the DOJ is not diminished by
the 33% or more in attorneys' fees typically siphoned off by
private class counsel.

The report cites a case in which the DOJ filed a lawsuit against
and reached a settlement with a mortgage company, requiring it to
pay $2.35 million for allegedly foreclosing on the houses of 17
servicemembers without court orders in violation of the SCRA. It
also cited another case in which the DOJ reached a settlement with
an automobile lender in which the company agreed to pay $9.35
million for illegally repossessing over 1,100 vehicles in violation
of the SCRA. Moreover, according to the report, DOJ has filed 109
USERRA lawsuits and favorably resolved 200 USERRA complaints
through consent decrees or private settlements, and DOJ officials
said that none of the employers compelled a servicemember into
arbitration.

The effectiveness of these administrative remedies strongly
undercuts the argument of the plaintiffs' bar that class actions
are necessary to effectuate servicemembers' statutory rights. The
GAO report notes that in addition to the DOJ, the Department of
Defense and the Department of Labor also "often help informally
resolve claims for servicemembers by educating employers and
companies about servicemembers' rights," enabling the
servicemembers to avoid legal proceedings altogether.

The data in the GAO report strongly supports the industry's
positions that (1) individual arbitration is more beneficial than
class action litigation, and (2) administrative remedies can be
sufficient to protect consumers' statutory rights, without the need
for class actions. In its 2015 empirical study of consumer
arbitration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that
the consumer's average recovery in arbitration was $5,389. By
contrast, settlement class members received a mere $32.35, while
their lawyers recovered a staggering $424,495,451. Similarly, a
November 2020 study by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
found that consumers are more likely to win in arbitration than in
court, consumers receive higher awards in arbitration than in
litigation, and consumer arbitration is faster than litigation.

The GAO's preliminary data should be heeded by Congress as it
weighs possible legislative or regulatory measures that would
prohibit or restrict the use of class action waivers in consumer
arbitration and employment agreements. In considering such
measures, Congress should be mindful not to throw the baby out with
the bathwater. [GN]


[*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Arbitration, Waivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd D. Wozniak, Esq., Lindsey R. Camp, Esq., Chelsea Ashbrook
McCarthy, Esq., and Megan C. Eckel, Esq., of Holland & Knight,
report that courts have struggled through the years when
considering the enforceability of mandatory class action waivers
and arbitration provisions contained within Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plans and other
employment-related agreements. Courts have taken various approaches
in determining whether class action waivers and arbitration
provisions are enforceable in ERISA-based litigation. These
approaches are discussed below.

General Contract Principles
Recent district court decisions out of the Sixth and Seventh
Circuits have considered the issue as one of general contract
enforcement, engaging in an individualized state law analysis to
determine whether a plan participant can be compelled to arbitrate
his or her ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Lack of Consideration
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
recently denied a motion to compel arbitration of former plan
participants' breach of fiduciary duty claims when it determined
that the plan amendment adding a mandatory arbitration provision
was invalid because it lacked necessary consideration.

In Hensiek v. Board of Directors of Casino Queen Holding Co.,1
several former employees and participants in the company's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) filed a putative class action alleging
breach of fiduciary duty claims centered around two transactions:
1) the ESOP's alleged overpayment when it purchased company stock
from selling shareholders; and 2) the alleged sale of "virtually
all of" the company's real property to pay off debt owed to the
selling shareholders. Defendants moved to compel individual
arbitration based on an arbitration and class action waiver
provision contained in the plan document. In their motion to
compel, the defendants argued three main points: 1) the arbitration
amendment was validly adopted pursuant to the terms of the plan
that expressly reserved to the company the right to amend or
terminate the plan, 2) plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duties
claims fall within the scope of the plan's arbitration provisions
and 3) plaintiffs must bring their arbitration claims on an
individual basis given the class action waiver contained in the
plan amendment. Plaintiffs opposed the motion by arguing: a) the
defendants cannot compel arbitration of the ERISA claims because
Plaintiffs did not enter into a valid agreement to arbitrate, and
b) even if the parties agreed to arbitrate Plaintiffs' claims, the
arbitration amendment is unenforceable.

In considering the motion to compel arbitration, the court's
analysis largely focused on "whether the agreement to arbitrate
reflected in the amendment is enforceable under basic principles of
contract law." The district court applied principles of Illinois
contract law and determined that, because the plan amendment
containing the arbitration provision lacked 'necessary
consideration,' it was not a valid and enforceable contract
provision for the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act." The
district court's decision is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

Lack of Agreement between the ESOP and the Company
Two days after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois' decision in Hensiek, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel arbitration
because it found that there was no agreement between the ESOP and
the company to arbitrate plan disputes.

In Hawkins v. Cintas Corp.,2 Plaintiffs, former employees and
participants in the company's defined contribution retirement plan
brought claims individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated participants in the plan. They contended that the company
"breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by mismanaging
and failing to investigate and select better cost options for the
plan." Plaintiffs also alleged that the company "failed to monitor
the decision-making of the plan's committee groups and/or
individual fiduciaries." Based on an arbitration provision
contained in the plaintiffs' employment agreements, defendants
filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs argued that the motion to compel arbitration should be
denied because the action was filed on behalf of the plan, and
there is no arbitration agreement between the plan and the company.
In response, the company argued that because the plan is a defined
contribution plan with individual accounts, plaintiffs' claims are
inherently individualized. Because the claims are inherently
individualized, defendants argued that plaintiffs' employment
agreements mandating arbitration govern the dispute and, as such,
plaintiffs should be compelled to individually arbitrate their
claims.

Finding that the relief sought by plaintiffs was to benefit the
entire plan, and not their individual plan accounts, the court
analyzed whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between
the plan and the company. Because the company presented "no
evidence that a Plan document existed binding the Plan to
arbitration[,]" the court held that there was "no valid agreement
between the Plan and the [company] consenting to an arbitrable
forum." Based on this analysis, the court denied defendants' motion
to compel.

Plan Consent
Other courts have relied on the language of the plan documents and
other employment-related documents to determine whether or not a
class action waiver and/or arbitration provision can be enforced
against a plan participant. Under this quasi-unilateral contract
theory approach, if the plan contains an arbitration provision
and/or class action waiver, some courts have concluded that
plaintiffs must arbitrate their ERISA claims on an individual basis
because the plan has consented to arbitration of ERISA claims.

Recently, in 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
concluded in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.3 that both the
participant and the plan were bound by the plan's arbitration
provision requiring that all ERISA fiduciary claims be arbitrated
on an individual basis. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the
plan terms require individual arbitration, the plan had consented
to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit did not view the issue as one
requiring additional consideration or negotiation, and instead
found that "[a] plan participant agrees to be bound by a provision
in the plan document when he participates in the plan while the
provision is in effect."

Consistent with that approach, the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Texas recently rejected the plaintiffs' argument that
the plan amendment at issue, which added venue and arbitration
provisions, required consideration.4 In Coleman v. Brozen, the
court noted that "[n]ot only do Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that
the Plan allows [the plan sponsor] to amend or terminate it any
time, but as a general rule, ERISA plan administrators, including
employers or other plan sponsors, have the right at any time to
freely adopt, modify, or terminate pension benefit plans[.]"
Because of this, the court stated that "[the plan sponsor] was
therefore free to amend or modify the Plan at any time, and it was
not obligated to seek Plaintiffs' assent, negotiate with
Plaintiffs, or furnish Plaintiffs consideration for the same[.]"
Accordingly, the court enforced the venue provision against the
plan participants.

Consistent with ERISA
In dicta, courts also have questioned whether plan arbitration
provisions that include class action waivers are fully consistent
with ERISA. For instance, in Hensiek, the court noted that cases
cited by defendants in their motion to compel arbitration "reflect
an evolution of thought towards allowing contracted-for
alternatives to dispute resolution." The court went on to identify
two reasons for this shift: 1) "the recognition that arbitration is
not necessarily inadequate to protect substantive rights of the
parties to the agreement to arbitrate[;]" and 2) "[t]he preeminent
concern of Congress in passing the Act was to enforce private
agreements into which parties had entered, and that concern
requires that we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate, even
if the result is 'piecemeal' litigation, at least absent a
countervailing policy manifested in another federal statute." The
court, however, stopped "short of making the declaration that the
statutory ERISA claims raised in Plaintiffs' Complaint are
arbitrable[.]" As discussed above, the court concentrated its
enforceability analysis on basic principles of contract law.

More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
concluded that ERISA fiduciary claims did not fall within the scope
of an arbitration provision contained in an employee handbook. In
Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb, Inc., a divided Court held that
an arbitration agreement contained in the employee handbook of the
individual's employer and plan sponsor did not encompass the ERISA
breach of fiduciary duty claims at issue in the lawsuit. The
arbitration provision in the employee handbook that the plaintiff
signed mandated arbitration of "all legal claims arising out of or
relating to employment, application for employment, or termination
of employment." The dispute in the case largely focused on whether
the "relating to employment" language was broad enough to include
the ERISA fiduciary claims at issue. Ultimately, the Second Circuit
concluded that it was not. To support its conclusion, the majority
stated, in dicta, that reading the arbitration agreement to
encompass the ERISA fiduciary duty claims could be in tension with
the Second Circuit's 2006 precedent requiring parties suing on
behalf of an ERISA plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) to
demonstrate their adequacy as a plan representative. The Court
reasoned that requiring individual arbitration may not be
consistent with this plan representative requirement. The Court's
dicta discussion, however, failed to address the intervening 2008
U.S. Supreme Court decision in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &
Associates, Inc., which concluded that in the context of a defined
contribution plan, participants can sue for breach of fiduciary
solely on behalf of their individual plan account. As such, it is
unlikely that the dicta will gain traction in future disputes
involving the propriety of compelling individual arbitration of
ERISA claims.

A current appeal pending in the Seventh Circuit from a decision
issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois also tees up the issue as to whether compelling individual
arbitration is consistent with ERISA. The appeal follows the
district court's denial of defendants' motion to compel arbitration
in a case involving the Triad Manufacturing ESOP. In the appeal,
Triad Manufacturing Co.'s Board of Directors (the Board) argued,
among other things, that "[a]s federal statutes 'touching on the
same topic,' ERISA and the FAA can and should be read in concert,"
and thus allow arbitration clauses in retirement plan documents.
The issue of whether an arbitration provision and class action
waiver is consistent with ERISA was the focus of the oral argument
at the end of March. During oral argument in front of the Seventh
Circuit panel, counsel for the Board argued that it is the plan's
consent to the arbitration provision and class action waiver that
is relevant - not the individual participant's consent.
Additionally, in response to questioning by the Seventh Circuit
panel, counsel for the Board argued that compelling individual
arbitration would not preclude a plan participant from obtaining
any equitable relief that would be available under ERISA, including
removal of a plan fiduciary. A ruling on the appeal is expected
later in 2021.

Key Considerations
Without clear direction from the Supreme Court or legislative
action, district courts and circuit courts of appeal will continue
to create uncertainty around the enforceability of class action
waivers and/or arbitration provisions in plan and other
employment-related documents in ERISA-based litigation. The
decisions discussed above, however, do provide a roadmap of
critical issues for plan sponsors to consider and to discuss with
ERISA counsel.

Holland & Knight's ERISA litigators have significant experience
advising plan sponsors regarding the pros and cons of including
arbitration provisions and class action waivers in plan documents
and other employment-related documents. They can help identify best
practices to increase the likelihood that those provisions will be
enforceable.

If you have any questions regarding the court's decision or ERISA,
please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's
ERISA Litigation Team. [GN]


[*] MinterEllisonRuddWatts Discusses Opt-in, Opt-Out Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Gordon, Esq., and Ben Stewart of MinterEllisonRuddWatts,
report that how a class of litigants is established has
implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in a dispute. This
article examines the distinction between whether a class action is
"opt-in" or "opt-out" and discusses the commercial implications
arising from each.

New Zealand does not have a detailed framework that governs the
procedural aspects of a class action. However, the issue is
currently being examined by the New Zealand Law Commission, and the
Rules Committee has been developing additional rules to clarify the
procedure for bringing a class action under the existing High Court
Rule (HCR) 4.24.

Currently, HCR 4.24 provides the legal basis for class actions in
New Zealand. It allows a plaintiff to sue "on behalf of, or for the
benefit of, all persons with the same interest in the subject
matter of a proceeding". Broadly, a plaintiff brings proceedings as
a representative of a "class" of other plaintiffs who have the same
or similar interests against a common defendant. A class action
allows claims to be grouped together and heard in the same trial,
creating significant cost savings for plaintiffs (as opposed to
each plaintiff incurring the costs of bringing a separate claim).
For a defendant in a class action, the establishment of a class
action means that they will only face one claim from a class of
plaintiffs, but that claim will likely be in respect of a
substantially higher exposure in terms of quantum.

Difference between opt-in and opt-out class actions
A key issue is the procedure by which a "class" of litigants is
established. An opt-in class action requires potential class
members to take active steps to join the proceeding before they can
form part of the class and benefit from any successful claim.
Typically, an opt-in class is established in a "bookbuild" process
by issuing a notice to all members of the class that outlines the
claim, the expected costs and the process by which an individual
plaintiff can indicate their intention to join the class. Often
this will involve completing a registration form which is available
on the website of a law firm acting for the plaintiffs.

By comparison, an opt-out class action presumes eligible plaintiffs
are part of the class by default, unless they take active steps to
indicate otherwise. This distinction has significant implications
for both plaintiffs and defendants. For plaintiffs, the most
significant implication of inclusion in the class is that they are
bound by the decision in that case and cannot relitigate the claim
in an individual proceeding. For defendants, opt-out class actions
could often mean there is a larger exposure in terms of quantum
than if they were facing an opt-in claim.

New Zealand's legal position
HCR 4.24 was inherited from historical English Judicature Acts of
1878 and 1879 (Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875 (UK)) and was not
intended as a mechanism for the type of class actions that we have
seen before the courts in recent times. However, the courts have
demonstrated a willingness to develop the law to meet modern
requirements (Andrew Beck and others McGechan on Procedure (online
looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR4.24.01]). The courts have
taken a broad interpretation of the phrase "same interest," in HCR
4.24, and have said that such an interpretation is consistent with
the purpose of the HCRs: to ensure just, speedy and inexpensive
determinations of proceedings (HCR 1.2).

A consequence of not having a specific procedural framework for
class actions is that there can be an increase in procedural points
being raised at the interlocutory stage of proceedings. This can
add significant delay and costs to litigation for the plaintiffs,
which may discourage claimants from initiating a claim entirely.

The recent New Zealand Supreme Court decision in Southern Response
v Ross [2020] NZSC 126 upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that a
class action under HCR 4.24 would, in some cases, be better served
by adopting an opt-out approach (Southern Response v Ross [2020]
NZSC 126 at [108]). The Court indicated that the plaintiff's
preferred procedure should be adopted unless there is "good reason"
not to do so (at [95]). In practice, it is likely that most lead
plaintiffs would prefer an opt-out class action. When considering
the appropriateness of the class type, the Supreme Court said that
regard must be given to the class size and whether there is a
"pre-existing connection" between the claimants that would make an
opt-in class more practical (at [98]). In making these comments the
Court indicated that opt-in class actions may create "unnecessary
hurdles" for class members to access justice (at [60]). The Court
stated that it is important not to underestimate the effects of
"human inertia", even when it is clearly in the interest of a
potential class member to opt-in to the proceeding (at [40]).

On the other hand, opt-out class actions pose a potential
"free-rider" problem which can arise where class members benefit
financially from litigation, without contributing to the legal
costs that are incurred by the lead plaintiff. Effectively, free
riders benefit from the litigation without paying for it,
potentially forming a group of thousands of class members that are
unknown to the lead plaintiff. It has been argued that this problem
can be minimised by the presence of a third-party litigation
funder, or seeking a common fund order, where a contribution to
legal costs is deducted from any judgment in favour of the
plaintiff class (the Supreme Court in Ross referred to a common
fund order as a mechanism in which costs are deducted from awards
made to class members at the outset).

An application for a common fund order would likely be made under
HCR 14.1, although this has not yet been tested by the Courts.
Prior to the Supreme Court judgment in Southern Response, in the
Feltex litigation the High Court resisted the argument that class
actions could be opt-out under HCR 4.24 (Houghton v Saunders (2008)
19 PRNZ 173 (HC) at [165]­). However, when considering opt out
class actions, the Supreme Court in Ross examined the historic use
of representative claims in New Zealand by iwi or hapū that
brought claims against the Crown, where a single chief would
represent the entire class of plaintiffs, for example in Te Heuheu
Tukino v Aotea District Māori Land Board and Te Heuheu Tukino v
Aotea District Māori Land Board [1941] NZLR 590 (PC)) (Southern
Response v Ross at [27]).

What about litigation funding?
The increase in class actions in New Zealand has been coupled with
the rise in the number of cases involving litigation funders, both
based in New Zealand and offshore. Generally, litigation funders
pay the costs of proceedings, and bear the cost risk, in exchange
for a percentage of the compensation paid to the class either in
settlement or upon a successful outcome. For ordinary consumers
looking to bring a class action, litigation funding can assist in
providing access to justice because individual claims are often
uneconomic to bring in isolation, and commercial defendants are
often able to draw on significant resources, including under
insurance policies, to fund litigation. Consequently, litigation
funders have an important role to play in providing access to
justice. In recent years, we have seen several construction
materials class action claims in the High Court funded by
international litigation funders. For example, White v James
Hardie, a cladding products case, is being funded by London-based
Harbour Litigation Funding and a class action in respect of
combustible cladding (Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus) is being
funded by Omni Bridgeway.

The increasing number of class actions and claims funded by third
parties has led to a Law Commission review of the existing system
that began in mid-2019. The review is focussed on the extent the
law should allow class actions (if at all) and the regulation of
such actions - including the scope, criteria and definition of a
class and the management of proceedings, damages and costs (Law
Commission Issues Paper 45: Class Actions and Litigation Funding
(Wellington, 2020) at 375). In its recent consultation document,
released on 4 December 2020, the Law Commission has taken the
preliminary view that a new procedural regime would be beneficial
and indicated that they are generally in favour of litigation
funding. Once public submissions close in March 2021, the Law
Commission has stated that it will develop substantive policy
recommendations for the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Andrew
Little, to present in the first half of 2021.

Key points
Whilst we await the outcome of the Law Commission's review, the
Supreme Court decision in Southern Response gives a clear direction
that opt-out class actions are likely to remain part of the legal
landscape in New Zealand. The Southern Response decision is likely
to have significant commercial consequences, including the
continued rise of consumer class actions. The Supreme Court
decision suggests that future class actions will result in much
larger classes which, in turn, will likely result in an increase in
quantum. Consequently, it is possible that both the frequency and
size (both number of members and quantum of damages) of class
actions will increase in the future.

There are three key points that commercial parties should be aware
of in respect of a class action:

Class actions are becoming increasingly common, including product
liability claims by consumers against manufacturers in the
construction industry.

The Supreme Court held that a court should adopt the plaintiff's
preferred procedure for class establishment, be it opt-out or
otherwise, unless there is good reason not to do so. This is likely
to lead to more applications to commence opt-out class actions and
potentially lead to defendants facing a significantly higher
quantum due to the larger number of plaintiffs within the class.

The Law Commission will report back to the Ministry of Justice in
2021, which may lead to the development of a tailored procedural
regime to manage class actions and litigation funding. This would
provide greater certainty to potential litigants evaluating the
merits of initiating a class action. [GN]


[*] Mintz Discusses Click-Through, URL Terms Enforceability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Civetta, Esq., and Kati Pajak Strzelczyk, Esq., of Mintz, in
an article for Mondaq, report that "If we attach our terms, they'll
want to negotiate. Let's just link to them instead." Every lawyer
has worked with clients who want to shorten the sales cycle, reduce
the friction of acquiring new users, and minimize negotiation of
terms and conditions. But while it is critical to keep these
business goals top of mind in designing a contracting process, it
is equally critical to ensure that your terms will actually be
enforceable if you ever find yourself in court.

As we often tell our clients, the enforceability of a contract is
not a matter of degree: whether or not you have a binding contract
is a binary test -- you have either formed a contract, or you have
not. The real question is, how likely is it that a court will agree
that you have actually formed a contract? That analysis is
fact-driven and will have practical implications for how you go
about presenting your terms to your customers and securing their
consent.

Using Linked Terms to Bind Customers Through a Digital Interface
If you are selling an app or a browser-accessed subscription
service, you will have to decide "how much is enough?" when it
comes to getting your customers to agree to your terms. Should your
customers be forced to scroll through the terms? Click a box? Click
two boxes? Or should you drop a link in your footer and hope for
the best?

These decisions will impact your business -- courts may pay very
careful attention to what you do and how you do it when deciding
whether your terms bind users.

A recent Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision in Massachusetts
regarding Uber's app terms, which follows a 2018 First Circuit case
on the same subject, proposes a two-pronged test for determining
whether a contract has been formed: (1) whether there is reasonable
notice of the terms, and (2) whether there is a reasonable
manifestation of assent to those terms.1 The SJC concluded Uber's
process failed both prongs, citing deficiencies in how and when the
terms were presented to users, the fact that users were not
required to actually click on or scroll through Uber's terms at all
(which, the court noted, was different than the process Uber used
for securing its drivers' assent for the driver terms and
conditions), and the misleading title of the page on which the
terms appeared, to name a few.

When designing a digital contracting process, the questions you
must ask are: how will I demonstrate the customer had reasonable
notice of these terms, and how will I show the customer's
reasonable manifestation of assent to these terms?

Reasonable Notice. Drafters should establish a stand-alone section
of the sign-up or registration process where the customer can
clearly see that an agreement to the terms is required to continue.
This step should include a title that references the terms, should
give the customer a simple way of accessing the terms and should
encourage the customer to review the terms before assenting. Some
courts have found that a user may be bound by terms without having
actually read or navigated to the relevant webpage,2 as long as it
is clear that consent to the terms is required, and the user has
the ability to access the terms (even if that consumer did not open
the link to the terms).

Manifestation of Assent. Clicking through an acceptance prompt is
the most common way to establish user assent to standard terms. In
the recent SJC decision, the court described how Uber muddied the
waters as to what the user accepted because "the statement
explaining the connection between creating the account and agreeing
to the terms, which would encourage opening and reviewing the
terms, was displayed less prominently than the other information on
the screen." There, the title of the page and the text on the
acceptance button focused the user on linking payment and
establishing an account, and not on accepting legal terms. Uber
could have established a clear manifestation of consent from the
user if it provided a dedicated "acceptance" button or checkbox.

Using Linked Terms to Bind Customers in a Signed Document
Where your product relies on an order form or other non-electronic
document that is inked by a customer, incorporating contractual
terms from a webpage by reference may be enforceable if:

1. The parties' intent to incorporate the external website is
clear. It may not be enough for a contract to state the company's
terms are "found at" a particular webpage,5 or that it is "subject
to" the terms located on a particular webpage,6 because courts have
held that such language lacks the parties' specific intent to
incorporate the terms found at the URL into the underlying contract
between the parties. Instead, drafters should use a clear "entire
agreement"-style clause7 that explicitly incorporates the terms
into the contract the customer is signing,8 or a clause stating
that, by signing the contract, the user certifies that it has read
and agreed to the terms set forth at the URL, or both.

2. The incorporated terms are clearly contained within the
referenced URL and labeled appropriately. If a contract links to a
general webpage ending in "/legal/", you cannot rely on terms that
may be posted to other URLs from the same root unless the contract
specifically references those terms by URL and by name.10 For
example, if you properly incorporate your Terms of Service by
reference to the URL "yourcompany.com/legal/terms," that is not
sufficient on its own to bind customers to your Acceptable Use
Policy at "yourcompany.com/legal/AUP" unless you have separately
referenced and incorporated that document into your contract.
Drafters should take care to refer to the referenced terms using
the exact same title as the referenced webpage, and if the name or
webpage may change over time, the contract language should also
contain a phrase such as "the Terms of Service posted at URL, or
successor website" (emphasis added).

Bonus Topic - How Do I Update My Standard Terms?
Businesses change, as do best practices in contracting, and clients
always want to know how to update their online terms. The answer is
twofold: (1) build an update mechanism into your terms from the
get-go and (2) when in doubt, require your users to click again.

1. Build in mechanisms from the get-go. Merely posting revised
terms online will not bind users to them.12 Instead, you must
actually notify users of changes in writing. However, the type of
notice can be established by the original contract language. For
example, your Terms of Service may state that "these terms may
change at any time upon written notice to you."13 and may provide
that notices may be sent via email. This way, you can notify users
by email that updated terms will be in effect as of a particular
date, and their continued use of the service after that date
constitutes acceptance of those modified terms. While a court may
find that simply posting a new Terms of Service and changing the
"last updated" date can be sufficient to bind users if the original
contract language of your Terms of Service described that as the
update mechanism, drafters should consider the many ways in which
such a mechanism could be vulnerable to counterarguments by an
aggrieved user.

2. When in doubt, re-consent. Particularly if there is a material
update to your terms (for example, if you add a forced arbitration
clause, or a class action waiver), the chances of enforceability
will increase if you require users to re-accept your terms the next
time they log in.

If you do update your terms over time, keep a record of each update
and when it was enacted (in addition to records as to which users
had accepted or been given notice of each new version and when).
This is because, when analyzing the enforceability of terms, courts
will look to the terms that were validly incorporated in the
contract at the point in time where enforcement is sought. A record
of time stamped, historical changes to online terms -- alongside
the notices sent to consumers of the changes -- will help a company
show the terms that were in effect at the relevant time. One court
held that a printout of the terms that were time stamped years
after the relevant events is insufficient to demonstrate they were
in effect at the time of the relevant events. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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 ***