/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210517.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 17, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 92

                            Headlines

ACCESS ONE: Fabrikant Files TCPA Suit in District of Nebraska
AGASSI GOPCHANG: Ma Sues to Recover Penalties Under the Labor Code
ALCHEMER LLC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Norman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Woods Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeals Denial of Bid to Junk CCERF Class Suit
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Tossed
ALPHA RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTA SERVICES: Faces Barajas Suit for Wrongful Termination
AMIGO INSURANCE: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Sick Leave Pay

ANDREW CUOMO: NY State Correctional Sues Over Dangerous Conditions
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Seeks Class Certification
AQUA METALS: Court Junks California Securities Class Action
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ASSETCARE LLC: Herman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

AXOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Pending
AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending
BACON FREAK: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAKER PLACES: Acree Files Suit in California Superior Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Marangopoulos Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice

BAXTER INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 10
BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal Filed from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
BEACON HEALTH: Alvarez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEST EXPRESS: Valenzuela Files Suit in California Superior Court
BIZRINGER INC: Potter TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOONE LOGISTICS: Faces Butts Suit for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BOYD SPECIALTIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits

BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
CALIFORNIA SECURITY: Zervos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CAPITAL BUILDING: $325K Class Settlement in Moreno Wins Prelim Nod
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Compelled to Produce Docs in Harper Suit

CITIBANK N.A.: Abel Files Suit in Central District of California
CLIENT SERVICES: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CLUTCH INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CM DIGITAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTO INC: Marshall Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mahoney Seeks to Certify Class of Analysts
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Kirk Suit Granted Final Approval
COMPUTER CREDIT: Herman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONCHO RESOURCES: Corral Sues to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages

CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Alfonso Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
COUNTRY LIFE: Gunaratna Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lavone Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CREDIT CONTROL: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown's First Amended ERISA Class Suit Dismissed
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Int'l Brotherhood Seeks to Certify Class Action
DESERT FINANCIAL: Cornell Files Suit in District of Arizona
DISH NETWORK: Trial in Stockholder Suit vs Ergen to Start Sept. 7
DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Donnelly Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit From Wages

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ECA MARKETING: Odom Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
ECHO GLOBAL: Facing Labor Related Class Action
EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE: Failed to Secure PII and PHI, Ta Suit Says
ERBAVIVA INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ERIC STEINMETZ: Brinker Files Appeal Related to Data Breach Suit
EVERLY WELL: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Approval of Settlement in BIPA-Related Suit Appealed
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Initial OK
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway

FEATHER HOME: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Unlawfully Disclosed Debt Info, Seffar Says
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Ofiteru Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
FIRST MOTOR: Underpays Public Service Advisors, Garcia Suit Claims
FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

FORBIDDEN PLANET: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FORESTERS LIFE: Siino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation
FREDDIE MAC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal on Denial of Class Cert. Bid
FRESENIUS USA: Fenske Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California

GATA PACK: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GC SERVICES: Daye Removed from State Ct. to New Jersey Fed. Ct.
GIANT GUMMY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GILBANE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Top Shelf Suit Over Unpaid Work
GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Sues Over Air Clean Products' False Claims

GLOBAL RESPONSE: Faces Rivera Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
GOOD HOPE RESTAURANT: Thorne Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Akers Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
GREAT WOLF: Hart Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
HOLLYWOOD MODEL: Tataryn Seeks to Unpaid Wages, OT Under Labor Code

HOME DEPOT: Wiretaps Website Users, Fridman Class Suit Says
HSIN TUNG: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Marche Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
INDEPENDENT BANK: Summary Judgment Bid in BOH Merger Suit Pending
INSCRIPTGRAPHS LLC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

J & F DESIGN: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Underway
JUST BORN: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June

KINDER MORGAN: Hamelin Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
LC CHIROPRACTIC: Faces Hindi Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Becerra Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.
LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hufford Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Pusha Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas

LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Ruffin Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
LETSGETCHECKED INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Complaint Still Not Served
LOS CAFETALES: Faces Morales Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
MACROGENICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Hill Securities Class Suit Pending

MAIDEN HOME: Faces Olsen Suit in Southern District of New York
MARVEL WORLDWIDE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Over OK'd Damage Class Settlement Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Class Status Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shift Fraud Liability Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Parties Directed to Re-brief Class Cert. Bid
MASTERCARD INC: Settlement in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Final
MATERION CORP: Lucyk Wage and Hour Purported Class Suit Underway
MATTEL INC: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class of Investors
MATTEL INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MAZDA MOTORS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Guthrie Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Cars Have Defective AHR System, Suit Alleges
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Cleven Suit
MIRAMED REVENUE: Hodge Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

MLR SOLUTIONS: Ellis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MOTOR TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE : Faces Kio FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Underway
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit

OAKLAND, CA: APTP  Seeks to Certify Class of Demonstrators
ONCHAIN LABS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORCHARD YARN: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PBF ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Claims for Nuisance & Trespass Pending
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Poston Suit Removed to C.D. California

PENSKE MEDIA: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PG&E CORP: Dismissal of PSPS Suit Under Appeal
PG&E CORP: Securities Class Suits Enjoined Pursuant to Ch. 11 Plan
PG&E CORP: Seeks Sept. 7 Final Approval Hearing on Vataj Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Felberbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PHYSICIANS DIAGNOSTIC: Faces Vong Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
PILOT TRAVEL: Perales Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PLATINUM ADVERTISING: McWilliams Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
PLUM INC: Smith Sues Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food Items

POWER DOT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces Fraga Suit Over Merchandisers' Unpaid Wages
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Rozo
PRIVATE STOCK: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Tennenbaum Sues Over Exchange Act Breach

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Theodore Sues Over Misleading Statements
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Seeks to Exclude Portions of Sharp Witness Report
REPRO MED: Pavlick Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Hanscom Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
RICHMOND, VA: Count I in Fobbs v. RCJC Dismissed Without Prejudice

RIGHT STUF: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALVATION ARMY: Spillman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Nese Suit Removed to C.D. California
SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing

SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
SLIM DELI: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Grill Workers' Unpaid Wages
SONY INTERACTIVE: Monopolizes PlayStation Market, Cendejas Alleges
SOUTH VALLEY: Cabrera Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Faces Sickler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Connelly Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
STEVE KEMPER: Murray Contract Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
STYLEME LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUNSELECT PRODUCE: Faces Garay Employment Suit in California
SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & SubClasses

SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
T ROWE PRICE: Trial in 401(k) Plan Related Suit Set for September
TABCOM LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Faces Belluccia FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRUWEST CREDIT: Virgin Files FLSA Suit in District of Arizona
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Court Adjourns Meyer Suit
UNITED PARCEL: John Files Suit in California Superior Court
VERTICAL SCREEN: Garcia Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
VISA INC: Class Certification Bid in Interchange MDL Pending

VISA INC: Faces Lanning Initiated Purported Class Action
W.B. MASON: Feria NJWPL Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Court Dismisses Cafe Class Suit With Prejudice
WHEELABRATOR SAUGUS: Sweetland Sues Over Incinerator's Emissions
WHITSONS RESOURCE: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

WILLIS TOWERS: Settlements in Merger Related Suits Gets Initial OK
WINE CHATEAU: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WINEACCESS INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Ward Sues Over Excessive Unearned Fee
ZOCALO FOODS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA: Park Place Sues Over Breach of Contract
ZYNGA INC: Oeste Class Suit Moved From D. Md. to N.D. Calif.

                            *********

ACCESS ONE: Fabrikant Files TCPA Suit in District of Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Access One Consumer
Health, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ben Fabrikant,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Access One Consumer Health, Inc., a Florida corporation; National
Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Multiplan,
Inc., a New York corporation; Case No. 4:21-cv-03095 (D. Neb., May
7, 2021).

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

Access One Consumer Health, Inc. -- http://www.accessonedmpo.com/
-- operates as a licensed discount medical plan organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 South Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Fax: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


AGASSI GOPCHANG: Ma Sues to Recover Penalties Under the Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoon Ma, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved employees v.
Agassi Gopchang, LLC, Case No. 21STCV17567 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los
Angeles Cty., May 10, 2021), is brought against Defendant to
recover penalties under the Labor Code and in the California
Industrial Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage Orders regulating
wages, hours, and working conditions.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff did not receive all
minimum wages due, was underpaid overtime wages due, was underpaid
because of the Defendant's failure to separately compensate for
missed 30-minute meal periods, was underpaid because of Defendant's
failure to separately compensate for missed ten minute rest
periods, was not issued accurate itemized wage statements, and did
not receive all wages due at the termination of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.

The Defendant is a California limited liability company with a
principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Briana M. Kim, Esq.
          BRIANA KIM, PC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (714) 482-6301
          Facsimile: (714) 482-6302
          Email: briana@brianakim.com


ALCHEMER LLC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alchemer LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alchemer LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04191
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Alchemer -- https://www.alchemer.com/ -- (formerly SurveyGizmo)
provides an integrated feedback management platform that enables
businesses of all sizes to collect and act on feedback to find,
get, and keep the best customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Norman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied International
Credit Corp., et al. The case is styled as James Norman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Allied International Credit Corp., John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:21-cv-60989-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2021).

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

Allied International Credit Corporation of United States --
https://www.aiccorp.com/ -- operates as an adjustment and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Woods Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Altheia Woods, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02302 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2021), is brought
against Defendant to stop the it from directing its agents to
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
pre-recorded and other telemarketing calls to consumers without
their consent, including pre-recorded telemarketing calls to
consumers who expressly requested for the calls to stop.

According to the complaint, in order to generate sales and generate
consumer leads for its salespeople, Allstate contracts with
third-party lead generators. These third-party lead generators
place unsolicited calls to consumers, including calls that use a
pre-recorded voice message system. The Plaintiff received a few
pre-recorded calls regarding automotive insurance at the beginning
of January, 2021. During these calls, the Plaintiff noted that she
was interacting with pre-recorded agents who were programmed to
respond to certain things the Plaintiff said. The Plaintiff asked
for the calls to stop, but the agent would simply hang-up.

The Plaintiff provided answers to a pre-recorded agent that
responded to her prompts, enabling the Plaintiff to be transferred
to a live agent so that she could identify who was behind these
pre-recorded calls. The Plaintiff was transferred to an agent who
said she works for Allstate. The Plaintiff told the agent that her
phone number is on the do not call registry, making it clear that
she did not want to receive calls from or on behalf of Allstate.
The Plaintiff then told the agent that she was recording the call.
The agent said that she would hang up, since the Plaintiff was
recording the call and then proceeded to hang-up. Despite the fact
that Plaintiff told the Allstate agent that her phone number is on
the do not call list, Plaintiff received a call to her cell phone
directly from Allstate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Marshall, Missouri.

Allstate provides insurance to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main St., 201A
          Evanston, IL 60202
          Phone: (773) 741-3602
          Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeals Denial of Bid to Junk CCERF Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the
district court's denial of its motion to dismiss the purported
securities class action suit initiated by the Chester County
Employees Retirement Fund, is pending.

On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
its November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County. On November 7, 2019,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or the New York Complaint.

The New York Complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of
those who purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to our November 14, 2017 public stock offering. The New
York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the results of the company's
APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of partisan.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019.

On November 2, 2020, the Court entered a Decision and Order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss.

In November 2020, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for the First Department.

Defendants' appeal was fully briefed in March 2021, and the
Appellate Division heard oral argument on April 7, 2021.
Defendants' appeal remains pending.

Alnylam said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the New
York Complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
this action will be ongoing or the liabilities, if any, which may
arise therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Court denied
plaintiff Caryl Hull Leavitt's motion seeking leave to file a
further amended complaint.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint.

In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
named as defendants certain of the company's other executive
officers, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20,
2017 and September 12, 2018 and sought to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019.

On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. Pursuant to a prior
Order of the Court, on June 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion
seeking leave to file a further amended complaint.

That motion was fully briefed on June 22, 2020. By Memorandum &
Order dated March 12, 2021, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALPHA RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as Eric R. Ford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Case No.
2:21-cv-02587 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

Alpha Recovery Corporation -- https://www.alpharecoverycorp.com/ --
is based in Colorado and operates nationwide as a third-party debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTA SERVICES: Faces Barajas Suit for Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Barajas, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. Alta Services Inc., a California Corporation; Alta
Services, Inc. dba Alta Contracting, a California Corporation; Alta
Construction Incorporated, a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13260 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
7, 2021) seeks to recover compensatory damages, including lost
wages, earnings, benefits, and other compensation, as well as
damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering.

Alta Services Inc. was founded in 1997. The company's line of
business includes the construction of nonresidential buildings. The
Defendants hired the Plaintiff in the position of Level II
Demolition, working from September 20, 2019 to his date of
termination on April 6, 2020.

In January 2020, three months before Plaintiffs termination,
Plaintiff complained to his Foreman, Fernando Doe, about safety
concerns.  He complained about potentially being exposed to
COVID-19 sometime in January 2020 when he was sent to a job site in
Irvine, California.  The Defendants knew that the job site had
COVID-19 positive residents.  When the Plaintiff found out about
the COVID-19 positive residents, he complained about the
Defendants' negligence in informing him about the COVID-19 positive
residents at the job site where Plaintiff would be working.
Approximately three months after said complaint, Plaintiff was
fired.

The complaint states that the Defendants terminated the Plaintiff
for pretextual reasons, when in reality, Plaintiff's complaints
about, among other things, health and safety issues, were
substantial motivating factors in Defendants' decision to terminate
Plaintiff's employment.

On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff was informed that he was terminated
as a result of allegedly "violating company policy" for asking to
keep certain materials.  The Plaintiff was falsely accused of
asking to keep the materials, when Plaintiff only asked if the
materials were "trash."  The Plaintiff neither disposed of company
property nor asked to keep any materials, the complaint says.

The complaint further states that the Defendants informed the
Plaintiff that they did not grant him his health care benefits,
even after his 90-day probation period, because Plaintiff
purportedly "declined" said benefits.  The Plaintiff asserts that
he did not decline the privilege of receiving health care benefits;
in fact, shortly after Plaintiff completed his 90-day probation, he
inquired to Human Resources if he would receive the promised pay
raise and health care benefits, but to no avail.

The complaint alleges that Defendants refused to grant the
Plaintiff his pay raise and health care benefits that were promised
to him at the onset of his employment.  Plaintiff complained about
issues regarding his pay and health insurance to Human Resources
representative, Maria Ochoa, but to no avail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          S. Sean Shahabi, Esq.
          Alexander K. Spellman, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail:service@jlglawyers.com
                 michael@jlglawyers.com
                 sean@jlglawyers.com
                 alexander@ jlglawyers.com

AMIGO INSURANCE: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Sick Leave Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMIGO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. and CARLOS
SANTIAGO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02486 (N.D. Ill., May 7,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and for failure to provide them emergency
paid sick leave pursuant to the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act of
the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020.

Ms. Gutierrez was employed by the Defendants as an insurance agent
from December 15, 2014 through January 11, 2021.

Amigo Insurance Agency, Inc. is an insurance company based in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
         Katherine E. Stryker, Esq.
         CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
         224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 763-6880
         E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
                 kstryker@caffarelli.com

ANDREW CUOMO: NY State Correctional Sues Over Dangerous Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND POLICE BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION, INC., THOMAS HANNAH, CHLOE HA YES, ERIK MESUNAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, KERRI
MONTGOMERY, SARAH TOMPKINS, ALEXANDER VOITSEKHOVSKI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and JOHN and JANE
DOES 1 - 18,000 v. ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of New York, STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, and
ANTHONY ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision, Case No. 1:21-cv-00535-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., May 7,
2021), is brought for legal and equitable remedies challenging the
policies, practices, and/or customs related to segregated
confinement of incarcerated individuals in New York prisons, and
the enactment of the Humane Alternatives to Long Term Solitary
Confinement Act (HALT) by Defendant New York State and Defendant
Andrew Cuomo, and as enforced by Defendant New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and Defendant
Anthony Annucci.

According to the complaint, since 2012, the Defendants have
continued, promulgated, implemented, adopted or sanctioned certain
laws, rules, regulations, policies, practices and/customs to
significantly limit the use of segregated confinement of
incarcerated individuals in State prisons as a corrective and
security tool. These policies purport to limit isolation for
incarcerated individuals serving sanctions in prison for dangerous
and disruptive disciplinary infractions. However, these policies
diminish accountability for those incarcerated individuals who
commit violent acts while in prison, and create a dangerous living
and working environment by permitting those incarcerated
individuals who have shown a propensity to violently assault
peaceful incarcerated individuals and/or State employees to be
placed in congregate settings where they are easily able to repeat
such violent acts. The Defendants' actions have empowered the most
violent incarcerated individuals and drastically increased the
threat that they pose to Correction Officers and Correction
Sergeants beyond what is considered a typical risk of exposure to
violence that is inherent in these job titles. As a result,
Correction Officers and Correction Sergeants have, with greater
frequency than ever before, been violently assaulted on
duty-punched, kicked, slashed, beaten, sexually assaulted, knocked
unconscious, or had blood, urine and feces thrown on them by
incarcerated individuals.

Notwithstanding the surging violence in State prisons as segregated
confinement has been restricted over the past 8 years, the
Defendants passed the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary
Confinement Act ("HALT") on March 18, 2021, for the purpose of
further restricting the use of segregated confinement in
correctional facilities operated by the Defendant DOCCS more than
ever before in this State, even for the most violent incarcerated
individuals. The Defendant Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the HALT
bill into law on March 31, 2021, as Chapter 93 of the Laws of 2021.
In enacting HALT, the Defendants have created a substantial and
imminent risk that Correction Officers, Correction Sergeants and
non-violent incarcerated individuals will be seriously injured or
killed. Defendants are aware and have knowledge of the dramatic
increase in violence throughout the implementation of increasingly
lenient policies towards violent and disruptive misconduct.

The Defendants have acted in reckless and conscious disregard of
the increased violence towards their own employees and rule-abiding
incarcerated individuals by continuing to implement increasingly
counterproductive, lenient policies towards violent and disruptive
misconduct that fail to adequately deter such behavior and fail to
adequately separate and secure those violent criminals from staff
and the general population of incarcerated individuals, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiff New York State Correctional Officers and Police
Benevolent Association, Inc., is the certified collective
bargaining representative for the Security Services Unit of New
York State employees.

Andrew Cuomo is the head of the State of New York, the head of the
executive branch of the state government.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily G. Hannigan, Esq.
          Gregory T. Myers, Esq.
          LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP
          54 State Street, Sute 1001
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: (518) 462-0110


ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIANA
MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, an individual, and EUGENIO ANTONIO-CRUZ, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, the State of California and current and former aggrieved
employees, v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation,
and SYCAMORE LABOR, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court on
August 16, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. granting class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following class
      as to all Causes of Action:

      -- Monetary Relief Class

         All persons employed as non-exempt fieldworkers who
         performed agricultural work for Anthony Vineyards'  
         agricultural operations within the State of California at

         any time between October 4, 2015 through the date of this

         action’s final disposition.

   2. granting class certification under Federal Rule of Civil  
      Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of injunctive and   
      declaratory relief on behalf of the following class:

      -- Injunctive & Declaratory Relief Class:

         "All non-exempt fieldworkers (except crew forepersons)
who
         work in crews and are presently employed by Defendants or

         are presently eligible to be called back to work with
         Defendants in upcoming seasons and whose time is
         maintained by Defendants on crew dailies"

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs Sebastiana Martinez Sanchez and
      Eugenio Antonio as Class Representatives;

   4. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Advocates for Worker
      Rights, LLP, and the Law Offices of Santos Gomez, as Class
      Counsel; and

   5. issuing the proposed Class Notice to the Monetary Relief
      Class and approving posting of the Notice on Plaintiffs'
      Counsel's website.

Anthony Vineyards, Inc. produces fruit products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uL3Ccj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
          Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
          212 9th Street, Suite 314
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269-4200
          Facsimile: (408) 657-4684
          E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com
                  jds@advocatesforworkers.com
                  est@advocatesforworkers.com

               - and -

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Dawson Morton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831) 228-1560
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
          dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com

AQUA METALS: Court Junks California Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, has been granted.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against us, Stephen Clarke, Thomas
Murphy and Mark Weinswig.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs. On July 20, 2018, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased our securities between May 19, 2016
and November 9, 2017, against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas
Murphy and Selwyn Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning our lead recycling operations and
conducted deceptive site visits in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks to hold the individual defendants as control
persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading
statements concerning our lead recycling operations contained in,
or incorporated by reference in, the company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection with our November 2016
public offering.

That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that
Registration Statement. The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified
damages and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion. In an order dated August 14,
2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section
11 claim and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
based on alleged false and misleading statements and gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend to address the deficiencies. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits.

On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but
otherwise alleges the same claims as were alleged previously. The
Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second
Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements,
but not the claims regarding site visits.

In an order dated November 16, 2020, the Court granted the motion
and dismissed with prejudice the claim based on alleged false and
misleading statements.

Aqua Metals said, "We deny that the claims in the Second Amended
Complaint have any merit and we intend to vigorously defend the
action."

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

Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.

ARAMARK CAMPUS: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Serrano, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02614 (E.D.N.Y., May 10,
2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, seeking from the Defendants: unpaid wages due
to time-shaving, unpaid overtime wages due to time-shaving, unpaid
wages for compensable work time outside of scheduled work hours,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff was scheduled to work from 7:30am to 2:30pm, for 5
days a week. However, the Plaintiff was actually arriving to begin
work as early as 5:30am to 6:30am every workday. The Plaintiff was
unable to clock-in until at or around 7:30am due to the Defendant's
timekeeping system. The Plaintiff was only compensated for her
hours worked until 2:30pm. However, at least 3 times per week, the
Plaintiff was required to stay until 3:00pm to finish her work. As
a result, the Plaintiff was not compensated for at least 9 hours
per workweek. During weeks in which these additional hours exceeded
40 hours per week, such hours should be paid at the overtime rate,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a server on October 5,
2017 and was promoted as the Lead Cook in January 2019.

Aramark provides food service, facilities and uniform services to
multiple industries throughout the United States and
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (718) 971-0326
          Fax: (718) 795-1642
          Email: clam@bkllawyers.com


ASSETCARE LLC: Herman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AssetCare, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Miriam Herman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AssetCare, LLC, CF Medical,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02626 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Assetcare LLC -- https://assetcarellc.com/ -- is a small debt
collection agency headquartered in Sherman, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com



AXOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative lass action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding,
Inc., et al., is pending.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that
differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.

The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action.

On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and
the Court took the matter under advisement.

On November 3, 2020, the Court issued a ruling affirming in part
and reversing in part the District Court's Order dismissing the
Class Action Second Amended Complaint.

The defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc on November
17, 2020, which petition was denied on December 16, 2020.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the remanded complaint on
February 19, 2021.

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the petition for a
rehearing with respect to a decision in the suit entitled, In re
BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case no:
3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, is pending.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al.,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al., and also brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case no: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, and the Houston Municipal Employees
Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 and that as a result the Company's statements
regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its
financial statements, were false and misleading.

On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed, the Court overturned the
dismissal and the Company is preparing a petition for a rehearing.

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

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


BACON FREAK: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bacon Freak Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bacon Freak Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04122 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Bacon Freak -- https://baconfreak.com/ -- is the one-stop-shop for
all thing's bacon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAKER PLACES: Acree Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BAKER PLACES, INC.
The case is styled as Jakeesha Acree, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BAKER PLACES, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
CGC21591366 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 7, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

Baker Places Inc. -- http://www.bakerplaces.org/-- is a civic &
social organization company based out of 399 Fremont St, San
Francisco, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Fax: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com



BANK OF AMERICA: Marangopoulos Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Marangopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. RG21097293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
April 27, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for violating the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act by failing to satisfy the obligation,
which is a creditor must provide a written notice that includes the
specific reasons for the adverse action or discloses that the
applicant has the right to a statement of reasons.

The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and class members
with the requisite notice after denying their credit applications.
Instead, The Defendant sent Plaintiff and class members letters
stating: "We've determined that we're unable to approve your
request because your risk profile does not align with the bank's
risk tolerance" or words to that effect. This explanation is
insufficient because it does not provide the specific reasons for
the adverse action taken. The Defendant's letters also omit any
mention of the applicant's right to a statement of specific
reasons, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California.

The Defendant is a national banking association with its
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic Valerian, Esq.
          Xinying Valerian, Esq.
          VALERIAN LAW, P.C.
          1530 Solano Ave
          Albany, CA 94 707
          Phone: 510.567.4632
          Fax: 510.982.4513
          Email: dominic@valerian.law
                 xinying@valerian.law

               - and -

          Alexander Darr, Esq.
          DARRLAWLLC
          1391 W. 5th Ave., Ste. 313
          Columbus, OH 43212
          Phone: 312.857.3277
          Email: Darr@Darr.Law


BAXTER INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a final settlement
approval hearing is set for August 10, 2021, in Ethan E. Silverman
et al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al.

In November 2019, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et
al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of our common stock
during the specified class period, filed this putative class action
on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired Baxter common
stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019.

The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material
facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for
the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding
foreign exchange losses, as well as the company's internal controls
over financial reporting.

On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on June 25, 2020 containing substantially the
same allegations.

On August 24, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On January 12, 2021, the Court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint but gave
plaintiffs an opportunity to file a further-amended complaint.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case for $16
million, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery and
final approval by the Court.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on April
20, 2021. A final approval hearing is currently scheduled for
August 10, 2021.

Baxter said, "We are fully reserved for the settlement amount as of
March 31, 2021."

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal Filed from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the plaintiffs in the
putative antitrust class action suit related to IV solutions sales
have not taken an appeal from the district court's decision
dismissing the case.

In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the company moved
to dismiss on November 9, 2018. The court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice on April 3,
2020.

The plaintiffs did not file an appeal.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BEACON HEALTH: Alvarez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARISSE ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. BEACON HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., a Virginia Corporation,
Case No. 0:21-cv-60893 (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2021) is a collective
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
recover unpaid overtime compensation.

The complaint alleges that from October 2019 through December 21,
2020, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week during many
weeks of her employment, without being paid the federally mandated
wage for overtime. Specifically, Plaintiff was paid only straight
time. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff for
all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the
applicable time and one-half rate. Defendants pay all of their
hourly waged Clinical Care Managers in the same fashion. There are
approximately 200 other current and former employees who were paid
only straight time for overtime hours, and are thus owed the
half-time premium as well.

Plaintiff Charisse Alvarez was employed as an hourly waged Clinical
Care Manager by Defendant from October 2019 until December 21,
2020.

Beacon Health Options, Inc. is a Virginia Corporation doing
business throughout the United States, and is an enterprise engaged
in an industry affecting commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST EXPRESS: Valenzuela Files Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Express Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Janaira Valenzuela, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Best Express Foods, Inc., a
California Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004131 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 7, 2021).

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

Best Express Foods, Inc. -- https://www.bestxfoods.com/ -- of
California was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and bread-type
rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAKE D. FINKEL
          3470 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-3916
          Phone: (213) 787-7411
          Fax: (323) 916-0521
          Email: Alex@lawfinkel.com


BIZRINGER INC: Potter TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rita Potter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bizringer, Inc., Case No.
21-008334-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 10, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21766-JEM to the
proceeding.

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

Bizringer -- http://www.bizringer.com/-- is a telecommunications
company that specializes in call handling, call transferring, auto
attendants & voice message boxes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 533-4092
          Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          Brickell City Tower
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 374-0440
          Email: yaniv@markmigdal.com


BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boavida Communities
LLC. The case is styled as Alysia Ford, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Boavida Communities LLC, The
Boavida Group, LP, a limited partnership, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2021-00299610-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
28, 2021).

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

BoaVida Communities is a -- https://www.boavidacommunities.com/ --
collection of manufactured housing and extended-stay RV residences
located throughout the Western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BOONE LOGISTICS: Faces Butts Suit for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAFONDRA BUTTS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. BOONE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, Case 1:21-cv-00581-UNA
(D. Del., April 27, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated owed overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours in a workweek, often working around 60 hours. However,
Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any compensation in addition to his
hourly rate for hours worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Accordingly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at least one and
one-half times his regular rate for hours worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek. The said conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class
Plaintiffs to suffer damages.

Plaintiff Lafondra Butts worked for the Defendant as a yard driver
from March 20, 2020 to October 6, 2020.

Boone Logistics Services, LLC is a company incorporated in the
State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raeann Warner, Esq.
          Patrick Gallagher, Esq.
          JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
          750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 656-5445
          Fax: (302) 934-1234

                    - and -

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Phone: (856) 685-7420
          Fax: (856) 685-7417


BOYD SPECIALTIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyd Specialties LLC.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Boyd Specialties LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04193 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Boyd Specialties LLC -- https://boydspecialtiesjerky.com/ -- is a
food production company based out of Colton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the
grant of class certification on the suit related to Celgene has
been denied.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia.

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.

In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with
respect to the remaining claims. In December 2020, the defendants
sought leave to appeal the Court's class certification decision,
which was denied without prejudice in March 2021.

No trial date has been scheduled.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company and
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd continue to defend class action
suits in Quebec and Ontario related to Abilify.

The company (BMS) and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability
litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused
them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control
disorders.

There have been over 2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts
and additional cases are pending in Canada.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.

In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.

To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related
court orders.

In the U.S., less than 20 cases remain pending on behalf of
plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement
program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date.
There are ten cases pending in Canada (four class actions, six
individual injury claims).

Out of the ten cases, only two are active (the class actions in
Quebec and Ontario and one individual injury claim).

Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed
separately, subject to a pending appeal of the Ontario class
certification decision.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the
district court's dismissal of the putative securities class action
suit related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lungcancer, is
still pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company (BMS), BMS's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the
time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives
of BMS. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

In September 2020, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision in October 2020.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CALIFORNIA SECURITY: Zervos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Security
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Zervos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
California Security Services, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2021-00299445-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
27, 2020).

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

California Security Services, Inc. -- http://www.calsecurity.us/--
is a security and investigations company based out of Olivehurst,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
          CASTLE LAW: CA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC
          2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
          Roseville, CA 95661-4219
          Phone: 916-245-0122
          Email: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com


CAPITAL BUILDING: $325K Class Settlement in Moreno Wins Prelim Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EFREN MORENO, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL BUILDING
MAINTENANCE & CLEANING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-07087-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the parties' the motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.

On Oct. 28, 2019, Plaintiff Moreno filed a class and collective
action complaint against the Defendant, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code
("Labor Code"), and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
The Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a second amended
complaint on Dec. 27, 2019 and Sept. 22, 2020, respectively.

The Defendant is a California corporation that provides various
labor services throughout Northern California, including window
washing, construction cleanup, floor maintenance, pressure washing,
trash removal, and graffiti removal, among others.  Its janitorial
work is largely performed in tenant-occupied buildings while its
construction cleanup work is done on construction sites, usually in
buildings that are not currently tenant-occupied.  The Plaintiff is
a former unionized employee of the Defendant.  He and the
Defendant's other employees received an hourly wage rate negotiated
by their representatives in the Northern District Council of
Laborers.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly calculated his
overtime wages based on a reduced regular rate rather than the
actual regular rate set by his union contract.  He also alleges
that the Defendant's pay system does not properly record all hours
worked.  Specifically, the system rounds time into half hour
intervals rather than reflecting the actual amount of time worked.
As a result, workers are not paid for all the hours they work.

The SAC proposes a Rule 23 class of employees defined as: "All
hourly employees of CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE & CLEANING
SERVICES, INC. who worked for Defendant in California within four
years of the filing of the original complaint in this action
through the date of the action's final disposition who were members
of an affiliate of the Northern California District Council of
Laborers and who received two wage statements one of which did not
properly list the union designated regular rate of pay."

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a FLSA collective composed
of: "All hourly employees of CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE &
CLEANING SERVICES, INC. who worked more than 40 hours in a given
workweek for Defendant and were employed within four years of the
filing of the original complaint in this action through the date of
the action's final disposition and who were members of an affiliate
of the Northern California District Council of Laborers and who
received two wage statements one of which did not properly list the
union designated regular rate of pay."

At the hearing, the Plaintiff explained that both the Class and the
Collective are comprised of the same 25 individuals.

The Plaintiff brings claims for (1) failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime in violation of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207, 216(b), and
255(a); (2) failure to pay minimum wage and failure to pay for all
hours worked in violation of Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197
and the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders; (3)
failure to pay the wage rate designated by statute or contract in
violation of Labor Code Section 223; (4) waiting time penalties
pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; (5) failure to provide accurate
wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226; (6)
violation of the UCL, California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq.; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) civil
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), Labor Code Sections 2699 et seq.

On July 30, 2020, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation with
Ross.  At the mediation, the parties negotiated a settlement for
the 25 employees who received two paychecks between Oct. 28, 2015
through the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Plaintiff now asks the court to approve the settlement that was
reached following mediation.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendants will
pay a gross settlement amount of $325,000, none of which will
revert to the Defendant.  The Agreement provides that the Defendant
will deposit the entire $325,000 with the settlement administrator
within 30 days after the Effective Date, which is 30 days after the
court issues an order of final approval if there are no timely
objections to the Agreement.

Within 30 days after the Effective Date, the Administrator will pay
(1) Moreno a Class Representative service award of up to $5,000,
(2) Plaintiff's counsel costs of up to $10,000 and fees of up to
$108,322.50; and (3) the Labor & Workforce Development Agency PAGA
penalties of $7,500.  The gross settlement amount does not include
required employer payroll tax contributions, which Defendant will
pay separately.  Up to $10,000 from the total settlement fund will
be used to cover the costs of settlement administration.

After the amounts are deducted from the gross settlement amount,
the Defendant will pay $45,657.63 to the Collective Members, which
will be distributed based on a calculation of each Collective
Member's actual FLSA overtime damages.  The Administer will
distribute $2,500 to the PAGA pool workers, which represents 25% of
the total amount allocated for PAGA penalties.  The Class Members
who are no longer employed by the Defendant will receive a total of
$18,000 to settle their claims for waiting time penalties under
Labor Code Section 203, which will be distributed in equal shares.
From the remaining settlement amount, the Rule 23 Class Members
will receive settlement shares based on the total number of weeks
each Class Member worked during the Class Period.

Once the court preliminarily approves the Agreement, the Defendant
will provide the Administrator with a list of class members that
includes their last known contact information.  The Administrator
will update the listed addresses using the National Change of
Address database and will mail a notice packet to each of the 25
Class Members.  The notice packet will include a copy of the Class
Notice; a share form providing each Class Member's expected
settlement share; a consent form to join the FLSA Collective Class;
and an opt-out form.  The notice packet will be mailed via first
class mail.  If a notice is returned because of an incorrect
address, the Administrator will search for a current address using
reasonable and cost-effective skip trace methods.  If a current
address is found, the Administrator will re-mail the notice.

Class Members must opt out or object by the Notice Response
deadline, which is 60 days after the Class Notice is mailed.  If a
Class Member opts out, the settlement share for that Class Member
will be distributed to the Class Members who do not request to be
excluded.  Collective Members can opt into the FLSA settlement by
completing the "Consent to Join Collective Action" form.  The
shares of any Collective Members who do not opt in will be
redistributed pro rata to the Collective Members who affirmatively
opted in.

The share form will provide each Class Member with an estimate of
the number of weeks they worked during the Class Period, the
formula for determining their share of the settlement, the
estimated amount of their share, and instructions on how to
challenge the number of work weeks reflected on the Share Form.
Class Members may challenge their expected shares solely on the
basis that the workweeks reflected in the share form are
inaccurate.  In order to lodge a challenge, a Class Member must
complete a Challenge Form received from the Administrator and
submit the form to the Administrator within 45 days after the
mailing of the Class Notice.  After receiving a Challenge Form, the
Administrator will consult with counsel for both parties and
resolve the challenge based on the records and documents provided
by the Defendant and the challenging Class Member.  The
Administrator's decision will be final, binding, and
non-appealable.

Class Members must cash their settlement check within 180 days
after they receive it.  Any uncashed compensation will be donated
to Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, the designated cy
pres recipient.  For the purposes of taxes, the settlement payments
will be characterized as 20% wages, 60% penalties, and 20%
interest.  Wage payments will be subject to all required
withholdings and will be reported on a W-2 and/or a 1099 Form.

Magistrate Judge Ryu granted the motion for preliminary approval.
The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, and
reasonable pursuant to Rule 23(e).  The proposed Settlement Class
is conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for
the purposes of settlement.

Plaintiff Moreno is appointed to serve as the Class Representative
for the Class, the law firms of Advocates for Workers Rights LLP
and Justice at Work Law Group, LLP as the Class Counsel, and
Phoenix as the Claim Administrator.

The proposed claim forms and forms of notice are approved as to
form and content.  The parties will have discretion to jointly make
non-material minor revisions to the claim forms or the class
notices. Responsibility regarding settlement administration,
including, but not limited to, notice and related procedures, will
be performed by the Claim Administrator, subject to the oversight
of the parties and the Court as described in the Agreement.

The procedures for Class Members to exclude themselves from or
object to the Agreement are approved.  Any request for exclusion by
a Class Member must be postmarked by 60 calendar days after the
date of mailing of the Notice, and in compliance with the terms of
the Agreement.  Any objection by a Class Member must be filed with
the court by that same date, and in compliance with the terms of
the Agreement.

Magistrate Judge Ryu ordered the Class Counsel to file a list of
Class Members who have requested exclusion from the Settlement in a
valid and timely manner by seven days after the Notice Response
deadline.  The parties will file any memoranda or other materials
in support of final approval of the Agreement no later than 14 days
after Notice Response deadline.  Such materials will be served on
the Class Counsel, the Defendants' counsel, and on any member of
the Class (or their counsel, if represented by counsel) to whose
objection to the Agreement the memoranda or other materials
respond.

The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are stayed.

The counsel for the parties are authorized to utilize all
reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the
Agreement which are not materially inconsistent with either the
Order or the terms of the Agreement.

The following deadlines will apply:

      a. Deadline for Defendant to provide class list to Settlement
Administrator - 21 days after Preliminary Approval entered

      b. Initial date for Settlement Administrator to commence
Notice - 15 days after receiving program class list

      c. Deadline for Class Members to Challenge Weeks Worked
Information - 45 calendar days after Notice mailing date

      d. Deadline for Class Members to submit objections/requests
for exclusion - 60 days after Notice mailing date

      e. Deadline for Class Counsel to file a list of exclusions -
7 days after Notice Response deadline

      f. Deadline for Class Counsel to file motion for final
approval - No more than 14 days after Notice Response deadline

      g. Final approval hearing - Sept. 9, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.

The final approval hearing will take place via Zoom
videoconference.  In the Class Notice and any other settlement
documents reflecting the time and date of the final approval
hearing, the parties will list the following hearing information:

       a. Webinar Access, all counsel, members of the public, and
media may access the webinar information at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/dmr.

       b. General Order 58. Persons granted access to court
proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that
photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings,
including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is
absolutely prohibited.

       c. Zoom Guidance and Setup:
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3vktbsez from Leagle.com.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
September 23, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class:

      "All clients of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. or The Charles
      Schwab Corporation between July 13, 2011 and December 31,
      2014 (the "Class Period") who placed one or more non-directed

      equity orders during the Class Period that were routed to UBS

      by Schwab pursuant to the Equities Order Handling Agreement
      (EOHA) and that received price disimprovement;"

      Excluded from the Class are the officers, directors, and
      employees of Schwab;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Wolfson, Pino, and Posson as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and
      Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., and counsel for Plaintiff
      Posson, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as Class Counsel.

This is a securities class action arising out of Schwab's failure
to disclose to its customers that it routed almost all of its
customers' non-directed equity orders to UBS Securities, LLC,
pursuant to an Equities Order Handling Agreement, regardless of
whether doing so was consistent with Schwab's duty of best
execution.¶

The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company. It offers banking, commercial banking,
an electronic trading platform, and wealth management advisory
services to both retail and institutional clients.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hipMPo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
          Garth Spencer, 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: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  jrotter@glancylaw.com
                  gspencer@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          David J. Stone, Esq.
          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  stone@bespc.com
                  fortunato@bespc.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ekorsinsky@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  akrot@zlk.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Compelled to Produce Docs in Harper Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel, and denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

Plaintiffs Lionel Harper and Daniel Sinclair, who are proceeding
with retained counsel, bring the civil action pursuant to
California's Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq.  The Plaintiffs allege violations of
California statutory law with respect to the failure to pay certain
wages.

The action currently proceeds on the Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint against Defendants Charter Communications, LLC, and
Charter Communications, Inc.  Charter markets and sells various
services, including television, Internet, and phone services, in
California and nationwide.

The Plaintiffs worked for Charter in California as salespersons.
Harper worked for Charter from September 2017 to March 2018, and
Sinclair worked for Charter from January 2015 to December 2016.
Charter considered the Plaintiffs to be outside salespersons during
their entire employment and treated them as exempt employees.  But
the Plaintiffs were not exempt outside salespersons.

The Plaintiffs were not asked or required to perform any outside
sales activities during their training and they were thus
misclassified as exempt during their training.  They also were
assigned numerous duties following their training that were not
outside sales duties, the performance of which caused them not to
spend a majority of their working hours each day or week performing
outside sales.  These non-outside sales duties included, but were
not limited to, customer service and installation scheduling
activities and work performed at Charter's offices or at a home
office.  They were thus misclassified as exempt following their
training as well.

During their employment, the Plaintiffs worked with numerous other
employees who were subject to Charter's same policies and practices
and who were also misclassified as exempt outside salespersons,
both during training and following training.  Their working
experience gave them a thorough understanding of Charter's
employment policies and practices with respect to employees who
Charter classified as exempt outside salespersons.

During their employment, the Plaintiffs and other employees
(including but not limited to outside salespersons) were also
eligible to receive and did receive incentive compensation in the
form of commission wages.  But Charter's commission payment
practices and policies were unlawful.  First, Charter did not give
to the Plaintiffs and other employees a signed copy of commission
agreements that set forth the methods by which their commission
wages would be computed and paid.  Second, Charter did not obtain
from the Plaintiffs and other employees a signed receipt for any
such agreements.  Third, Charter failed to properly calculate and
pay all commission wages that were due to the Plaintiffs and other
employees.  And fourth, Charter paid commission wages on a monthly
basis and/or weeks after the wages were earned instead of for the
pay period in which they were earned.

The Plaintiffs personally experienced and witnessed Charter
engaging in these unlawful and unfair business practices and
Charter continues to engage in these unlawful and unfair business
practices to this day.  They state they are bringing the action on
behalf of themselves and "on behalf of two classes and various
subclasses of employees who worked for Charter in California at any
time between November 19, 2014, through final judgment."

The alleged classes and subclasses are as follows: Outside
Salesperson Class, Unpaid Minimum Wages Subclass, Unpaid Overtime
Wages Subclass, Meal Period Subclass, Rest Break Subclass, Wage
Statement Subclass, Termination Subclass, Commission Class,
Underpaid Commission Subclass, No Signed Agreement Subclass, Wage
Statement Subclass, and Termination Subclass.

In support of the class allegations, the Plaintiffs also allege
common questions of law and fact, including:

       a. whether Charter improperly classified the Plaintiffs and
other outside salespersons as exempt during training;

       b. whether Charter improperly classified the Plaintiffs and
other outside salespersons as exempt after training;

       c. whether Charter accurately kept track of the Plaintiffs'
and other outside salespersons' working hours;

       d. whether Charter paid minimum wages for all hours worked
by the Plaintiffs and other outside salespersons; and

       e. whether Charter paid overtime wages for all hours worked
over 8 in a workday and 40 in a workweek by the Plaintiffs and
other outside salespersons.

The operative first amended complaint was filed on Dec. 13, 2019.
On Jan. 10, 2020, Charter moved to dismiss and/or strike the first
amended complaint.  The matter was heard by the District Judge on
Feb. 24, 2020, who issued a decision on Feb. 26, 2020, granting
Charter's motion as to the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief and in all other respects denied the motion.
Relevant to the current discovery disputed, the District Judge
ruled the court will deny the Defendant's motion to strike the
class allegations to allow discovery to proceed.

The case is currently governed by a modified scheduling order
issued, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, by the District Judge
on Feb. 2, 2021.  Pursuant to the current scheduling order,
discovery closes on Aug. 30, 2021.

While the Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification,
the District Judge vacated the hearing on that motion pending
resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion to further modify the schedule
and for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is set to
be heard on June 1, 2021.

Discussion

A. Motion to Compel

The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Charter to provide further
responses to interrogatory nos. 2, 3, and 5, and requests for
production nos. 1, 16, 30, 35, 36, 37, 50, 51, 52, and 53.

In interrogatory no. 2, the Plaintiffs ask Charter to: "Identify
the contract information and position history for each direct sales
employee.

In interrogatory no. 3, the Plaintiffs seek the same information
for Charter's commission employees.

In interrogatory no. 5, the Plaintiffs ask Charter to: "Identify
each direct sales employee and commission employee who opted out of
any version of arbitration agreement you have used.
"

In request for production no. 1, the Plaintiffs seek: "Each
document that Harper signed or acknowledged, whether physically,
electronically, or otherwise, related to his employment with you."

In request for production nos. 16 and 30 -- which were the subject
of the prior motions to compel -- the Plaintiffs seek: "Each
incentive compensation or commission statement or similar document
that you provided to commission employee."

In request for production no. 35, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents related to you giving commission employees a copy of the
commission plan electronically."

In request for production no. 36, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents related to you obtaining from commission employees an
electronic acknowledgement of receipt of a commission plan."

In request for production no. 37, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents constituting or reflecting a signed receipt for a
commission plan that YOU obtained from a commission employee."

In request for production no. 50, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents that evidence, refer, or relate to a purported agreement
to arbitrate between you and a direct sales employee."

In request for production no. 52, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents that evidence, refer, or relate to a purported agreement
to arbitrate between you and a commission employee."

In request for production no. 53, the Plaintiffs seek: "All
documents that evidence, refer, or relate to any purported waiver
of bringing or participating in a class action by a commission
employee."

B. Motion for Sanctions

In their motion for sanctions "and further discovery orders," the
Plaintiffs seek an order imposing the following eight "sanctions"
on Charter for violation of the Court's Oct. 21, 2020, discovery
order and the parties' Feb. 17, 2021, discovery stipulation:

     a. Sanction 1 In opposing class certification, Charter be
prohibited from referring to or relying on nay documents or
information that were responsive to the Plaintiffs' discovery
requests that were the subject of the discovery order and/or
stipulation but were not produced or disclosed by March 8, 2021.

     b. Sanction 2 In opposition class certification, Charter be
prohibited from arguing or asking the Court to draw an inference
that any documents or information that were responsive to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests that were the subject of the
discovery order and/or stipulation but were not produced or
disclosed by March 8, 2021, would weigh against one or more of Rule
23's requirements.

     c. Sanction 3 In opposing class certification, Charter be
precluded from arguing that the non-sampling and sampling documents
and information that it did produce by March 8, 2021, are not
representative of the proposed classes and subclasses.

     d. Sanction 4 In opposing class certification, Charter be
prohibited from arguing that Rule 23's requirements are not
satisfied because certain putative class members allegedly agreed
to arbitrate their claims and/or waived their right to participate
in a class or representative action.

     e. Sanction 5 Charter be ordered to promptly collect and
produce on a rolling basis the greater of (i) the 10% court-ordered
sampling or (ii) a sampling percentage that Charter agrees is
representative of the class and/or group of covered aggrieved
employees in the event that class certification is granted and/or
the Court rules that the representative PAGA claims can proceed.
The sampling documents will include: wage statements, offer
letters, commission earning statements, commission plan
acknowledgement data, physically signed commission plan documents,
and training transcripts. Charter's production will conclude no
later than 21 calendar days after the date of the Court's class
certification and/or PAGA order.

     f. Sanction 6 Charter be ordered by May 10, 2021, to identify
on a privilege log all communications with the representative who
signed the verification (Jametra Shanks) that were related to
Charter's preparation, review, and approval of each supplemental
interrogatory response served on Nov. 2, 2020, Feb. 11, 2021, and
Feb. 19, 2021.

     g. Sanction 7 Charter be ordered to respond substantively and
in writing to the Plaintiffs' future discovery meet and confer
correspondence within three court days.

     h. Sanction 8 Charter be ordered to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by Plaintiffs due to
Charter's failure to fully comply with the discovery order and/or
discovery stipulation.

In opposition the Plaintiffs' motion, Charter argues the motion was
improperly noticed under Eastern District of California Local Rule
251(e) on just 14 days' notice.

Conclusion

Magistrate Judge Cota concludes that Charter appears to be engaging
in delaying tactics regarding, in particular, discovery associated
with sampling of employee data which would support the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Following the hearing on the prior
discovery motions, the Court ordered discovery be provided by Nov.
2, 2020.  Instead of providing discovery, Charter served
supplemental responses on Nov. 2, 2020, indicating that it will
provide discovery at some unspecified time in the future.

Nothing was provided by Nov. 2, 2020.  The Plaintiffs could have
immediately sought Rule 37 sanctions for Charter's non-compliance
but did not.  Instead, the Plaintiffs engaged in further
meet-and-confer efforts culminating in the Feb. 17, 2021, discovery
agreement which reduced the sampling size from 10% to 2% and
required discovery be provided by March 8, 2021.  As part of that
agreement, and in a further sign of good faith, the Plaintiffs
agreed to withdraw a pending motion for Rule 37 sanctions.  Charter
failed to produce documents by the agreed date and the motion
followed.  The Magistrate Judge will now reduce the parties' Feb.
17, 2021, discovery stipulation to a formal order.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Cota adopted the parties' Feb. 17,
2021, discovery stipulation, as the order of the Court, with the
exception of the date by which discovery would be produced.  All
discovery agreed to be provided by Charter in the Feb. 17, 2021,
agreement and ordered below were due on May 10, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as follows:

      a. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to
interrogatory nos. 2 and 3; Charter's objections are waived;
Charter is ordered to produce an updated Class List, as that phrase
is used in the parties' stipulation, that identifies any "Direct
Sales Employees" and "Commission Employees" in California who were
hired since Dec. 10, 2020.

      b. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to
interrogatory no. 5; Charter's objections are waived; Charter is
ordered to provide responsive information;

      c. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to request
for production no. 1; Charter is ordered to produce all responsive
documents and/or raw data, whether in electronic form or in paper,
regardless of the vendor or program used to prepare or store such
information, related to Plaintiff Harper's employment with
Charter;

      d. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to request
for production nos. 16 and 30; Charter is ordered to produce all
documents responsive to these requests, consistent with the
parties' discovery stipulation; if it continues to be Charter's
position that all responsive documents have been produced, it will
so confirm in writing without objection by the deadline specified;

      e. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to request
for production nos. 35, 36, and 37; Charter is ordered to produce
all documents responsive to these requests for a 2% random sampling
of putative class member employees, consistent with the parties'
discovery stipulation, without objection; and

      f. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted as to request for
production nos. 50, 51, 52, and 53; Charter is ordered to produce
all responsive documents for a 2% random sampling; Charter will
produce any documents or other information is may rely upon to
assert and prove the existence of enforceable arbitration
agreements.

Except for monetary sanctions, the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions
and other relief is denied without prejudice to re-filing
consistent with the notice provisions of Local Rule 251(a).

As to monetary sanctions, the Plaintiffs will file and serve a
declaration of costs and expenses on or before May 10, 20201;
Charter may file and serve a response within three days of the date
of service of the Plaintiffs' declaration; upon the filing of the
parties' declarations, the Court will, by separate order and
without a subsequent hearing, impose appropriate monetary sanctions
against Charter.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/54wt9w5v from Leagle.com.


CITIBANK N.A.: Abel Files Suit in Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citibank, N.A. The
case is styled as David Abel, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-03889-MWF-SP
(C.D. Cal., May 8, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.

Citibank -- https://www.citi.com/ -- is the consumer division of
financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq.
          MANFRED APC
          1350 Columbia Street Suite 603, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 550-4005
          Fax: (619) 550-4006
          Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com

               - and -

          Scott Gregory Braden, Esq.
          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
                 tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Eric R. Ford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02588 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

Client Services, Inc. -- https://www.clientservices.com/ -- is a
full service Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm offering a
diverse selection of collection and recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLUTCH INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clutch, Inc. The case
is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated v. Clutch, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04166
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021).

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

Clutch -- https://www.clutch-inc.com/ -- provides Systems and
Software Engineering, Design/Usability, Operations & Maintenance,
Management, and Research & Development services to various Civilian
Federal Government and National Security/Intelligence
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CM DIGITAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CM Digital
Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf
Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. CM Digital
Enterprises LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04167 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021).

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

CM Digital Enterprises LLC offers this website, Knitting-Warehouse
-- https://www.knitting-warehouse.com/ -- a best source on the web
for discount yarn, knitting and crochet supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTO INC: Marshall Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Roger Marshall, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS
CCA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02585 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

EOS CCA -- https://www.eos-cca.com/ -- headquartered in Norwell,
Massachusetts, is a provider of customer care and receivables
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mahoney Seeks to Certify Class of Analysts
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE MAHONEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Case No. 8:21-cv-00023-JFB-MDN (E.D. Neb.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying the following collective:

   "All salaried Analysts employed by Defendant CommonSpirit
Health
   and/or Catholic Health Initiatives, which merged with Dignity
   Health to form CommonSpirit Health, after January 19, 2018."

The Plaintiff worked as an Epic Analyst 1 for CommonSpirit Healthin
Nebraska.

CommonSpirit Health was formed in 2019 by the merger of Catholic
Health Initiatives and Dignity Health.

The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of
certain former and current Analysts who worked for Defendant, to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w1Gre3
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Center Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq.
          Karen K. Cain, Esq.
          Matthew P.F. Linnabary, Esq.
          Ross T. Weimer, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 West 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: jplowman@polsinelli.com
                  kcain@polsinelli.com
                  mlinnabary@polsinelli.com
                  rweimer@polsinelli.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the case, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne
T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, remains pending.

This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.

It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock.

On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.

Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Kirk Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the settlement in
Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of
a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v.
Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John
and Jane Does 1-20, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal
Management Corporation, and Principal Global Investors, LLC, has
been approved at a Final Fairness Hearing on April 12, 2021.

This purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that
were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other
marketplace alternatives.

The company has reached a tentative, immaterial settlement with the
plaintiffs which was preliminarily approved by the District Court
on December 8, 2020.

The District Court approved the settlement at a Final Fairness
Hearing on April 12, 2021.

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMPUTER CREDIT: Herman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Miriam Herman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02623 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Computer Credit, Inc., alternatively known as CCi --
http://www.encoreexchange.com/-- handles revenue services and
collections for health care organizations and physician groups
around the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com



CONCHO RESOURCES: Corral Sues to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL CORRAL, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CONCHO RESOURCES, INC.; and CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00390 (D.N.M., April 27, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
(NMMWA).

According to the complaint, Corral and other workers like him
regularly worked for Concho Resources, Inc. in excess of 40 hours
each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA and NMMWA, Concho
improperly classified Corral and similarly situated workers as
independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff Samuel Corral worked exclusively for Concho as an
oilfield worker from approximately 2016 until July 2020.

Concho Resources, Inc. and ConocoPhillips Company are global oil
and gas exploration companies operating throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100  
          Facsimile : 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

                    - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Adjustment
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric R. Ford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc., DNF Associates, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02589 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc. -- https://cacionline.net/ --
provides accounts receivable management services. The Company
offers early out insurance resolutions, bad debt collection,
accounts receivable clean-up projects, worker's compensation
processing, temporary staff supplementation, and pre collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Alfonso Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Joel Alfonso, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-21626-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2021).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                 jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: matthew@fight13.com


COUNTRY LIFE: Gunaratna Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Mocha Gunaratna v. Country
Life, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-STCV-24458, was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, California to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2021.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-02877-GW-PLA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from fraud-related claims.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

Country Life manufactures vitamins, supplements, and sports
nutrition products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celine Cohan, Esq.
          Drew R. Ferrandini, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC, Esq.
          9255 Sunset Boulevard Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  dferrandini@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony J Anscombe, Esq.
          Carol Brophy, Esq.
          Melanie Atswei Ayerh, Esq.
          STEPTOE AND JOHNSON LLP
          Spear Tower
          1 Market Plaza Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 365-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
          E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
                  cbrophy@steptoe.com
                  mayerh@steptoe.com

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lavone Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Hinton Lavone, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credence Resource
Management, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01965-CC-CMS (N.D. Ga., May 8,
2021).

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

Credence Resource Management, LLC -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is
a debt collection agency that was founded in Nevada in 2013, with
its current headquarters in Dallas, Texas..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

               - and -

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


CREDIT CONTROL: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Jovanni Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC d/b/a
Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02584
(E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
full-service collections agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown's First Amended ERISA Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN BROWN and TELISA LIPSCOMB, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; BETH DONALDS; PAUL GREER; DONNA JOHNSTON; KASUHITO
KITSUHIKO; MIKE LADD; and LISA WILL, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-11091 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Daikin's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs Brown and Lipscomb, individually and on behalf of a
class of participants in the Daikin America, Inc. 401(k) Savings
and Retirement Plan, bring the putative class action lawsuit
against Daikin America, Inc. and a group of individual fiduciaries.
The Plaintiffs allege that Daikin breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. 1001 et seq., by mismanaging the Plan's investment portfolio
with respect to participants' 401(k) accounts.

Since Nov. 2018, or the Class Period, Daikin has offered its
employees and certain affiliates the opportunity to participate in
the Daikin America, Inc. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan.  The
Plaintiffs are Alabama residents who participated in the Plan at
different points during the Class Period.

The Plan is a defined contribution employee benefit plan that
provides enrollees an opportunity to save for retirement.  Under
the Plan, participants may elect to contribute a portion of their
pre-tax compensation to their 401(k) retirement accounts and
Daikin, in turn, matches a percentage of those contributions.  To
help implement the Plan, Daikin engaged John Hancock Trust Company,
LLC to act as the Plan's trustee.  In that fiduciary role, John
Hancock provided administrative services, including recordkeeping
and investment platform services.

The central dispute in the case arises from Daikin's management of
the Plan during the Class Period.  Annually, Plan participants were
given the choice to select from a preselected menu of investment
funds to invest in using their respective 401(k) accounts.  Daikin
was responsible for selecting the Plan's investment offerings.
Although the precise number of investment options offered to Plan
participants in any given year is not clear from the First Amended
Complaint, investment offerings were fluid and neared 30 different
selections "at any one time during the Class Period."  In addition,
the Plan's offerings covered the major asset classes, including
domestic equities, bonds, international equities, balanced
investments, and a stable value fund, as well as both actively and
passively managed funds.  Notably, however, only a "handful" of
these investment selections were "index funds."

The Plan incurred two kinds of expenses on participants:
administrative expenses and investment management fees.
Administrative expenses are the costs of compensating the
"custodian, recordkeeper, insurance provider, and other vendors
that provided administrative services to the Plan."  Investment
management fees, or more colloquially referred to as a fund's
"expense ratio," are the management fees paid to the particular
investment fund included in the Plan.  As the Plan's fiduciary,
Daikin was responsible for considering both kinds of expenses in
selecting investment options for the Plan.

The class action lawsuit was initially filed on Nov. 28, 2018.  On
Feb. 26, 2020, the Plaintiffs amended their original complaint.
The First Amended Complaint sets forth two legal claims under
ERISA.

Count One of the First Amended Complaint alleges that Daikin
breached its fiduciary duties by failing to prudently select and
monitor the Plan's investment options during the Class Period.  In
particular, the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims focus
on five investment funds ("MainStay Funds") that were managed by
John Hancock: (1) MainStay S&P 500 Index Fund; (2) MainStay Large
Cap Growth Fund R2; (3) MainStay ICAP Select Equity Fund I; (4)
MainStay MAP Fund I; and (5) MainStay Balanced Fund I.

During the Class Period, the Plaintiffs personally invested in two
of the five MainStay Funds: (1) the MainStay S&P 500 Index Fund and
(2) the MainStay Large Cap Growth Fund R2.  In total, the
Plaintiffs invested in six different investment options offered by
the Plan.

Count Two of the First Amended Complaint alleges a disclosure
injury under ERISA.  In July 2018, the Plaintiffs requested the
disclosure of certain Plan documents from Daikin in preparation for
the lawsuit.  They allege, however, that Daikin did not fully
comply with their disclosure request within the 30-day timeframe as
required under ERISA.  Consequently, they contend that this delay
entitles them to monetary damages.

Discussion

Daikin now moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  In support of its motion, Daikin argues that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring the case because they
did not personally invest in each of the funds complained of in the
First Amended Complaint.  Alternatively, it contends that it did
not breach its fiduciary duties under ERISA while managing the
Plan, and hence, that the case must be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).

Judge Crotty holds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated Article
III standing to bring the case.  The Plaintiffs sue not only to
recover their individual losses but to also vindicate the
collective injuries suffered by the Plan and its participants.  And
ERISA permits them to do this -- to step into the shoes of Plan
attorney general -- so long as they can demonstrate that they are
"within the zone of interests ERISA was intended to protect."  The
mere fact that the Plaintiffs stand to recover in their individual
capacities as investors in the Plan, without more, does not
abrogate the derivative nature of their lawsuit.  Moreover, the
existence of personal injuries on the part of the Plaintiffs is, in
fact, a necessary requirement for Article III standing under the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Thole v. U. S. Bank N.A, 140
S.Ct. 1615 (2020).

Turning to the merits, Count One of the First Amended Complaint
alleges that Daikin violated ERISA in two respects: First, the
Plaintiffs contend that Daikin breached its duty of loyalty by
selecting the MainStay Funds for inclusion in the Plan; and second,
the Plaintiffs contend that Daikin breached its duty of investment
prudence by failing to select investment options that yielded a
greater return for Plan participants.

Judge Crotty finds that the the Plaintiffs have not pled a
plausible duty of loyalty claim.  Simply put, the First Amended
Complaint contains no plausible facts showing that Daikin selected
the MainStay Funds for the purpose of benefitting itself or John
Hancock.  Instead, the Plaintiffs attempt to infer a conflict of
interest from the fact that John Hancock held dual roles with
respect to the Plan.  But, as several other courts in this district
confirm, that fact alone does not demonstrate that Daikin purposely
chose the MainStay Funds with an "eye" towards its own benefit or
even John Hancock's.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' duty of loyalty
claim must be rejected.

Judge Crotty dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Because the Plaintiffs' allegations of underperformance
do not reveal a defective methodology by which the investment
options were selected, they do not plausibly allege a violation of
the duty of prudence under ERISA.  Daikin's selection of retail
shares in lieu of institutional shares for several investment funds
in the Plan does not also reveal actionable misfeasance under
ERISA.  Finally, the Judge rejects the Plaintiffs' conclusory
allegation that Daikin failed to adequately monitor the MainStay
Funds' "hidden fees."

With respect to the Plaintiffs' final claim concerning an alleged
disclosure violation under ERISA, in Count Two of the First Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they had requested Daikin to
disclose "the summary plan description, plan documents and
amendments, 408(b)(2) service provider disclosures, 404(a)(5)
disclosures, and an enrollment packet" on July 23, 2018.  However,
the Plaintiffs allege that Daikin did not completely fulfill this
disclosure request until only after the present litigation
commenced in November 2018.  Accordingly, they contend that ERISA's
remedial provision entitles them to statutory damages.

Judge Crotty declines to exercise discretion to award statutory
damages.  First, apart from threadbare assertions, the First
Amended Complaint does not allege any plausible facts showing that
Daikin acted in bad faith or with the intent to hinder the present
lawsuit.  Second, the delay was insignificant and only one
disclosure request was made by the Plaintiffs. Finally, although
the withheld documents were certainly important, Daikin partially
fulfilled the disclosure request when initially asked, and it
completed the rest of the disclosures shortly thereafter.
Consequently, the Judge finds no compelling circumstances that call
out for the imposition of monetary relief.  Count Two of the First
Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crotty granted Daikin's motion to
dismiss.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4u9uersk from Leagle.com.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Int'l Brotherhood Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 PENSION FUND on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP; DELOITTE
LLP, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304-MBS (D.S.C.), the Lead Plaintiff
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension
Fund asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   2. appointng IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund as Class
Representative;

   3. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class
      Counsel and Tinkler Law Firm LLC as Liaison Counsel.

Deloitte  is a multinational professional services network with
offices in over 150 countries and territories around the world.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tGp29b
at no extra charge.[CC]

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

          Laura H. Posner, Esq.
          Ji Eun Kim, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street,14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: lposner@cohenmilstein.com
                  jekim@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Steve J. Toll, Esq.
          Jan Messerschmidt, Esq.
          Molly J. Bowen, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
                  mbowen@cohenmilstein.com

The Attorney for Lead Plaintiff and the Class and Proposed Liaison
Counsel, are:

          William Tinkler, Esq.
          TINKLER LAW FIRM LLC
          154 King Street, Third Floor
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 853-5203
          Facsimile: (843) 261-5647
          E-mail: williamtinkler@tinklerlaw.com

DESERT FINANCIAL: Cornell Files Suit in District of Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Financial
Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Eva Cornell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Desert Financial Credit Union, Unknown Parties, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00835-DWL (D. Ariz., May 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Banks and Banking.

Desert Financial Credit Union -- https://www.desertfinancial.com/
-- provides exceptional service and a full range of financial
solutions in Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Christine Albracht-Crogan, Esq.
          Kaysey Lauren Fung, Esq.
          COHEN DOWD QUIGLEY PC
          2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 1100
          Camelback Esplanade I
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 252-8400
          Fax: (602) 252-5339
          Email: ccrogan@cdqlaw.com
                 kfung@cdqlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP - Ontario, CA
          3281 E Guasti Ave., Ste. 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Phone: (909) 557-1250
          Fax: (909) 557-1275
          Email: dcw@mccunewright.com
                 rdm@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP - Edwardsville, IL
          231 N Main St., Ste. 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 307-6116
          Fax: (618) 307-6161


DISH NETWORK: Trial in Stockholder Suit vs Ergen to Start Sept. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the trial in the City
of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B, is
scheduled to start sometime during the five-week "stack" beginning
September 7, 2021.  

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Charles W. Ergen, the other
members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its
officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  

In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen.  

The trial of this matter is scheduled to start sometime during the
five-week "stack" beginning September 7, 2021.  

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A common stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees.

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend this case, but
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages."

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

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Donnelly Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit From Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOUGLASVILLE BAY BREEZE, INC. and
BILL KATSADOUROS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01948-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
May 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants by taking tip
credit against the minimum wages of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Donnelly worked for the Defendants as a server at the Seabreeze
Restaurant in Douglassville, Georgia.

Douglasville Bay Breeze, Inc. is an owner and operator of the
Seabreeze Restaurant located at 9610 Highway 5, Douglassville,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
         John L. Mays, Esq.
         PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
         75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 873-8000
         E-mail: dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
                 jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eric R. Ford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, DNF Associates, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02590 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions -- https://www.gotodrs.com/ -- provides
nationwide consumer collection services to industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ECA MARKETING: Odom Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Odom, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ECA Marketing,
Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-00851-JGB-SHK (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on June 7, 2021 to enter an order preliminary
approving a proposed class action settlement and certification of
settlement class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

ECA Marketing operates as a national annuity and life marketing
company. It offers financial services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ygxb83
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  alan@kazlg.com

ECHO GLOBAL: Facing Labor Related Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Echo Global Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company is facing a
class action suit alleging the company violated both federal and
state labor laws in classifying certain employees as exempt.

The Company has received a letter alleging the Company violated
both federal and state labor laws in classifying certain employees
as exempt and threatening to bring a class action lawsuit against
the Company regarding this allegation.

In March 2021, a class action lawsuit was formally filed against
the Company in this matter.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend
the matter.

Echo Global said, "Given the preliminary stage of the matter, the
Company cannot estimate the reasonable possibility or range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter and therefore no
accrual has been made as of March 31, 2021."

Chicago-based Echo Global Logistics, Inc. provides technology
enabled transportation
and supply chain management services, delivered on a proprietary
technology platform, serving the transportation and logistics needs
of its clients. Echo's web-based technology platform compiles and
analyzes data from its network of over 22,000 transportation
providers to serve its clients' shipping and freight management
needs. Echo procures transportation and provides logistics services
for more than 11,600 clients across a wide range of industries,
such as manufacturing, construction, consumer products and retail.


EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE: Failed to Secure PII and PHI, Ta Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nghi Ta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01985-JHS (E.D. Pa.,
April 29, 2021), is brought on behalf of individual patients of the
Defendant whose personally identifying information ("PII") and/or
protected health information ("PHI") was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties during a data breach of the Defendant's
e-mail systems, for which the Defendant states occurred between
August 5, 2020 and August 17, 2020.

According to the complaint, despite the Defendant's awareness of
the Data Breach by August 10, 2020, it failed to notify the
Plaintiff and the putative Class members within 60 days as required
by law. Notably, the the Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiff
of the Data Breach for more than five months from its discovery of
the same. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment, seeking
actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. As a
direct and proximate result of the the Defendant's inadequate data
security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII and PHI with
reasonable care, the Plaintiff and Class Members' PII and/or PHI
has been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of
unauthorized individuals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual who has been a citizen and
resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was a patient of
the Defendant's.

Einstein is a Pennsylvania Not For Profit Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 985-9177
          Fax: (215) 985-4169
          Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                 kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


ERBAVIVA INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erbaviva, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Erbaviva, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04204
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Erbaviva -- https://erbaviva.com/ -- is committed to crafting
organic products using nourishing living herbs and botanicals free
from harsh detergents, chemical fragrances, and other unhealthy
additives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ERIC STEINMETZ: Brinker Files Appeal Related to Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Brinker International, Inc., Petitioner v.
Eric Steinmetz, Michael Franklin, and Shenika Theus, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case
No. 21-90011 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 11th Cir., April 28, 2021),
Brinker files petition for Permission to Appeal from the United
Stated District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Case
No. 3:18-cv-686-TJC-MCR.

The petition arises from a putative class action involving what has
unfortunately become a common scenario: cybercriminals, through
relentless efforts, targeting and breaching the internal data
systems of consumer-facing business such as a retailer, hotel, or
restaurant to access customer payment-card data.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Jason K. Fagelman, Esq.
          Barton W. Cox, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Hendrix, Esq.
          Sarah Cornelia, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          220 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 855-8000

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
          Peter B. Siegel, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 661-0466
          Email: jonathan.frankling@nortonrosefulbright.com


EVERLY WELL: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everly Well, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Everly
Well, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02642 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Everlywell -- https://www.everlywell.com/ -- offers access to
laboratory testing for wellness monitoring, informational and
educational use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: Approval of Settlement in BIPA-Related Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that objectors filed notices
of appeal of the order granting final approval of the settlement in
the class action suit related to Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA).

On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory damages and
injunctive relief.

On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2018, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's
petition for review of the class certification order and stayed the
proceeding.

On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order.

On December 2, 2019, the company filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit,
which was denied.

On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit, which provided for a payment of
$550 million by the company and was subject to court approval.

On or about May 8, 2020, the parties executed a formal settlement
agreement, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement by the district court. On June 4, 2020, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.

On July 22, 2020, the parties executed an amended settlement
agreement, which, among other terms, provides for a payment of $650
million by the cmpany .

On February 26, 2021, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and the payment was made in March 2021.

On March 27 and March 29, 2021, objectors filed notices of appeal
of the order granting final approval of the settlement.

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in the 2018 consolidated
class action suit related to a cyber-attack.

Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.

On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.

On November 15, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The settlement is subject to final court approval.

Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission and other government inquiries."

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

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit related to the company's
Platform & User Data Practices.

Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with the company's platform and user data practices as
well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such
data with third parties in violation of our terms and policies, and
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages.

These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action described above relating
to the company's platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action. On August 7, 2020,
the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, with leave to amend.

On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

Facebook said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we
are vigorously defending them. In addition, our platform and user
data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse of
certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and other
government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other
jurisdictions. We entered into a settlement and modified consent
order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020.
Among other matters, our settlement with the FTC required us to pay
a penalty of $5.0 billion, which was paid in April 2020 upon the
effectiveness of the modified consent order. The state attorneys
general inquiry and certain government inquiries in other
jurisdictions remain ongoing."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FEATHER HOME: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feather Home Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Feather Home Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04133 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Feather Home Inc. -- https://www.livefeather.com/ -- operates as a
furniture rental company. The Company rents and assembles home and
office furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Unlawfully Disclosed Debt Info, Seffar Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taoufiq Seffar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a FBCS, Case
No. 0:21-cv-61000-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2021), is brought under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for the benefit of Florida
consumers whose private, debt-related information the Defendant
disclosed to an unauthorized third party, in connection with the
collection of consumer debts.

According to the complaint, the FDCPA broadly prohibits a debt
collector from communicating with anyone other than the consumer
"in connection with the collection of any debt." Despite this
prohibition -- one designed to protect consumers' privacy -- debt
collectors, including the Defendant, often send information
regarding consumers' alleged debts to third-party mail vendors.
These third-party mail vendors use information provided by debt
collectors -- such as a consumer's name, the name of the creditor
to whom a debt is allegedly owed, the name of an original creditor,
and the amount of an alleged debt -- to fashion, print, and mail
debt collection letters to consumers.

This unnecessary practice exposes private information regarding
alleged debts to third parties not exempted by the FDCPA. The
Defendant routinely provides, in connection with the collection of
consumer debts, protected information regarding consumer debts to
third-party mail vendors in violation of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff
therefore seeks relief for himself and on behalf of similarly
situated Florida consumers to whom Defendant sent debt collection
letters that were prepared, printed, or mailed by a third-party
mail vendor, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512.803.1578
          Email: akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: Matthew@Fight13.com


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Ofiteru Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First California
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Evelyn Ofiteru, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First California
Financial, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-03423-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2021).

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

First California Financial --
https://www.firstcaliforniafinancial.com/ -- is a mortgage broker
providing home loan refinance services and purchase loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK
          11500 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1524
          Phone: (310) 477-5575
          Email: wlitvak@drllaw.com


FIRST MOTOR: Underpays Public Service Advisors, Garcia Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN KIRK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF LOS ANGELES,
LLC and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV17300 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Private
Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay minimum, regular,
and overtime wages; failure to provide accurate wage statements;
and failure to pay wages upon ending employment of terminated or
resigned employees.

Mr. Garcia worked for the Defendants as a public service advisor in
Los Angeles County, California from December 3, 2018 through March
5, 2020.

First Motor Group of Los Angeles, LLC is a motor vehicle dealership
company with its principal place of business in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jake D. Finkel, Esq.
         Alexander Perez, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL
         3470 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         8605 Santa Monica Blvd., PMB 63688
         West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109
         Telephone: (213) 787-7411
         Facsimile: (323) 916-0521
         E-mail: jake@lawfinkel.com
                 alex@lawfinkel.com

FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES INC., d/b/a FDI SERVICES, ERIC OBEL
& LAURA PORTER, Case No. 9:21-cv-80844-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 10,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
and damages due to the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all overtime hours
worked in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants have intentionally,
willfully, and repetitively harmed the Plaintiff and other FLSA
Collective Members by engaging in a pattern, practice and policy of
violating the FLSA on a class wide basis. The Plaintiff all worked
in non-exempt positions, specifically as bridge mechanics, and were
subject to the same violations of the FLSA, regarding on call time.
The on-call time meant that the Plaintiff, and the FLSA Collective
Members, all worked more than 40 hours per week, without overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for FDI on October 29, 2019, and ended
his employment in the beginning of October 2020.

FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES INC., d/b/a FDI Services is headquartered in
Pompano Beach Florida, within the SDFL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq.
          Joshua M. Bloom, Esq.
          LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
          200 S. Andrews Ave, Suite 900
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Phone: (954) 880-9500
          Fax: (954) 755-2993
          Email: jhs@lubellrosen.com


FORBIDDEN PLANET: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forbidden Planet IP
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Forbidden
Planet IP Holdings, LLC d/b/a FPNYC.COM, Case No. 2:21-cv-02576
(E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Forbidden Planet NYC -- https://www.fpnyc.com/ -- has been one of
the world's most acclaimed sellers of comics, graphic novels, toys
and other collectibles since 1981.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


FORESTERS LIFE: Siino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA SIINO, Individually
and on Behalf of the Class, v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02904-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action with the Class defined

      as:

      "All owners, or beneficiaries upon the death of an insured,
      of Defendant's  individual life insurance policies issued or

      delivered in California and in force on or after January 1,
      2013 where Defendant terminated the policies for non-payment

      of premium without first providing all of the following: a
      policy containing a 60-day grace period (and an actual 60-day

      grace period in practice); a 30-day notice of pending lapse
      and termination; and an annual notice of a right to designate

      at least one other person to receive notice of lapse or
      termination of a policy for nonpayment of premium;"

   2. appointing her as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
      Winters & Associates as Class Counsel.

Foresters is an international financial services provider with more
than three million clients and members.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tJUGTa
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                   gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                   sball@einsurelaw.com

FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action suit.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
Federal Housing Finance Agency  (FHFA), filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed
on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury,
Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case
was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts.


Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012.

The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock
issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period
of time.

Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA, and
Treasury. This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The
allegations and demands made by plaintiffs in this case were
generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case described above.

Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also requested that, if
injunctive relief were not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be
awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be
determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value
of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they stated to
be approximately $42 million.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapelle, and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA. This case was filed as a shareholder derivative
lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a nominal
defendant, on July 30, 2014.

The complaint alleged that, through the August 2012 amendment to
the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and FHFA breached their respective
fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac, causing Freddie Mac to suffer
damages. The plaintiffs asked that Freddie Mac be awarded
compensatory damages and disgorgement, as well as attorneys' fees,
costs, and other expenses.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in
January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. In
September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision granting the
motions to dismiss. The DC Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims
except certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of
contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.


In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims. On
July 17, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the petitions for rehearing
and issued a modified decision, which permitted the institutional
plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and breach of implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that had been remanded.


The DC Circuit also removed language related to the standard to be
applied to the implied duty claims, leaving that issue for the
District Court to determine on remand. On October 16, 2017, certain
institutional and class plaintiffs filed petitions for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging whether HERA's
prohibition on injunctive relief against FHFA bars judicial review
of the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement, as well as whether HERA bars
shareholders from pursuing derivative litigation where they allege
the conservator faces a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court
denied the petitions on February 20, 2018.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and
plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally
a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal
National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in
the District Court.

Each of the proposed amended complaints names Freddie Mac as a
defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law.

On January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to
dismiss the amended complaints. On September 28, 2018, the District
Court dismissed all of the claims except those alleging breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Discovery is ongoing.

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal on Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the
company's motion to dismiss the appeal in the putative securities
class action suit entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al., is pending.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Sixth
Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification. On January 23, 2019, the Sixth
Circuit denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal that
decision. On September 17, 2020, the District Court granted a
request from the plaintiff for summary judgment and entered final
judgment in favor of Freddie Mac and the other defendants. On
October 9, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth Circuit. On January 27, 2021, Freddie Mac filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal.

Freddie Mac said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of the appellate process, and the inherent
uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event the case is
ultimately remanded to the District Court in whole or in part. In
particular, while the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification, this decision and the entry of final judgment
in defendants' favor have been appealed. Absent a final resolution
of whether a class will be certified, the identification of a class
if one is certified, and the identification of the alleged
statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss."

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FRESENIUS USA: Fenske Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL FENSKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FRESENIUS USA MANUFACTURING, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2105447, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00811 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 and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment, and unfair competition.

Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. is a company that manufactures
and distributes medical products for treating kidney failure, with
its principal place of business located in Waltham, Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David H. Stern, Esq.
         Alex E. Spjute, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: dstern@bakerlaw.com
                 aspjute@bakerlaw.com

GATA PACK: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gata Pack LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Gata Pack LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02564 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Gata Pack -- https://www.gatapack.com/ -- offers silicone face
coverings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


GC SERVICES: Daye Removed from State Ct. to New Jersey Fed. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAYE v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Case No. MER-L-000376-21, was removed from to the
Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton) on April 2, 2021.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-07981-MAS-TJB to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Michael A. Shipp.

GC Services provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Monica M. Littman, Esq.
          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP
          Four Penn Center
          1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1030
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 501-7002
          Facsimile: (215) 405-2973
          E-mail: mlittman@kdvlaw.com
                  rperr@kdvlaw.com

GIANT GUMMY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giant Gummy Bears Of
Raleigh, LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Giant Gummy Bears Of
Raleigh, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04233 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

GGB of Raleigh, LLC -- https://giantgummybears.com/ -- is a candy
manufacturer and claim they make a Giant Gummy Bear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GILBANE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Top Shelf Suit Over Unpaid Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Shelf Electric Corporation, individually, and as representative
of all trust fund beneficiaries similarly situated v. GILBANE
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, LLC and PARK PLACE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT,
LLC and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten," and other Lien
Holders unknown, Case No. 653095/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., May 11, 2021), is brought for funds due Top Shelf, and
related relief, for work performed on a construction project
located at 45 Park Place, New York, New York owned by Park Place.

According to the complaint, on June 6, 2016, Top Shelf and Gilbane
entered into an agreement pursuant to which Top Shelf agreed to,
and did in fact, provide certain labor, material and services,
including, but not limited to electrical contracting services on
the Project. Top Shelf's work included change orders, extras and
additional work outside the originally agreed scope of work.
Despite Top Shelf's performance of all work in a quality and
workmanlike manner, and in full compliance with all requirements,
Gilbane has refused to pay for all of the work, leaving an
outstanding balance of at least $460,857.98. Top Shelf has duly
demanded, invoiced and requisitioned the Outstanding Balance,
however Gilbane has neglected, failed, and/or refused to make
payment.

Without justification or excuse, Gilbane, which retained Top Shelf
to perform electrical contracting services on the Project, has
failed to pay Top Shelf for its work. Top Shelf timely filed a
Notice of Mechanic's Lien against the Property, in the amount of
$460,857.98. In this action, Top Shelf seeks foreclosure of the
Lien and recovery of the payments due for work performed on the
Project, together with all additional damages permitted under Top
Shelf's contract with Gilbane. Top Shelf additionally brings this
action. In a representative capacity on behalf of all beneficiaries
of the statutory trust established under Article 3-A of the Lien
Law, and seeks judgment against Gilbane for all trust funds
misappropriated or otherwise improperly diverted, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Gilbane was and is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Gardner, Esq.
          Bradley P. Pollina, Esq.
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 752-8000


GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Sues Over Air Clean Products' False Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT S. GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00665-UNA (D. Del., May 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for deceit and fraudulent
concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, state consumer protection
statutes, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of
its air treatment products. The Defendant represents its products
as safe and effective in cleaning the air and eliminating some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In reality, the Defendant's
products make the air worse for people because the products reduce
some VOCs but actually increase the concentration of other VOCs.
Further, the Defendant overstates its products' COVID-19 mitigation
performance and uses methods that are unvalidated and under
conditions that are not representative of actual application
conditions. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and
omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members purchased devices that
they would not have otherwise purchased or for which they would
have paid less, the suit says.

Global Plasma Solutions Inc. is an indoor air quality solutions
provider, with its principal place of business located in
Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
         Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
         Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
         2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201
         Wilmington, DE 19808
         Telephone: (302) 656-2500
         E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
                 smt@chimicles.com
                 tjc@chimicles.com

                 - and –

         Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
         361 W. Lancaster Ave
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com

                 - and –

         Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
         REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
         4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
         Houston, TX 77024
         Telephone: (713) 622-7271
         Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
         E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com

                 - and –

         Michael A. Mills, Esq.
         THE MILLS LAW FIRM
         8811 Gaylord Drive, Suite 200
         Houston, TX 77024
         Telephone: (832) 548-4414
         Facsimile: (832) 327-7443
         E-mail: mickey@millsmediation.com

                 - and –

         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

GLOBAL RESPONSE: Faces Rivera Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER RIVERA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL RESPONSE, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 0:21-cv-60761-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2021)
arises from the alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by the Defendants.

Among others, the Plaintiff seeks the Court's order:

  * declaring that the Defendant violated the FLSA and the
Department of Labor's attendant regulations;

  * declaring that the Defendant's violations of the FLSA were
willful;

  * declaring that the Defendant breached its contracts with
Plaintiff and the members of the Rule 23 Florida Class by failing
to pay them for each hour they worked at a pre-established
(contractual) regularly hourly rate;

  * declaring that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by the
off-the-clock work it required Plaintiff and the members of the
Rule 23 Florida Class to perform; and

  * granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
and awarding Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Florida
Class the full amount of damages and liquidated damages available
by law.

Plaintiff Jennifer Rivera was employed by the Defendant as an
hourly Customer Service Representatives (CSR) from October 2019
through December 2019.

Florida-based Global Response, LLC, offers contact center
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          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


GOOD HOPE RESTAURANT: Thorne Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamisha Thorne, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. THE GOOD HOPE RESTAURANT OF BROOKLYN, LLC (d/b/a GOOD HOPE
RESTAURANT) and CHARMINE SMITH, Case No. 1:21-cv-02645 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 11, 2021), is brought seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and statutory penalties
against the Defendants for the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

From November 2019 through the end of 2020, the Plaintiff worked
over 57.5 hours per week. From January 2021 through the remainder
of her employment, the Plaintiff worked over 45.5 hours per week.
The Defendants have never paid the Plaintiff an overtime rate of
1.5 times her regular hourly rate for hours she worked after having
already worked 40 hours per week, as they were required to do under
the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their restaurant with a policy of not paying the FLSA
minimum wage, the New York State minimum wage, or overtime at a
rate of 1.5 times each employee's regular hourly rate to the
Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at Good Hope in November 2019 until March 14,
2021 with job duties including, but were not limited to, working as
a waitress and cashier.

The Good Hope Restaurant Of Brooklyn, LLC is a resultant located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Greben, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
          316 Great Neck Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 304-5357

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Akers Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Toni Akers, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Government
Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00060-DLB-EBA (E.D.
Ky., May 7, 2021).

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

The Government Employees Insurance Company --
https://www.geico.com/ -- is an American auto insurance company
with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Pl Ste 175
          Orlando, FL 32803-3700
          Phone: 407-603-6031
          Fax: 888-974-2175
          Email: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
                 ed@ednormand.com
                 jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN EMERY, PSC
          101 N. Seventh Street, Suite 210
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone:  (859) 578-4444
          Fax: (859) 578-4440
          Email: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com


GREAT WOLF: Hart Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Hart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; GREAT
WOLF RESORTS HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; KATHY DOE, an
individual; DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01197578-CU-WT-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., April 28,
2021), is brought against the Defendants due to the Defendants'
conduct, namely failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay for
missed meal and rest breaks, violating California wage and hour
laws by not paying Plaintiff all wages earned; and the Defendants'
willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff
with regard to the Plaintiff's sexual orientation.

The complaint alleges that while working for the Defendants, the
Plaintiff was harassed because of his sexual orientation. The
Defendant Kathy Doe knew the Plaintiff was homosexual. Kathy Doe
regularly said she did not like gay people. The Plaintiff has
further been targeted by the Defendants after filing a formal
complaint against the Defendant Kathy Doe. The Defendants
reprimanded the Plaintiff by moving him to a different cooking
location, changing his hours and break times. Kathy Doe was not
reprimanded for her anti-gay comments or hitting Plaintiff. One
week later, the Defendants then wrongfully terminated the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours per week,
without receiving overtime wages for those hours worked. Instead of
paying overtime wages to Plaintiff, the Defendants would pay
straight time. Since the Plaintiff was working over 8 hours per
day, the Plaintiff should have been receiving overtime compensation
at one and one half times their regular rate for any time worked
over 8 hours until 12, after which the Plaintiff should have been
receiving overtime compensation at 2 times their regular rate for
any time worked over 12 hours. The Defendants would not report all
the hours on the Plaintiff's itemized statements, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook in the
County of Orange and the State of California.

The Defendants are a business conducting business in the County of
Orange and the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Roven, Esq.
          Britanie A. Martinez, Esq.
          JONNY LAW
          P.O. Box 3989
          Valley Village, CA 91617-3989
          Phone: (818) 639-3997
          Fax: (818) 471-4164
          Email: jon@calljonnylaw.com


HOLLYWOOD MODEL: Tataryn Seeks to Unpaid Wages, OT Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA TATARYN, an individual v. HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
limited liability company; HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., a
corporation; MERAKI MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation; MERAKI
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a limited liability company; HOLLYWOOD MODEL
MANAGEMENT, a business entity; HOLLYWOOD SELECT TALENT, a business
entity, form unknown; MERAKI MODELING AGENCY, a business entity,
form unknown; MICHAEL SHERER, an individual; AGRIS BLAUBUKS, an
individual; CESAR BARROSO, an individual: and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV12639 (Cal. Super., April 2, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime in violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff and paid
wages to her, wrongfully classified her as exempt, and failed to
compensate her for all hours worked and failed to compensate her
for missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

Hollywood Model Management is a full service modeling agency in Los
Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Y. Muse, Esq.
          John R. Matheny, Esq.
          Donna M. Boris, Esq.
          EXCELSIOR LAW
          19595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 205-3981
          Facsimile: (310) 205-0594
          E-mail: Roger@excelsior-law.com
                  John@excelsior-law.com
                  donna@excelsior-law.com

HOME DEPOT: Wiretaps Website Users, Fridman Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FRIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Case No. 24249830 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade Cty., April 2, 2021) is a class action suit against Home
Depot arising from Defendant's unlawful interception -- or
"wiretapping" -- of Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications with the Website homedepot.com.

According to the complaint, the Defendant uses wiretaps, which are
embedded in the computer code on the Website, to intercept
Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications with
Defendant's Website. To accomplish this wiretapping, the Defendant
allegedly uses tracking, recording, and/or "session replay"
software to secretly observe and record Plaintiff's and Class
Members' electronic communications with the Website, including
their keystrokes, mouse movements and clicks, information inputted
into the Website, and/or pages and content viewed on the Website.

The Defendant intercepted or allowed for the interception of the
electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior
consent of Plaintiff and the Class Members, for its own financial
gain. By doing so, Defendant has invaded Plaintiff's and Class
Members' privacy rights under Florida Law and violated the FSCA,
Fla. Stat. sections 934.03 and 934.04. The Defendant has caused
Plaintiff and Class Members to suffer injuries as a result of
invading their privacy and/or exposing their private information,
the suit asserts.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged unlawful Plaintiff additionally seeks damages
as authorized by the FSCA on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class
Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the actions of the Defendant.

Plaintiff Fridman is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

Home Depot is a home improvement retailer that sells building
materials and home improvement products in brick-and-mortar stores
as well as online through its Website. Home Depot owns and operates
homedepot.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN LAW, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B
          Miami, FL 33133
          E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
          Telephone: (305) 402-9050

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A
          400 Northwest 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881

HSIN TUNG: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hsin Tung Yang Foods
Company. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hsin Tung Yang Foods
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04121 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Hsin Tung Yang -- https://htyusa.com/ -- is a food service company
and retailer based in Taipei, Taiwan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Marche Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE MARCHE AND MOLLY BENDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES,INC. AND THE
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00750 (N.D.  Ohio, April
7, 2021) seeks to recover overtime premium compensation and other
wages owed to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who
worked for the Defendants as overtime-wage non-exempt classified
branch employees throughout the United States pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and throughout Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio
Minimum Wage Act and the Ohio Constitution.

Plaintiff Marche was a Branch Employee -- specifically a
Relationship Banker -- employed by Huntington from July 2018
through March 2020.

Plaintiff Bender was a Branch Employee -- specifically, a Teller --
employed by Huntington from November 2017 through June 2018.

Pursuant to its policy and practice, Huntington failed to pay
straight-time or overtime wages to the Plaintiffs for the
off-the-clock work performed in multiple workweeks, the complaint
states.

Huntington Bancshares, Inc. is a multi-state diversified regional
bank holding company, organized and existing under the laws of
Maryland, with corporate headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP,P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN &GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
          OUTTEN &GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2006
          E-mail: HColeChu@outtengolden.com


INDEPENDENT BANK: Summary Judgment Bid in BOH Merger Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for
summary judgment filed in the BOH Holdings, Inc.'s merger related
suit, is pending.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited in
connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and
its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on
April 15, 2014.

Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased
certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in
a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et
al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint presents previously
unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek recovery from the Bank
and other defendants for their losses.

The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued
March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion.

In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery
stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order
providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Due
to agreed upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court
amended the scheduling order to provide that the case be ready for
trial on January 11, 2021.

In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which now provides that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021.

In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021.

On September 10, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for suggestion of
remand in order to remand the case to the Southern District of
Texas. On March 11, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to amend the
scheduling order, which was granted, effectively vacating the May
6, 2021 trial date, with a new trial date to be determined upon
remand.

On April 5, 2021, Defendants re-urged the motion for suggestion of
remand, the outcome of which is still pending. In February 2021,
the Bank filed its motion for summary judgment and also joined in
on an omnibus motion for summary judgment on procedural issues
common to all Defendants.

Parties are awaiting a ruling on the summary judgment briefing to
determine the final causes of action to be addressed at trial.

The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated
with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in
legal fees as the case proceeds to trial.

The Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the
Second Amended Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially
indicated that the claims are not covered by the policies or that a
"loss" has not yet occurred.

The Bank pursued insurance coverage as well as reimbursement of
defense costs through the initiation of litigation and other means.
On November 6, 2018, the Company settled claims under its Financial
Institutions Select Policy pursuant to which the Company received
payment of an amount which is not material to the operations of the
Company. The Company did not settle any claims under its Financial
Institution Bond Policy.

The Company believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a
number of procedural matters and issues. As such, the Company is
unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the
uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential
costs or damages arising from, this case."

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


INSCRIPTGRAPHS LLC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inscriptagraphs LLC.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Inscriptagraphs LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04168 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021).

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

Inscriptagraphs -- https://inscriptagraphs.com/ -- which is based
out of Las Vegas, Nevada is an online memorabilia retailer and
sports memorabilia brand that sells sports collectibles from the
best athletes in the world both past and present.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J & F DESIGN: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & F Design Inc. The
case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. J & F Design Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04165 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021).

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

J & F Design Inc. -- https://jfdesigninc.com/ -- is a Los Angeles
based apparel company servicing all tiers fashion channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Company and/or its
subsidiaries continue to defend several class action lawsuits
related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
subsidiary of the company (JHG), Janus Index & Calculation Services
LLC, which, effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson
Indices LLC, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker:
XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v.
Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). Credit Suisse AG, the issuer
of the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On May 4, 2018, an additional class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse in the
SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The Qiu
allegations generally copy the allegations in the Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

The Janus Henderson Group plc and Credit Suisse defendants moved to
dismiss the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25,
2019, the court dismissed all claims against all defendants.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to
further amend their complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in
its entirety. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On April 27, 2021, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which it
affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Janus defendants
except for one claim that it held the district court did not
address, granted plaintiffs the opportunity to replead the claims
as to which it affirmed dismissal, and remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.  

Janus said, "We believe the remaining claims in these ETN lawsuits
are without merit and we are vigorously defending the actions. As
of March 31, 2021, we cannot reasonably estimate possible losses
from the remaining claims in the ETN lawsuits."

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.

JUST BORN: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just Born, Inc. The
case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Just Born, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04234 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Just Born -- https://www.justborn.com/ -- is a family-owned
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania-based candy company that manufactures and
markets a number of candies including Goldenberg's Peanut Chews,
Hot Tamales, Mike and Ike, Peeps, Teenee Beanee jelly beans, and
Zours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the award of $19 million from the
appellate court of Moundou to former employees of the company's
former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. ("SSI"), is
still suspended.

In May 2018, former employees of SSI filed a class action suit
claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation dating back to the early 2000s.


Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The SSI employees
previously filed two class action cases in or around 2005 and 2006
for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The Chadian Labour Court
ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid overtime resulting
in a settlement of approximately $25 million which was reimbursed
by Exxon under its contract with SSI.  

The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.

The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Chadian Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed
and a hearing was held in December 2018.  

A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the
Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.


Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon
and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019
and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020.

The plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020 and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020. The hearing was postponed
due to COVID-19 but took place on September 18, 2020.

On October 9, 2020 the appellate court of Moundou awarded the
plaintiffs approximately $19 million. SSI filed an appeal of this
decision to the Chadian Supreme Court on December 28, 2020.

SSI's request for suspension on the enforceability of the award
from the Chadian Supreme Court was granted on January 4, 2021 and
therefore there is no current risk of enforcement of the judgment.

KBR said, "At this time, we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter. SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States.  Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."

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

KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Final Settlement
Approval Hearing is set for June 2021 on the various class actions
asserting claims under federal antitrust laws and various state
laws.

Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting claims under federal antitrust laws and various state
laws and seeking monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect
purchasers of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.'s (KGM's) products in
various federal district courts. In June 2014, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation granted a motion to transfer these
various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a
single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings (the "Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014. An
additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November
2015. In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against KGM
(McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY
asserting similar claims and also was transferred into the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

These actions are now pending in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green
Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation). Discovery in
the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation commenced in December 2017.

Separately, a statement of claim was filed in September 2014
against KGM and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club
Coffee L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods,
asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading
statements by Keurig.

In July 2020, KGM reached an agreement with the putative indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.

The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the
United States that purchased, from persons other than KGM and not
for purposes of resale, KGM manufactured or licensed single serve
beverage portion packs during the applicable class period
(beginning in September 2010 for most states).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
December 2020, and the Company paid the settlement amount in
January 2021. Putative class members have the opportunity to object
or opt out of the settlement, and a final approval hearing is
scheduled in June 2021.

KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits brought by
Treehouse, JBR, McLane, the putative direct purchaser class and
Club Coffee.

Keurig Dr Pepper said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range
of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits
or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its
operations."

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.


KINDER MORGAN: Hamelin Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRAIG HAMELIN and MICHAEL McCARRON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KINDER MORGAN,
INC.; KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.; TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE
CO., LLC.; THE BERKSHIRE GAS COMPANY; and AVANGRID, INC., Case No.
2176CV00024, was removed from the Superior Court for Berkshire
County, Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-30054 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, fraudulent
concealment, and medical monitoring after the Plaintiffs developed
and/or at higher risk of developing diseases due to radiation
exposure in the workplace.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. is a subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC is a provider of gas transportation
and storage services based in Texas.

The Berkshire Gas Company is a gas and electric company, with its
principal place of business in Massachusetts.

Avangrid, Inc. is an energy services and delivery company,
headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         James L. Messenger, Esq.
         John W. Moran, Esq.
         Brian J. Wall, Esq.
         Benjamin O'Grady, Esq.
         GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         21 Custom House Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (857) 263-2000
         E-mail: jmessenger@grsm.com
                 jmoran@grsm.com
                 bwall@grsm.com
                 bogrady@grsm.com

                - and -

         Melanie A. Conroy, Esq.
         Sarah R. Remes, Esq.
         PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
         100 Summer Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 488-8100
         E-mail: mconroy@pierceatwood.com
                 sremes@pierceatwood.com

LC CHIROPRACTIC: Faces Hindi Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamil Hindi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LC CHIROPRACTIC, LLC D/B/ A THE JOINT CORAL SPRINGS,
Case No. CACE-21-009225 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial, Broward
Cty., May 7, 2021), is brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from the Defendant's violations of the
TCPA.

The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
the Defendant in transmitting advertising and telemarketing text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other similarly situated persons using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and without anyone's
prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant sells and markets chiropractic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
          Phone: 954.533.4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Becerra Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leaffilter North,
LLC. The case is captioned as Eduardo Becerra vs. Leaffilter North,
LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00297806-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., April 2,
2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. The company
manufactures, sells, and installs gutter guards for homeowners.

The Defendants include Does 1-20 and Kingdom Home Ventures,
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES
          11601 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
          Website: www.makaremlaw.com

LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hufford Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslie Rutledge. The
case is styled as William Hufford, On behalf of himself and all
others Similarly Situated v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of
Arkansas, Case No. 4:21-cv-00388-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          William Hufford
          Post Office Box 1630
          Malvern, AR 72104
          ADC #89747
          OUACHITA RIVER UNIT
          Arkansas Division of Correction
          PRO SE



LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Pusha Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslie Rutledge. The
case is styled as Mychel Pusha, On behalf of himself and all others
Similarly Situated v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of
Arkansas, Case No. 4:21-cv-00387-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Mychel Pusha
          Post Office Box 1630
          Malvern, AR 72104
          ADC #105492
          OUACHITA RIVER UNIT
          Arkansas Division of Correction
          PRO SE


LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Ruffin Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslie Rutledge. The
case is styled as Cortland Ruffin, On behalf of himself and all
others Similarly Situated v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of
Arkansas, Case No. 4:21-cv-00391-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Cortland Ruffin
          Post Office Box 1630
          Malvern, AR 72104
          ADC #138115
          OUACHITA RIVER UNIT
          Arkansas Division of Correction
          PRO SE


LETSGETCHECKED INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Letsgetchecked, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Letsgetchecked, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02643 (E.D.N.Y., May 11,
2021).

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

LetsGetChecked -- https://www.letsgetchecked.com/ie/en/ -- is a
leading health insights company that allows consumers direct access
to a wide range of testing options and clinical services from
home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Complaint Still Not Served
------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that in December 2013, a class
action complaint was filed by Hatzlacha, a consumer organization,
on behalf of Israeli consumers against LG Display and other
defendants in the Central District in Israel.

LG Display said, "As of April 26, 2021, we have not been served
with the complaint from Hatzlacha.

LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive displays,
portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It
serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The
Company was formerly known as LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed
its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co.,
Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South
Korea."

LOS CAFETALES: Faces Morales Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------
YOCELIN MORALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. LOS CAFETALES RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A LOS CAFETALES
BAKERY & RESTAURANT), ISRAEL ARIZA BARRIOS, and CAROLINA BERMUDEZ,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01868 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation, and damages for any
improper deductions or credits taken against wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Morales was employed as a waitress, cashier, cook, and
porter by Defendants at Los Cafetales from May 27, 2020 until March
5, 2021.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Morales was ostensibly
employed as a waitress, but she was required to spend a
considerable part of her work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to delivering food, attending the
counter, making juices, and cleaning the restaurant. The Defendants
employed and accounted for Plaintiff Morales as a waitress in their
payroll, but in actuality her duties required a significant amount
of time spent performing the non-tipped duties.

The complaint further says that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay
or for any additional overtime premium; failed to pay the Plaintiff
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to
work over 10 hours a day; and repeatedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff wages on a timely basis.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Colombian bakery
and restaurant, located in New York under the name "Los Cafetales
Bakery & Restaurant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


MACROGENICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Hill Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the securities class action suit initiated by Todd Hill, is
pending.

On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Scott Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. James Karrels,
as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading
statements regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.

On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2020.

Plaintiff filed an Opposition brief on January 29, 2021, to which
the Company filed a timely reply. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against this action.

MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."

MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.


MAIDEN HOME: Faces Olsen Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maiden Home, Inc. The
case is captioned as Olsen v. Maiden Home, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02842-AJN (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan.

Maiden Home is an e-commerce platform that provides custom
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MARVEL WORLDWIDE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marvel Worldwide,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Marvel Worldwide, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04224 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Marvel Worldwide, Inc. -- https://www.marvel.com/ -- provides
entertainment services. The Company publishes comics, movies, tv
shows, and games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Over OK'd Damage Class Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the
district court's order granting approval of the damage class
settlement, is still pending.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the
complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these
complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services,
resulting in merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of
Mastercard and Visa credit and debit cards.

The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs
sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  

The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the merchant
litigation cases.

Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions
with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard
would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.

The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the
court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed
the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district
court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was
based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately
represented by counsel in the settlement.

As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the "Rules Relief Class"). The court appointed
separate counsel for each class.

In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims. The time period during which Damages Class members
were permitted to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended
in July 2019 with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of
the Damages Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the
settlement.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2019.

The district court's settlement approval order has been appealed.
Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations with a number of
the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements and/or agreements
in principle to settle a number of these claims. The Damages Class
settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class
claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief
Class are ongoing.

In December 2020, the Rules Relief Class filed a motion for class
certification.

Briefing on summary judgment motions in the Rules Relief Class and
opt-out merchant cases was completed in December 2020.

As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Mastercard had accrued
a liability of $783 million as a reserve for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchant cases.

As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Mastercard had $586
million in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the Damages
Class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its
consolidated balance sheet.

The reserve as of March 31, 2021 for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchants represents Mastercard's best
estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out
merchants and the Damages Class litigation settlement does not
represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were
litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the
potential liability if that were to occur.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.

MASTERCARD INC: Class Status Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motions for class
certification filed in the ATM Surcharge Fees suits remain
pending.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa
(the "ATM Operators Complaint").  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent
the case back for further proceedings.

In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants.

Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the
plaintiffs' liability and damages claims and has opposed class
certification.

Briefing on class certification is complete.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shift Fraud Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that substantive expert
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit involving conspiracy
to shift fraud liability.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and
an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

In September 2016, the district court denied the Network
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a
motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district
court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be
coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation
described above.

In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' request for class certification.

In January 2021, the Network Defendants' request for permission to
appeal the district court's certification decision to the appellate
court was denied.

The case is proceeding with substantive expert discovery.

The plaintiffs' have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate
damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network
Defendants. The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports
rebutting both liability and damages.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Parties Directed to Re-brief Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the district court
judge handling the class action suit involving an alleged Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") violation, has instructed the
parties to re-brief the motion for class certification.

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida.

The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").

The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).

In June 2018, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services.

In December 2019, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying
that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services
that are received via e-mail.

As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in
January 2020.

In January 2021, the magistrate judge serving on the district court
issued an opinion recommending that the district court judge deny
plaintiffs' class certification motion. In light of an appellate
court decision, issued subsequent to the magistrate's
recommendation, the district court judge has instructed the parties
to re-brief the motion for class certification.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Settlement in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that all appeals by
objectors to the settlement have either been rejected by the
Supreme Court or abandoned, and the settlement is now final in the
class action suits against the company in Canada.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants.

The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.

The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages
in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.

Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation.

The settlement, which required Mastercard to make a cash payment
and modify its
"no surcharge" rule, received court approval in each Canadian
province.

All appeals by objectors to the settlement have either been
rejected by the Supreme Court or abandoned, and the settlement is
now final.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MATERION CORP: Lucyk Wage and Hour Purported Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Materion Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a wage and hour purported collective and class action,
entitled, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc., et. al.

On October 14, 2020, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc.,
et. al., case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective
and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc.

Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges that he and other similarly situated
employees nationwide are not paid for all time they spend donning
and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

Plaintiff also alleges the Company failed to include all
remuneration he and others received for premium and bonus pay when
computing overtime pay.

The case is currently in the preliminary stages.

The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this suit.

Materion Corporation, through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies high-performance engineered materials. The Company
provides beryllium, beryllium alloys, and electronic products, as
well as engineered material systems. Materion has manufacturing
facilities, service and distribution centers, and research
facilities in the United States and internationally. The company is
based in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.

MATTEL INC: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class of Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Mattel, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10860-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiffs DeKalb County Employees Retirement System and New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System together with DeKalb, and
additional named plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension
System will move the Court on September 20, 2021, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for an entry of an order:

   1. certifying a class of investors defined as:

      "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
      the common stock of Mattel, Inc. from August 2, 2017
      to August 8, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;"


      Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants Mattel, Joseph J.

      Euteneuer, Margaret H. Georgiadis, Kevin Farr,
      PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and Joshua Abrahams (together,

      Defendants); (ii) Mattel's and PwC's affiliates and
      subsidiaries; (iii) the officers and directors of Mattel and

      PwC and their subsidiaries and affiliates at all relevant
      times; (iv) members of the immediate family of any excluded
      person; (v) heirs, successors, and assigns of any excluded
      person or entity; and (vi) any entity in which any excluded
      person has or had a controlling interest;

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs New Orleans and DeKalb as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class

      Counsel.

This action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Mattel and its top executives, Mattel's
registered accounting firm, PwC, and PwC's lead audit partner. Like
most securities-fraud actions, this one is ideally suited for class
treatment because it arises from common misrepresentations that
harmed thousands of investors in Mattel's stock during the Class
Period in a like manner.

On April 20, 2020, the Court appointed DeKalb and New Orleans as
Lead Plaintiffs, approved their selection of Bernstein Litowitz as
Lead Counsel, and consolidated related actions.
Lead Plaintiff DeKalb is a defined benefit pension fund founded in
1949 and headquartered in Decatur, Georgia with approximately $1.5
billion in assets under management. Lead Plaintiff New Orleans is a
defined benefit pension fund founded in 1947 and headquartered in
New Orleans, Louisiana with approximately $375 million in assets
under management.

The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on May 29, 2020. The Defendants
moved to dismiss the Complaint. After full briefing, the Court
denied Defendants' motions to dismiss.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bpc21n
at no extra charge.[CC]

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class, are:

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          Lauren M. Cruz, Esq.
          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3470
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension System,
are:

          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com

MATTEL INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattel, Inc. The case
is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mattel, Inc., d/b/a Americangirl.com,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02577 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Mattel, Inc. -- https://www.mattel.com/en-us -- is an American
multinational toy manufacturing company founded in 1945 with
headquarters in El Segundo, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


MAZDA MOTORS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazda Motors of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motors of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04223 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Mazda North American Operations, which includes Mazda Motor of
America, Inc. -- https://www.mazda.com/ -- is Mazda Motor
Corporation's North American arm, and constitutes the largest
component of that company outside Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Guthrie Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled as William Guthrie, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McCarthy Burgess &
Wolff, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02591-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., May 8,
2021).

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

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff (MB&W) -- https://www.mbandw.com/ -- is
one of the premier collection agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Cars Have Defective AHR System, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MONOPOLI, JAMES FITZPATRICK, SYNTHIA PRAGLIN, and SAWNTANAIA
HARRIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and DAIMLER AG, Case No. 1:21-cv-01353-SDG
(N.D. Ga., April 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendants were
intimately involved in the design and testing of the Active Head
Restraint (AHR) systems and were aware that they were designed with
an inferior, inexpensive, plastic that cannot withstand the
constant force applied by the springs.

Despite this exclusive and superior knowledge, the Mercedes
Defendants continued to direct and approve the defective AHRs for
use in their vehicles, and continued to distribute the Class
Vehicles to their dealers, and dealers continued to sell Class
Vehicles with the defective AHR. The Defendants have allegedly
conspired to conceal the defect from and have failed to disclose
the existence of the defect to Plaintiffs, Class members, and the
public. Additionally, the Mercedes Defendants have refused to issue
a recall, remedy the defect, or compensate Plaintiffs and the Class
members for their damages, the suit says.

For more than a decade, Mercedes has been designing, manufacturing,
advertising, selling, and leasing cars with headrests containing a
defect which threatens occupants' safety. Embedded in the headrest
is a mechanism, known as an Active Head Restraint (AHR), which is
designed to spring forward in the event of a rear-end collision and
rapidly push the headrest out to catch the occupant's head and
prevent whiplash. The headrest and AHR are manufactured by a German
company, Grammer AG, and installed in Mercedes vehicles. The AHR
was designed by Grammer and Daimler. Mercedes has branded the AHR
in its vehicles as "NECK-PRO."

The AHR spontaneously deploys when, under normal operating
conditions, a cheap plastic component inside the device fails. A
plastic bracket acts as the triggering mechanism for the AHR and
holds the spring-loaded release in place until a sensor alerts
signaling a rear-end collision. As a cost-saving measure, Daimler
designed this bracket with an inferior and inexpensive form of
plastic which cracks and breaks down prematurely under the constant
pressure exerted by the tensed springs in the AHR, added the suit.

The defective AHR is a "safety-related defect," as defined by the
National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Specifically, NHTSA states that examples of defects related to
safety include: Car seats and booster seats that contain defective
safety belts, buckles, or components that create a risk of injury
not only in a vehicle crash, but also in the nonoperational safety
of a motor vehicle. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
          T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLP
          75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2750
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5600
          5604 mcaplan@caplancobb.com
          E-mail: bwaddell@caplancobb.com

               - and -

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
          Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com
                 adelriego@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Meaghan Goldstein, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN &
          THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  hst@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  mgoldstein@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
          BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Burger, Esq.
          SANTIAGO BURGER LLP
          1250 Pittsford Victor Road
          Bldg. 100 Suite 190
          Pittsford, NY 14534
          Telephone: (585) 563-2400
          Facsimile: (585) 563-7526
          E-mail: mike@litgrp.com

               - and -

          George Franjola, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE FRANJOLA
          3610 E. Fort King St.
          Ocala, FL 34470
          Telephone: (352) 812-0462
          E-mail: gfranjola@ocalalaw.com

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Cleven Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the
petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification of the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and
Tara Cleven remains pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.


In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. In January 2017,
Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the lawsuit as additional
plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company (but not Post Properties
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019 of the Texas Property Code, or Section 92.019, which
provides that a landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for
failing to pay rent unless, among other things, the fee is a
reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are
incapable of precise calculation and result from the late payment
of rent. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments. The Company also intends to appeal the
District Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to
appeal is granted. The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the action and pursue such appeals.  

Management estimates that the Company's maximum exposure in the
lawsuit, given the class certification and summary judgment ruling,
is $54.6 million, which includes both potential damages and
attorneys' fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that may be
awarded.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney's
fees and costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.  

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment.

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals heard the Company's oral arguments. The Company also
intends to appeal the District Court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
if permission to appeal is granted.  

Mid-America said, "The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the action and pursue such appeals.  Management estimates that the
Company's maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class
certification and summary judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which
includes both potential damages and attorneys' fees but excludes
any prejudgment interest that may be awarded."

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MIRAMED REVENUE: Hodge Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Miramed Revenue Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Hodge, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Miramed Revenue Group, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02520 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2021).

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

MiraMed Revenue Group -- https://miramedrg.com/ -- is an
experienced and successful healthcare collection agency that has
been providing third-party collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MLR SOLUTIONS: Ellis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MLR Solutions. The
case is styled as Yolanda Ellis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MLR Solutions, Case No. 2:21-cv-02592
(E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2021).

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

MLR Solutions -- https://mlrsolutionsinc.com/ -- is a full service
collection agency that applies a unique combination of advanced
telephony and computer technology coupled with empathetic debtor
touch point management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTOR TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motor Trend Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Motor Trend Group, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04225 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Motor Trend Group -- https://www.motortrendgroup.com/ -- formerly
known as Source Interlink Media and TEN: The Enthusiast Network, is
a media company that specializes in enthusiast brands, such as
Motor Trend, Hot Rod, and Roadkill.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE : Faces Kio FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems. The case is captioned as KIO v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-08043-KM-MAH (D.N.J., April 2,
2021),

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

National Enterprise operates as a full-service debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LEGAL
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Ruttherfod, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class
actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.

Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Penasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).

By a consent order, the latter lawsuit proceeded, and the former
action has been stayed.

The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who
acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary market during
an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016.

An amended complaint has been filed in the active lawsuit, which
removes the individual defendants, and requests leave of the Court
to pursue only the statutory cause of action.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.

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

Newmont Corporation engages in the production and exploration of
gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead. The Company has operations
and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican
Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana.
Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend multiple lawsuits, including consolidated cases
in the District of Columbia, related to fuel surcharges.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against us and other
Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The
defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's
decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.


Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of
Columbia.

Norfolk said, "We believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not
believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

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

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


OAKLAND, CA: APTP  Seeks to Certify Class of Demonstrators
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTI POLICE-TERROR
PROJECT, et al., v. CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police Chief SUSAN E.
MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES, OPD Officer MAXWELL D
ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:

   "all demonstrators who inhaled CS gas at the 12 protests in
   Oakland on May 29, 2020, between 9:20 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. at or
   near 7th and 13 Broadway in downtown Oakland, and June 1, 2020,

   from 7:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., at or near 8th and Broadway under Rule

   23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin entirely police use of CS gas, and
money damages. The Plaintiffs will testify to their distress and
injuries from the police attack, representing the experience of the
many who protested police brutality and racial injustice over those
days of resistance.

On May 29, 2020, and the following days, thousands of people in
Oakland, California, peacefully demonstrated against the police
brutality that horrifically stole George Floyd s life and the lives
of so many others. Police unleashed immense clouds of tear gas
causing terror that would chill an reasonable person s willingness
to exercise their right to protest. On August 10, 2020, this Court
issued a preliminary injunction 1 prohibiting use of chemical
weapons on peaceful protestors or indiscriminately into a crowd. To
this day, the Defendants have failed to produce any sworn testimony
or photographic evidence of protestors throwing rocks or Molotov
cocktails.

The Plaintiffs include COMMUNITY READY CORPS, SEAN CANADAY, MICHAEL
COHEN, MICHAEL COOPER, ANDREA COSTANZO, JOHNATHAN FARMER, LINDSEY
FILOWITZ, DANIELLE GAITO, KATIE JOHNSON, BRYANNA KELLY, JENNIFER
LI, IAN McDONNELL, MELISSA MIYARA, LINDSEY MORRIS, LEILA MOTTLEY,
NIKO NADA, AZIZE NGO, NICOLE PULLER, MARIA RAMIREZ, AKIL RILEY,
AARON ROGACHEVSKY, TARA ROSE, ASHWIN RUPAN, DANIEL SANCHEZ,
CHRISTINA STEWART, TAYAH STEWART, KATHERINE SUGRUE, CELESTE WONG,
and QIAOCHU ZHANG; on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ofgEMF
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter Riley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY
          1407 Webster Street, Suite 206
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 451-1422
          Facsimile: (510) 451-0406
          Email: walterriley@rrrandw.com

               - and -

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com

               - and -

          James Douglas Burch, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          558 Capp Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104
          E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org

ONCHAIN LABS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onchain Labs, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Onchain Labs, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04129 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Onchain -- http://www.onchain.com/-- is a financial technology
company dedicated to the area of blockchain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORCHARD YARN: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orchard Yarn And
Thread Company Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Orchard Yarn
And Thread Company Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04235 (S.D.N.Y., May 11,
2021).

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

Orchard Yarn and Thread Company Inc., doing business as Lion Brand
Yarn -- https://www.lionbrand.com/ -- manufactures and distributes
hand-knitting and crochet yarns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PBF ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Claims for Nuisance & Trespass Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company's brief
requesting the court to dismiss plaintiff Youssef's claims for
nuisance and trespass and deny plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint to substitute a new named plaintiff or
class representative, is pending.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company
LLC and the manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with
ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and
representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold
Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly
situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
court took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the court
issued an order denying class certification. On April 15, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order
Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a Motion with the Central District Court for Leave to File a
Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22, 2019, the judge
granted plaintiffs' motion.

The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and
named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021,
the company's motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and
a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
were heard by the court.

On February 9, 2021, the court issued an order taking both motions
under submission pending additional discovery and briefing related
to plaintiff Youssef and whether a new class representative should
be substituted. The court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert
disclosure deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion
hearing cut-off, and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the
court's decision as to whether the case can proceed with a new
class representative and whether defendants will be permitted to
conduct additional soil vapor sampling in the ground subclass area.


On March 6, 2021, plaintiff Youssef's second deposition was taken.
On March 22, 2021, based on plaintiff Youssef's deposition, the
company filed its brief requesting the court to dismiss plaintiff
Youssef's claims for nuisance and trespass and deny plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to substitute a
new named plaintiff or class representative.

On April 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a brief regarding their motion.


The company is currently waiting for the court's ruling on the
briefs.

Trial was previously scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.

PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.

PENSKE LOGISTICS: Poston Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Phil Poston, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Penske
Logistics LLC, Penske Truck Leasing, Co. L.P., Case No. 21STCV07387
was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 10,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03939 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Account
Receivable.

Penske -- https://www.penskelogistics.com/ -- provides innovative
logistics services and solutions using a results-oriented approach
and extensive industry experience to meet logistics needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com


PENSKE MEDIA: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PENSKE MEDIA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-04130
(S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure 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 people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' website, www.hollywoodreporter.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a 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 consumers, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a magazine company, and owns and operates the
website, www.hollywoodreporter.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PG&E CORP: Dismissal of PSPS Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal in the class
action suit involving Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), is
pending.

On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and the Utility.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.

The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.

The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations. On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court
granted the Utility's motion to dismiss this class action because
the plaintiff's class action claims are preempted as a matter of
law by the CPUC code.

On April 3, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing
the action without leave to amend.

The plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing the complaint to the
District Court. On March 26, 2021, the District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of this action, and the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellant's opening brief is due by June 24, 2021, and PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's opposition brief is due by July 26,
2021. The appellants' reply brief is due 21 days after the
opposition brief is filed.

The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this
proceeding.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Securities Class Suits Enjoined Pursuant to Ch. 11 Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that securities actions
including the purported securities class action suit, In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation, have been enjoined as to PG&E
Corporation and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility)
pursuant to the Plan with such claims to be resolved by the
Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims reconciliation process in
the Chapter 11 Cases.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current
and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.

The complaints asserted claims under section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period
of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018.

On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the
litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico ("PERA") as lead plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9,
2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to
add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings
were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility.
On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").

The complaint names as defendants certain then-current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018.

Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under
section 11 and section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other costs, and
injunctive relief.

On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and former directors, and the
underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the
claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.

On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are under submission with the District Court.

The securities actions have been enjoined as to PG&E Corporation
and the Utility pursuant to the Plan with such claims to be
resolved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims
reconciliation process in the Chapter 11 Cases.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Seeks Sept. 7 Final Approval Hearing on Vataj Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties in Vataj v.
Johnson et al., requested September 7, 2021 for the final fairness
and approval hearing.

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al.

The complaint named as defendants a then-current director and
certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation.
Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant.


The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and
damages to holders of PG&E Corporation's securities.

The complaint asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
sought unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation
appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals
40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs' counsel,
and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by
February 13, 2020.

On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims. The amended complaint added PG&E
Corporation and a current officer of PG&E Corporation as
defendants, and no longer asserts claims against certain current
and former officers of PG&E Corporation previously named in the
action.

On May 15, 2020, the officer defendants filed their motion to
dismiss in Vataj. On June 19, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2020 the officer
defendants filed their reply. In October 2020, the parties reached
a settlement agreement in principle, and on October 29, 2020, filed
a joint notice of settlement, informing the District Court that
they have agreed in principle to settle the matter.

On February 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the District Court, and the
District Court issued an order terminating as moot the pending
motion to dismiss, without prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement
stipulation, subject to certain conditions: (1) PG&E Corporation
will pay $10 million into an interest-bearing escrow account within
14 days after the District Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement; and (2) plaintiffs and the Settlement Class (as defined
in the stipulation of settlement) will release the Released Persons
(as defined the stipulation of settlement, including PG&E
Corporation and the Utility, and each of their officers, directors,
as well as the current and former officers named in both the
original and amended complaints) from all claims that have been or
could have been asserted by or on behalf of PG&E Corporation
shareholders that relate to (a) allegations that were asserted or
could have been asserted in either of the complaints in Vataj, and
(b) investments in PG&E Corporation's stock during the relevant
period specified in the stipulated settlement.

The settlement is subject to the District Court's approval and its
terms may change as a result of the settlement approval process.

The preliminary settlement approval hearing was held on March 11,
2021, where the District Court requested certain supplemental
filings, which the parties filed on March 18, 2021.

On April 20, 2021, the District Court granted the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 27, 2021, the
parties requested September 7, 2021 for the final fairness and
approval hearing.

PG&E said, "If the District Court approves the settlement and
enters a judgment substantially in the form requested by the
parties, the settlement will become effective when certain
conditions specified in the settlement stipulation are satisfied,
including the expiration of any right to appeal the judgment."

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Philip Morris
Colombia S.A., continues to defend a purported class action suit in
Colombia entitled, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia
S.A., et al.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the company's Platform 1
product.

Plaintiff alleged that our subsidiaries advertise the product in
contravention of law and in a manner that misleads consumers by
portraying the product in a positive light, and further asserts
that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic compounds, creates a
high level of dependence, and has damaging second-hand effects.

Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on
a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in
Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and
personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 -
all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly
took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal
advertising).

The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the
named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product.)

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Felberbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Samuel Felberbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Credit Shop, Inc. also known as:
CreditShop, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:21-cv-03714-KMK
(S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2021).

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

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. -- https://phillips-cohen.com/ --
is an award-winning leader in the financial services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHYSICIANS DIAGNOSTIC: Faces Vong Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DUY VONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHYSICIANS DIAGNOSTIC & REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a EAST WEST PHYSICIANS, Case No. CACE-21-006971 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., April 2, 2021) contends that the Defendant promotes
and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its massage services, Defendant allegedly engages in
unsolicited text messaging utilizing an automatic telephone dialing
system, including to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          40 l E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite l 744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

PILOT TRAVEL: Perales Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Perales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC d/b/a PILOT FLYING J, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00434 (D.N.M., May 8, 2021), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages against the Defendant under
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), and for unjust enrichment
under New Mexico law.

The Defendant employs many drivers like the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff, like other the Defendant drivers, was paid based on the
loads he hauled without regard to the number of hours he worked.
The Plaintiff normally worked more than 40 hours in a week. The
Plaintiff estimates he usually worked 70 hours, or more, each week.
But the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime for the hours
he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant was aware of
the overtime requirements of the NMMWA. The Defendant knew the
Plaintiff was working more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant
nonetheless failed to pay overtime to the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for The Defendant from October 2017 until
March 2019 as a driver.

Pilot Flying J operates travel centers across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone 713 999 5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law


PLATINUM ADVERTISING: McWilliams Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy McWilliams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Platinum Advertising, LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Company; John Doe Corporation; William Siveter;
and John Nelson, Case No. 2:21-cv-00607-CB (W.D. Pa., May 7, 2021),
is brought for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania Statutes for the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff all earned minimum and overtime wages.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have operated pursuant to
a policy and practice of intentionally misclassifying Plaintiffs
and all other similarly situated employees as independent
contractors not subject to the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage
provisions. Pursuant to this misclassification, the Defendants have
willfully refused to pay a minimum wage and willfully refuse to pay
overtime. In willfully refusing to pay a minimum wage and willfully
refusing to pay overtime, the Defendants have violated the minimum
wage provisions of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff McWilliams is a former employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a company that sells energy
contracts to their customers and potential customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza Building – Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 525-8890
          Email: james@bswages.com

               - and –

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Phone: (480) 382-5176
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


PLUM INC: Smith Sues Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food Items
---------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN SMITH, individually, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, v. PLUM, PBC, PLUM, INC., D/B/A PLUM ORGANICS,
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, GERBER PRODUCTS
COMPANY, NURTURE, INC., D/B/A HAPPYFAMILY ORGANICS, SAFEWAY INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02519 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, and
manufacturing of baby food products containing dangerous levels of
heavy metals.

Among other things, the Plaintiff seek damages and treble damages
under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act; and
injunctive relief that requires Manufacturer Defendants to test and
inspect final baby food prior to sale and establish supervision and
compliance protocols that prevent the sale of baby food products
contaminated with unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals

On February 4, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Oversight and Reform released the explosive report, "Baby Foods Are
Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and
Mercury."  The House Staff Report exposed rampant fraud,
misrepresentations, half-truths, and fraud by omission committed by
the nation's seven leading baby food manufacturers in selling food
to the most vulnerable in the population: infants and toddlers.

The House Staff Report highlighted the high levels of toxic heavy
metals present in numerous baby foods produced by Defendants,
namely Defendant Beech-Nut, Defendant Nurture, Defendant Gerber,
and Hain who cooperated with Congress's investigation.

Defendants Campbell and Plum refused cooperation along with Walmart
and Sprout, which suggested their misconduct was even more
nefarious, the complaint says.

Defendant Beech-Nut formulates, develops, manufactures, labels,
distributes, markets, advertises, and sells under the baby food
brand names Beech-Nut throughout the United States. The Company is
based in New York.

Defendant Campbell Soup Company is incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in New Jersey. Defendant Campbell, Defendant Plum,
PBC, and Defendant Plum, Inc. (together, "Plum") formulate,
develop, manufacture, label, distribute, market, advertise, and
sell under the baby food brand name Plum Organics throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          Sharp Law, LLP
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com  


POWER DOT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Dot, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Power Dot, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04226 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

PowerDot Inc. -- https://www.powerdot.com/ -- designs,
manufactures, and distributes fitness equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces Fraga Suit Over Merchandisers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA FRAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10751 (D. Mass., May 7, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Fraga worked for the Defendant as a merchandiser in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York from approximately
December 2020 to January 2021.

Premium Retail Services, Inc. is a retail solutions company, with
its headquarters located at 618 Spirit Drive, Chesterfield,
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
         Nate Silver, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
                 nate@blockleviton.com

                - and –

         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
         Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
         Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 dthornton@bm.net

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Rozo
------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court handling
the class action suit initiated by Frederick Rozo favors Principal
Life on all claims.

On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and the company.

The company was later dismissed as a defendant.

The Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and
engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with a general account
guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed Income Option
("PFIO").

On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts.

On September 25, 2018, the district court granted Principal Life's
motion for summary judgment. On February 3, 2020, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded the case
back to the district court.

A bench trial was held before the district court November 3-10,
2020.

The court issued its ruling on April 8, 2021, and found in favor of
Principal Life on all claims.

Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case.

Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment management
company offering retirement services, insurance solutions and asset
management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa.


PRIVATE STOCK: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. PRIVATE STOCK LABS GN, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02381-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021), is brought under
the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.privatestocklabs.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's policy and practice to deny the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby
denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated
with its online retail operations. Due to its failure and refusal
to remove access barriers to its Website, the Plaintiff and
visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied
equal access to the Defendant's online retail operations and the
numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to the
public through its Website, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is an online retailer of face masks for men, women
and children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Tennenbaum Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Tennenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL
OTWORTH, MICHAEL E. DEE, DAVID BRENNER and BYRON ROTH, Case No.
6:21-cv-00818 (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2021), is brought on behalf of
all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of PureCycle
and/or ROCH between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive,
and all holders of ROCH securities entitled to participate in the
March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on the merger with PureCycle,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, through November 2020, PureCycle's
predecessor, ROCH, was a publicly traded special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC") formed in 2019 for the express purpose
of effecting a merger, stock exchange, acquisition, reorganization,
or similar business combination with one or more businesses. As a
SPAC in search of a business to acquire, ROCH had no ongoing
business operations.

Before the stock market opened on May 6, 2021, stock research firm
Hindenburg Research published a detailed report, supported by
multiple former employees and industry experts, detailing that the
management team bringing PureCycle public had: (a) previously
brought six other businesses public only to have each implode
thereafter, "resulting in 2 bankruptcies, 3 delistings, and 1
acquisition after a ~95% decline," with "over $760 million in
public shareholder capital being incinerated in the process"; (b)
"based their financial projections" in those other failed companies
on "'wild ass guessing,' bringing companies public far too early,
and having deceived investors"; and (c) only brought PureCycle
public in order to permit that same spurious management team to
"collectively position themselves to clear ~$90 million in cash and
tradable shares before the company generates a single dime in
revenue." The Report cited industry experts who explained that
despite the Company's rosy projections, "PureCycle faces steep
competition for high quality feedstock, and called the company's
financial projections into question."

In response to this news, the price of PureCycle common stock price
declined by more than 40%, or approximately $10 per share, on May
5, 2020, on very unusually high trading volume of nearly 11 million
shares, or more than 16 times the average volume over the preceding
ten trading days. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions as alleged, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased
PureCycle and/or ROCH publicly traded securities at artificially
inflated prices, suffered significant losses, and were damaged
thereby when the artificial inflation was removed, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased PureCycle common stock during the Class
Period.

PureCycle provides recycling services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364
          Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                 rrobins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173 (fax)
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          ADEMI LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414/482-8000
          Fax: 414/482-8001
          Email: gademi@ademilaw.com


PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Theodore Sues Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Theodore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL
OTWORTH, TASMIN ETTEFAGH, Case No. 6:21-cv-00809-PGB-GJK (M.D.
Fla., May 11, 2021), is brought on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
(formerly known as Roth CH Acquisition I Co. securities between
November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive; and is brought on
behalf of the Class for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 due to the Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements.

According to the complaint, on November 16, 2020, PureCycle issued
a press release announcing plans to become a publicly traded
company via a merger with Roth Acquisition. Roth Acquisition was
setup as a special purpose acquisition company (commonly referred
to as a SPAC). Roth Acquisition's shares traded on the NASDAQ stock
exchange under the ticker symbol "ROCH."

On March 18, 2021, PureCycle and Roth Acquisition announced that
their anticipated business combination had been completed after
having been approved by Roth Acquisition's stockholders at a
special meeting held on March 16, 2021. Shares of PureCycle also
began trading on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol PCT on March 18,
2021. During the Class Period, shares of ROCH/PCT stock traded as
high as $35.75 each. Before the markets opened on May 6, 2021,
analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing report on
PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC
Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall Street." On this news,
PureCycle's stock price fell from its May 5, 2021 closing price of
$24.59 per share to May 6, 2021 closing price of $14.83, trading
intraday as low as $13.55 per share. This represents a one-day drop
of approximately 40%.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not
proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the
challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw
materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are
significant; (iii) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of PureCycle at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. purports to commercialize a
purification recycling technology, originally developed by The
Procter & Gamble Company, for restoring waste polypropylene into
resin with near-virgin characteristics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Phone: (561) 676-6370
          Fax: (561) 320-0285
          Email: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 jake@blockleviton.com


PURITAN'S PRIDE: Seeks to Exclude Portions of Sharp Witness Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY SHARP, MARY
LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG
LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York
Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. (f/k/a NBTY, INC.), a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on
September 16, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. excluding portions of the expert report and testimony of
      Plaintiffs' proffered expert witness, Larry D. Compeau,
      Ph.D.; and

   2. strikng Heading IV.C. and Paragraphs 7 (all but second
      sentence), 31 (second, third, and fourth sentences), 32
      (third and last sentences), 33 (second sentence), 35 (last
      sentence), 36 (second and last sentences), 38, 39 (second,
      third, fourth, and fifth sentences), 41 (first sentence), 42,

      44 (first sentence), 46.3, 46.4, 18 46.5, and 46.6.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3odi4r0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          James F. Speyer, Esq.
          E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com
                  alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com

REPRO MED: Pavlick Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pavlick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REPRO MED SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a/ KORU MEDICAL SYSTEMS,
DON PETTIGREW, and KAREN FISHER, Case No. 1:21-cv-04109 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 7, 2021), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired KORU securities between August 4,
2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive; and to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its
third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales
declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call
the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among
other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain
customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees." On this
news, the Company's stock fell $1.97, or 32%, to close at $4.16 per
share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced its
preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting revenue of
approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over the prior
year.

The Company attributed the results to, among other things, "slower
growth in net revenue as a result of strengthening our contractual
position with large customers." In the press release, KORU also
announced that its CEO, Donald Pettigrew, resigned, effective
immediately. On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80 per share,
or 15.5%, to close at $4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The 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, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) starting in
January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of allowances, including
growth rebates, to retain key customers and to incentivize growth;
(2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's net sales were reasonably
likely to decline; and (3) 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. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased KORU securities during the Class Period.

KORU designs, manufactures, and markets proprietary portable
medical devices, primarily for the ambulatory infusion market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Hanscom Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisabeth Hanscom, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS INC. and REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03434-SK (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2021), seeks to
remedy the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of
Hefty brand Recycling Bags (the "Products").

As consumers have become increasingly aware of the problems
associated with plastic pollution, many consumers actively seek to
purchase products that are either compostable or recyclable to
divert such waste from waterways, oceans, their communities,
landfills, and incinerators. Seeking to take advantage of
consumers' demands for such products, the Defendants market plastic
trash bags under the Hefty trademark as "Recycling" bags. They
explain on the back of the label that "Hefty Recycling Bags are
Perfect For All Your Recycling Needs" and are "Designed to Handle
All Types of Recyclables." Their website also confirms that the
Products are "designed to handle your heaviest recycling jobs" and
"these transparent bags make it easy to sort your recyclables and
avoid the landfill." Reasonable consumers understand this to mean
that the Products are suitable for disposing of recyclable waste
and are, in fact, recyclable. In truth, the Hefty bags contaminate
the recyclable waste stream, decrease the recyclability of
otherwise recyclable materials, and are not recyclable because they
are made from low-density polyethylene plastic ("LDPE").

The Defendants know that the Products typically end up in landfills
or incinerated and are a contaminant unsuitable for recycling. The
Defendants' representations that the Products are "Recycling" bags
are material, false, misleading and likely to deceive members of
the public. This action seeks an injunction precluding the sale of
the Products within a reasonable time after entry of judgment,
unless the Products' packaging and marketing are modified to remove
the "Recycling" bags misrepresentation and to disclose the omitted
facts about their true recyclability. The Plaintiff further seeks
an award of damages and/or restitution to compensate her and those
similarly situated for the Defendants' acts of unfair competition
and false and misleading advertising, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a box of Hefty brand Recycling Bags on
September 15, 2020.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Hefty Recycling Bags
in 13 and 30 gallon sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469


RICHMOND, VA: Count I in Fobbs v. RCJC Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON FOBBS, Plaintiff v. ROMEL HUNT, et al.,
Defendant, Civil No. 3:21cv26 (DJN) (E.D. Va.), Judge David J.
Novak of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Identified Defendants Major Romel Hunt and Sergeant Branch's Motion
to Dismiss.

Plaintiff Fobbs brings the purported class action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Identified Defendants, as well as
yet-unknown John Doe(s) Correctional Officers.  The Plaintiff
alleges violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Beginning in early 2020, the United States saw a widespread
outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, which spread more
quickly in settings where individuals lived in close proximity to
each other, including jails and prisons.  One of these facilities
at a higher risk of suffering a severe outbreak of COVID-19 among
its residents included the Richmond City Justice Center ("RCJC"), a
jail located in Richmond, Virginia.

The Plaintiff was a detainee at RCJC at all times relevant to this
action and a resident of Pod 5G.  Pod 5G housed both pre-trial
detainees as well as convicted inmates.  Defendant Hunt worked as a
major with the Richmond City Sheriffs Department, and Defendant
Branch worked as a sergeant with the Richmond City Sheriff's
Department.  Both Hunt and Branch were responsible for managing and
overseeing correctional staff at RCJC.

Despite the known risks posed by COVID-19 to RCJC's residents, the
Identified Defendants and all other employees of the Richmond City
Sheriff's Office acted with deliberate indifference to these risks
during the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak.  Specifically,
the jail staff did not isolate or quarantine individuals who came
into contact with suspected positive cases of the virus, allowed
residents who displayed and complained of symptoms to remain among
the general population, refused to enforce a mask-wearing policy
among either the residents or the staff and declined to follow
certain sanitation procedures, including disinfecting surfaces
between uses.  This indifference and mismanagement resulted in
several "large scale outbreaks" of COVID-19 at the jail, the
largest of which occurred in August of 2020 when over 100 inmates
tested positive for COVID-19.

In response to this outbreak, Richmond Sheriff Antoinette Irving
ordered RCJC staff to separate RCJC residents into a "quarantine
pod" of those who had tested positive and a "negative pod" of those
who had tested negative.  However, RCJC staff made minimal effort
to identify and isolate close contacts of residents who had tested
positive and been placed in the quarantine pod, despite the staff's
knowledge that individuals without a positive test result could
still spread the virus.  Residents of Pod 5G grew increasingly
concerned about RCJC's handling of this issue, so they informed the
Identified Defendants and Defendants Doe(s) of their concerns.
However, despite numerous complaints by multiple residents, neither
the Identified Defendants nor the John Doe Correctional Officers
took any action.

On the evening of Aug. 29, 2020, all jail officers left Pod 50 and
announced via the intercom system that the jail was entering a
lockdown.   The lockdown required all residents to enter their
cells so that their cells could be locked.   According to the
Plaintiff, "the majority of residents on Pod 50 complied with the
lockdown order and returned to their cells as requested."

At this point, no resident had threatened violence, put another
inmate or officer in physical danger or otherwise refused to comply
with the officers' follow-up orders.  However, "during the time
that had passed since some Residents had initially refused to go
into their cells, Defendants Branch, Hunt, and Doe(s) planned and
prepared an assault on Pod 5G in retaliation for the noncompliance
of some of the Residents."  Despite the compliant, "calm
environment within the Pod," the Identified Defendants and John Doe
Correctional Officers began rolling cannisters of tear gas into the
Pod through the tray slots in the Pod's entrance doors, causing the
entire Pod to fill with tear gas.  Without any ventilation, the gas
was unable to disperse and settled into the cells. The residents
were unable to escape, clean themselves of the poison, or get any
fresh air.

According to the Plaintiff, this tear gas assault did not
constitute the normal protocol for responding to inmates who
resisted going into lockdown -- normally, RCJC staff would simply
detain the recalcitrant inmate, remove them to segregation and use
pepper spray only if the inmate became physically resistant.
Additionally, RCJC maintains a Use of Force policy that governs the
use of weapons such as tear gas, because this chemical has such
dangerous effects including the possibility of death if subjected
to long-lasting exposure in a closed setting.  This policy limits
the use of Riot CS Smoke -- the gas used -- "to situations where an
imminent risk of physical harm is present, and specifically states
that these agents will not be used 'indiscriminately to control or
disperse a crowd.'"

On Jan. 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the
Defendants, raising two counts for relief based on the allegations
and intending to seek certification on behalf of all residents of
Pod 5G as of Aug. 29, 2020, the date of the aforementioned
incident.  Count One raises a Section 1983 claim based on the
Plaintiffs allegation that the Defendants used force in direct
retaliation against the residents of Pod 5G for exercising their
First Amendment right to stand up for their request for medical
treatment and information about COVID-19.  Count Two also raises a
Section 1983 claim based on the Plaintiffs allegation that the
Defendants violated the Plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights by using excessive force to inflict pain unnecessarily and
wantonly without penological justification.

However, in his Response to the Identified Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, the Plaintiff concedes that the Complaint fails to allege
that he suffered a violation of his First Amendment rights and,
therefore, he would not qualify as an adequate class representative
for those inmates who had suffered such a violation.  For those
reasons, the Plaintiff requests that the Court dismisses Count One
of his Complaint without prejudice, a request that the Court
grants.  This leaves only Count Two, the excessive force claim,
remaining.

Discussion

A. Exhaustion of Administrative and Legal Remedies

As a threshold matter, the Defendants argue that the PLRA's
exhaustion requirement bars the Plaintiff's suit.  Pursuant to the
PLRA, inmates must generally exhaust their administrative remedies
before pursuing a Section 1983 claim in federal court.

Judge Novak finds that the Defendants have rendered "unavailable"
any administrative remedies that the Plaintiff might otherwise
attempt to seek.  While the Defendants' arguments regarding PLRA
exhaustion largely center on the First Amendment claims that the
Plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily dismiss (thereby rendering "any
argument addressing the PLRA on those grounds as moot"), the Judge
finds that the Defendants briefly note in their Reply that other
inmates filed grievances regarding the tear gas incident, thereby
belying the Plaintiff's assertion that a reasonable inmate would
feel deterred from filing a grievance.

However, this argument finds little purchase, given the Plaintiff's
contention that these inmates had to "overcome significant
intimidation to file" these complaints, that they subsequently
"have seen no response or explanation" and that, as stated, at
least one inmate has suffered retaliation by RCJC staff as a
result.  Together, these allegations confirm that a "reasonable
inmate of ordinary firmness and fortitude" would now feel
discouraged from pursuing administrative remedies by the threatened
actions and inactions of RCJC staff members.

B. Excessiveness of the Use of Tear Gas

Judge Novak now turns to the substantive viability of the
Plaintiff's allegations.  The Defendants contend that their use of
tear gas did not qualify as excessive under either the applicable
test for pre-trial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment or the
similar test for convicted inmates under the Eighth Amendment.  The
Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the balance of factors supplied
by these tests weighs in their favor.  They also contend that every
resident of Pod 50 has a viable clam under the facts as alleged,
regardless of their status as an inmate, detainee, resister or
innocent bystander.

Construing the facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff as
the Court must do at this stage, Judge Novak finds that the
Plaintiff has established a plausible violation of his
constitutional rights, as well as of the rights of the other
residents of Pod 5G on the night at issue.

First, he concludes that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts
that the Identified Defendants' use of force constituted an
unnecessary and excessive response to the threat posed by the
situation in Pod 5G.  Second, on balance, the efforts by the
Defendants to enhance the physical effects of the gas during the
initial attack, the lack of immediate relief provided through basic
hygienic methods, and the ongoing physical and psychological pain
inflicted on the Plaintiff and the other residents of Pod 5G in the
days following the incident, support the Plaintiff's excessive
force claims.

Third, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the
Defendants did not make a sufficient effort to limit their use of
force, especially because the residents of Pod 5G appeared to be
obeying their commands at the time that Defendants decided to
launch their tear gas "attack."  Lastly, the Plaintiff's claims
that Defendants subjected a compliant group of inmates to an
indiscriminate use of tear gas over a prolonged period of time
absent a clear need is sufficient to meet his burden at this
stage.

C. Qualified Immunity

The Defendants also claim that regardless of whether the Court
finds a viable constitutional violation, they are entitled to
qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly
established right.

Judge Novak opines that the case stands for the principle that
"using pepper spray on a docile or compliant prisoner or depriving
a prisoner of a proper opportunity to fully decontaminate,
including forcing them to remain in their contaminated clothes,
demonstrates maliciousness and qualifies as excessive force."  The
Defendants deployed a chemical irritant on a group of compliant,
non-violent inmates and pre-trial detainees, and, although some
level of initial force may have been warranted upon the inmates
first refusal to follow orders, the officers were obligated to
scale back their approach upon the subsequent compliance by the
residents.  Indeed, the facts plausibly allege that the Identified
Defendants did not act to restore order or quell insurrection, but
rather for the sole purpose of inflicting pain or causing harm in
violation of Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.
Therefore, the Judge concludes that the Defendants cannot claim
the protections of qualified immunity at this stage.

D. Sufficiency of Allegations as to Personal Actions Taken by Hunt
and Branch

The Identified Defendants also argue that the Complaint fails to
outline the personal actions of Defendants Hunt and Branch except
in the most conclusory terms, and that this lack of specificity
proves insufficient to state constitutional claims against them.
They take particular issue with the fact that many of the
allegations in the Complaint "group" Defendants together, "without
detailing each Defendant's actions or roles."

Judge Novak opines that Hunt and Branch have fair notice of the
grounds upon which the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim rests, and
will not dismiss the Plaintiff's claims on these grounds.  The
Judge holds that the collective reference to "Defendants"
throughout the Plaintiff's Complaint does not defeat the
plausibility of the allegations in the ensuing statements.  The
Plaintiff specifically alleges that each Defendant had an active
and "direct involvement" in or "personal responsibility" for each
wrongdoing attributed to them in the collective, including the
planning of the tear gas assault despite the knowledge that it was
not necessary, the act of rolling tear gas into the pod, the
decision to turn off the ventilation to the cells and the choice to
deprive the residents of medical attention or showers.  This proves
especially true for Branch and Hunt given the Plaintiff's claim
that they had a supervisory role in the management of the Pod.

E. Class Certification Requirements

Finally, the Identified Defendants contend that the Plaintiff
cannot satisfy the requirements for class certification and,
therefore, the Court should dismiss his class claims now rather
than waiting until the Plaintiff moves for class certification.  In
the Plaintiff's Response, the Plaintiff concedes that "because the
predominate remedy sought is monetary damages, it would be more
appropriate to certify the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)" rather
than the other sections of Rule 23(b) cited in the Complaint.
However, the Defendants respond that the Court should deny class
certification based on the Plaintiff's failure to specify this
ground in his Complaint.

While the Court must determine "as soon as practicable after the
commencement of an action" whether a class action can be
maintained, this normally requires a review of more evidence and
argument than a complaint can provide.  In Int'l Woodworkers of Am.
v. Chesapeake Bay Plywood Corp., 659 F.2d 1259, 1268 (4th Cir.
1981), the Fourth Circuit has confirmed that while "it is not
essential to the resolution of every class certification motion
that the trial court conduct a hearing, it is essential that a
plaintiff be afforded a full opportunity to develop a record
containing all the facts pertaining to the suggested class."  In
fact, "it is seldom, if ever, possible to resolve class
representation questions from the pleadings," and where facts
developed during discovery prove inadequate in answering these
questions, the Court may order an evidentiary hearing "if necessary
for a meaningful inquiry into the requisites of Rule 23."

For these reasons, Judge Novak will not dismiss the case on class
certification grounds unless he proves impossible from the
Complaint for the Plaintiff to ever establish a class action from
his allegations.  Among other things, he finds that the Plaintiff's
Complaint proves not so devoid of a basis for class certification
as to warrant its dismissal based on the Rule 23(a) requirements
before the Plaintiff has moved for class certification, and the
dismissal of the Plaintiff's class action allegations inappropriate
at this early stage of these proceedings.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Novak grants in part and denies
in part the Identified Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Specifically, the Judge denies the Defendants' Motion as to Count
Two, but grants their Motion as to Count One based on the
Plaintiff's concession that he has failed to state a claim.
Therefore, Count One of the Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.

An appropriate order will issue.  Let the Clerk file a copy of the
Memorandum Opinion electronically and notify all counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42v77p57 from Leagle.com.


RIGHT STUF: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Right Stuf, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Right Stuf, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04228 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Right Stuf Inc. -- https://www.rightstufanime.com/ -- is an
independent video publisher and distributor of video programming
that specializes in Asian entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALVATION ARMY: Spillman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE SALVATION ARMY,
et al. The case is styled as Justin Spillman, Teresa Chase, Devin
Gerardy, Sye Smallwood, Tracy Woodmancy, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. THE SALVATION ARMY, A
CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,
Case No. CGC21591364 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 7,
2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

The Salvation Army -- https://www.salvationarmy.org/ -- is a
Christian church and an international charitable organisation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Riggin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
          1939 Harrison St., Ste. 290
          Oakland, CA 94612-4713
          Phone: 415-421-1800
          Fax: 415-421-1700
          Email: jriggin@rukinhyland.com


SCENARIO COCKRAM: Nese Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Erica Nese, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SCENARIO COCKRAM USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01190581-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on April 29, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00814-DOC-JDE.

This lawsuit involves an action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and putative class members for the following claims for
relief: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages in Violation of California Laws; (3) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5) Non-
Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records;
(6) Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination or Resignation; (7)
Unreimbursed Business Expenses; (8) Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine C. De Bleyker, Esq.
          Heather E. Horn, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CaA 90071
          Phone: 213.250.1800
          Facsimile: 213.250.7900
          Email: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Heather.Horn@lewisbrisbois.com


SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit over the
collection of biometric data.

On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois.
On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant.

The complaint asserts that the company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six
Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory
damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees in each case.

The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two
questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the
Second District.

On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted our motion to
appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of
BIPA were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate
Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in
the company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more
than a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some
way in order to have a right of action.

On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

On May 30, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's
leave to appeal and oral arguments were heard on November 20,
2018.

On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of
the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege
an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in
order to proceed with a complaint.

Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. The amount we have recorded is
based on our estimate of the probable outcome of this litigation."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.

SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that Park
Management Corp. continues to defend a purported class action suit
initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery
Kingdom.

On February 20, 2020, a complaint was filed against Park Management
Corp. in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf
of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags
Discovery Kingdom.

The complaint alleges violations of California law governing
payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks
statutory damages under federal and California law and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The claims related to wages and wage statements will be resolved
under the settlement of the April 2018 litigation above.

Six Flags said, "With respect to the remaining background check
claims, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this
litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome
is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or
range of loss cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.

SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jedrzejczyk, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SKILLZ INC., f/k/a FLYING EAGLE ACQUISITION
CORP., ANDREW PARADISE, CASEY CHAFKIN, and MIRIAM AGUIRRE, SCOTT
HENRY, and HARRY SLOAN, Case No. 3:21-cv-03450 (N.D. Cal., May 7,
2021), is brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Skillz securities between December 16, 2020 and April 19,
2021, inclusive; seeking to pursue remedies against Skillz and
certain of the Company's current senior executives under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as a result of the
Defendants' false and misleading statements.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements and omissions that materially misrepresented
Skillz's purported financial condition and prospects. These
materially misleading statements and omissions included
representations relating to certain of Skillz's business
operations, performance metrics and ultimate valuation, including,
among others, Skillz's ability to attract new end-users, future
profitability, the shrinking popularity of its hosted games that
accounted for 88% of its revenue, and the Company's valuation.

Skillz offers Bonus Cash in order to incentivize users and gamers
to engage with their platform. However, Skillz's disclosure is
materially incomplete since it fails to disclose that Bonus Cash
boomerangs back into the revenue stream. Essentially, Skillz has
the ability to offer millions of dollars in Bonus Cash and
simultaneously report millions of dollars in revenue. Had this
buried information been candidly disclosed, investors would have
had a more somber picture of the Company's growth potential.
Skillz's bullish market pronouncement misled investors into
believing that the Company was well-positioned for rapid long-term
growth, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Skillz is an internet tech company that was founded in 2012 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          Email: rschubert@sjk.law
                 wjonckheer@sjk.law

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          Scott Vincent Papp, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
                 afarah@lowey.com
                 spapp@lowey.com


SLIM DELI: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Grill Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAULDO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLIM DELI CORP. (D/B/A SLIM DELI
CORP) and YAHYA FARAA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02550
(E.D.N.Y., May 7, 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 wages,
failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to
provide a written wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to pay on a regular weekly basis.

Mr. Alvarez was employed as a grill worker at the Defendants' deli
located at 114-21 Jamaica Ave., Richmond Hill, New York from 2013
until January 2017 and then from July 2019 until February 19,
2020.

Slim Deli Corp. is an owner and operator of a deli located at
114-21 Jamaica Ave., Richmond Hill, New York. [BN]

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

SONY INTERACTIVE: Monopolizes PlayStation Market, Cendejas Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN CENDEJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC and SONY
GROUP CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03447 (N.D. Cal.,
May 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Sherman Act through alleged monopolization of
markets for PS5 Digital Edition (DE) gaming platforms and
PlayStation digital game distribution.

According to the complaint, Sony has willfully acquired and
maintained monopoly power in the PlayStation digital game
distribution market by means of predatory, exclusionary, and
anticompetitive conduct, including but not limited to its decision
to tie the PlayStation Store to the PS5 DE gaming platform and
refusal to allow digital download codes for PS5 to be sold by
retailers. Sony specifically intended to eliminate price
competition from other digital video game retailers so that it
could monopolize the PlayStation digital game distribution market
and derive supracompetitive profits therefrom. As a result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered and will continue to suffer economic injury
to their property, the suit alleges.

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is a multinational video game
and digital entertainment company, headquartered in San Mateo,
California.

Sony Group Corporation is a multinational conglomerate corporation
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
         Steven N. Williams, Esq.
         Kate Malone, Esq.
         Chris K.L. Young, Esq.
         Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
         Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
         JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1000
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 500-6800
         Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
         E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 kmalone@saverilawfirm.com
                 cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                 kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
                 areddy@saverilawfirm.com

SOUTH VALLEY: Cabrera Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALVARO LOPEZ CABRERA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC;
AGRESERVES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-21-100733, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Kern, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00530 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to indemnify, and unfair competition.

South Valley Almond Company, LLC is a producer of almonds based in
Wasco, California.

AgReserves, Inc. is a multinational agriculture for-profit and
private company, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Richard D. Marca, Esq.
         Christopher S. Milligan, Esq.
         Robert Escalante, Esq.
         VARNER & BRANDT LLP
         3750 University Ave., Ste. 610
         Riverside, CA 92501
         Telephone: (951) 274-7777
         Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
         E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
                 Chris.Milligan@varnerbrandt.com
                 Robert.Escalante@varnerbrandt.com

SPECIALIST STAFFING: Faces Sickler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sickler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPECIALIST STAFFING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
GLOBAL ENERGY, Case No. 5:21-cv-00834 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2021), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California law, and
New York law.

The Plaintiff worked overtime while working for the Defendant. The
Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours
worked including those in excess of 40 in a workweek and in excess
of eight in a single workday. The Defendant did not pay the
Plaintiff a true salary. The Defendant did not guarantee the
Plaintiff a salary. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff hourly
and overtime, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Construction Manager
from March 2018 to March 2019.

The Defendant is a global recruitment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Phone: 310 928 1228
          Email: matt@parmet.law


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Connelly Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KERRY CONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CV-21-001661, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00525 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code by failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of
coffeehouses and roastery reserves, headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
         Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 229-1000
         Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
         E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                 jpslowik@akingump.com
                 vaughnl@akingump.com

STEVE KEMPER: Murray Contract Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LORI AND JOHN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STEVE KEMPER BUILDER, LLC, Case
No. CC-19-2021-C-39, was removed from the Circuit of Jefferson
County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia on May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00068-GMG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged contract violations.

Steve Kemper Builder, LLC is a roofing contractor, with its
principal place of business in Lees Summit, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David A. Barnette, Esq.
         Vivian H. Basdekis, Esq.
         Chelsea A. Creta, Esq.
         JACKSON KELLY PLLC
         500 Lee Street, East, Suite 1600
         Post Office Box 553
         Charleston, WV 25322
         Telephone: (304) 340-1000
         Facsimile: (304) 340-1272
         E-mail: dbarnette@jacksonkelly.com
                 vhbasdekis@jacksonkelly.com
                 chelsea.creta@jacksonkelly.com

STYLEME LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Styleme LLC. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Styleme LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02634-EK-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Styleme -- https://style.me/ -- is a leading 3D virtual fitting
room for apparel brands and retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SUNSELECT PRODUCE: Faces Garay Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunselect Produce.
The case is captioned as GARAY vs. SUNSELECT PRODUCE, Case No.
BCV-21-100754 (Cal. Super., April 2, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe. A case
management conference is held on Oct 4, 2021.

SunSelect produces and markets vegetables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Bibiyan Law Group, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com

SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & SubClasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an
individual; and SACORA BESABE, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER VALLEY
HOSPITALS, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on August 21, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following
classes and the following subclasses:

   -- Classes

      "All non-exempt persons who are or have been employed by
      Defendant in the State of California, who for the four years

      prior to the filing of this Class Action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, who used Kronos or other electronic
      timekeeping systems, had meal periods of less than 30 minutes

      edited or rounded to a net 30-minute meal period or more;"
      and

      "All persons who are employed or have been employed by
      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this Class Action [February 16 13,
      2015] to the present, who have worked as non-exempt Surgical

      Technicians, or in related positions;"

   -- Unpaid Overtime Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were

      not paid overtime for hours worked beyond eight hours in a
      single day or for hours worked beyond 40 in a single week
      pursuant to the applicable Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage

      Orders;"

   -- Unpaid Wages Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were

      not paid all hours worked pursuant to applicable Labor Code
      section 510, 28 511, 1174, 1174.5, 1194 and 1198;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have

      not been provided an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period for

      every five hours or major fraction thereof worked per day,
      and were not provided one (1) hour's pay for each day on
      which such meal period was not provided pursuant to Labor
      Code section 226.7 and section  512;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by
      the Defendant in the State of California who, for the four
      years prior to the filing of this class action [February 13,

      2015] to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and

      who worked over ten hours in a shift and did not receive a
      second uninterrupted 30-minute meal period;"

   -- Meal Break Subclas

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by
      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and who
      were required to sign meal period waivers as a condition of
      employment when hired by Defendant;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and, who

      signed meal waivers for the second meal and worked over 12
      hours in 22 a shift without receiving an uninterrupted 30-
      minute meal period;"

   -- Meal Break Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California, who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, who signed meal waivers without a counter
      signature by Defendant and who did not receive a compliant
      meal period;"

   -- Rest Period Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by
      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have

      not been provided a rest period for every three and a half
      hours worked per day, and were not provided compensation of
      one hour's pay for each day on which such rest period was not

      provided pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7 and section
      512;"

   -- Paystub Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were

      not provided an itemized wage statement accurately showing
      total hours worked, the applicable hourly rates in effect
      during each pay period whether a premium paid was a meal
      premium or rest premium, and the corresponding hours worked
      at each rate pursuant to Labor Code section 226 and 1174;"

   -- Wages Twice Monthly Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were

      not provided all wages twice monthly pursuant to Labor Code
      section 204"

   -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      the Defendant in the State of California who were not
      reimbursed for reasonable business expenses incurred in the
      discharge of their duties in connection with their employment

      with Defendant;"

   -- Failure to Pay Termination Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the three years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2016]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were

      not paid all wages due to them at the time of termination
      pursuant to the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders;"
      and

   -- B&P section 17200 Subclass

      "All Class Members who are employed or have been employed by

      Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years

      prior to the filing of this class action [February 13, 2015]

      to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and who
      were subjected to Defendant's unlawful, unfair or fraudulent

      business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code
      violations regarding overtime, meal periods, rest periods,
      expense reimbursement or minimum wages and/or waiting time
      penalties."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hnoD9m
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 E L TORO ROAD, SUITE 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  jtg@quintlaw.com

SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029
(E.D.N.C.), is still pending.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders. The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC
Research, Inc., et al, No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern
District of New York, names as defendants the Company, Michael
Bell, Alistair Macdonald, Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush,
and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al,
No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
filed on January 25, 2018, names as defendants the Company,
Alistair Macdonald, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Initial Defendants").


Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 (for the Vaitkuviene action) and
November 9, 2017 (for the Bermudez action).

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the 2017 merger with Double Eagle Parent, Inc., the parent company
of inVentiv Health, Inc., and with respect to the combined company
following the Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff in the Bermudez action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice,
and as to all defendants. On May 29, 2018, the Court in the
Vaitkuviene action appointed the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension
Fund and El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018, the Court entered a schedule
providing for, among other things, Lead Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint by July 23, 2018 (later extended to July 30,
2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017, contending
that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a)
of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018.

The District Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to a magistrate
judge for a report and recommendation. On September 26, 2019, the
magistrate judge stayed the action and, on August 7, 2020, the
magistrate judge lifted the stay. Also on August 7, 2020, the
magistrate judge issued a report recommending to the District Court
that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied.

On September 4, 2020, Defendants filed written objections to the
Magistrate Report, requesting that the District Court grant the
Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition
to such objections on October 2, 2020.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these
complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or
result of the foregoing putative class actions, or any other
related lawsuit. As such, the Company is presently unable to
develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of
losses, if any, related to these matters.

Syneos said, "While the Company intends to defend the putative
class action litigation vigorously, the outcome of such litigation
or any other litigation is necessarily uncertain. The Company could
be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these
lawsuits or future ones, and it may not prevail. As such, these
matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, annual, or interim results of operations, cash flows, or
its financial condition."

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


T ROWE PRICE: Trial in 401(k) Plan Related Suit Set for September
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that trial has been
scheduled to begin in September 2021, in the class action suit
related to the company's 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974's (ERISA) fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price
believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending
the action.

The parties each filed motions for summary judgment and, with the
exception of one claim, the court has denied the parties' cross
motions for summary judgment.

A trial has been scheduled to begin in September 2021.

T. Rowe said, "We cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub-advisory services, separate account management,
record-keeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.

TABCOM LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TABcom, LLC. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TABcom, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04132-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

TABcom develops and maintains 'conscious lifestyle' websites that
offer products, social engagement and interactive content for
enthusiasts with a variety of interests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSUNION RENTAL: Faces Belluccia FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transunion Rental
Screening Solutions. The case is captioned as Belluccia v.
Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Case No.
8:21-cv-00809-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 2, 2021).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William F. Jung. The suit
alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act involving
consumer credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES P.C.
          763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tristar Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04199 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).

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

Tristar Products, Inc. -- https://www.tristarproductsinc.com/ --
primary business is taking provided ideas and turning them into
branded and global distributed products. Tristar Products Inc.
markets home appliances, fitness equipment, cooking innovations,
and health and beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUWEST CREDIT: Virgin Files FLSA Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truwest Credit Union.
The case is styled as Ingrid Virgin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Truwest Credit Union, Case No.
2:21-cv-00838-SPL (D. Ariz., May 11, 2021).

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

TruWest Credit Union -- https://truwest.org/ -- operates as a
financial cooperative.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P Hoelscher, Esq.
          SICO HOELSCJER & HARRIS LLP - Corpus Christi, TX
          900 Frost Bank Plaza
          802 N Carancahua
          Corpus Christi, TX 98401
          Phone: (361) 653-3300
          Fax: (361) 653-3333
          Email: jhoelscher@shhlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Parmet
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (713) 999-5228
          Fax: (713) 999-1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Court Adjourns Meyer Suit
--------------------------------------------------
United Microelectronics Corporation said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the suit
Meyer v. United Microelectronics Corporation was adjourned to the
end of April, 2021.

On March 14, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its officers and/or
directors, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of an alleged
scheme to misappropriate trade secrets.  

After Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were appointed, an amended
complaint was filed on September 27, 2019.  Thereafter, the parties
engaged in mediation, which continued in 2020, subject to
confirmatory discovery.  

Following such mediation, court notice was given to the settlement
class and a final settlement fairness hearing was scheduled for
January 15, 2021, which was adjourned to the end of April, 2021.  


United Microelectronics Corporation is a Taiwanese company which is
based in Hsinchu, Taiwan. It was founded as Taiwan's first
semiconductor company in 1980 as a spin-off of the
government-sponsored Industrial Technology Research Institute. The
company is based in Hsinchu City, Taiwan, Republic of China.

UNITED PARCEL: John Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sheila John,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Does 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC21591395 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/us/en/global.page --
is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain
management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Dr., Ste. 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-387-7200
          Fax: 949-387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com


VERTICAL SCREEN: Garcia Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM GARCIA, for
himself and all others similarly situated, v. VERTICAL SCREEN,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04718-JD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. finding that Plaintiff has satisfied all of the
prerequisites
      for this case to be maintained as a class action under Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23;

   2. finding that Plaintiff has satisfied all of the prerequisites

      for final certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act of

      1938;

   3. approving that Plaintiff Garcia as the Class Representative
      for this action; and

   4. approving Stephan Zouras LLP as Class Counsel for this
      action.

Vertical was founded in 1989. The company's line of business
includes providing on-line information retrieval services on a
contract or fee basis.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RSKnin
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com

VISA INC: Class Certification Bid in Interchange MDL Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that on December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs
purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class
in the interchange multidistrict litigation moved for class
certification.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

VISA INC: Faces Lanning Initiated Purported Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company is facing a purported class
action suit initiated by Hayley Lanning, BG Designs, LLC and others
against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of
merchants located in 25 states and the District of Columbia.

On April 28, 2021, a complaint was filed by Hayley Lanning, SBG
Designs, LLC and others against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a
purported class of merchants located in 25 states and the District
of Columbia who have taken payment using the Square card acceptance
service. The complaint alleges violations of the antitrust laws of
those jurisdictions and seeks recovery for plaintiffs as indirect
purchasers.

To the extent that Plaintiffs' claims are not released by the
Amended Settlement Agreement, Visa believes they are covered by the
U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


W.B. MASON: Feria NJWPL Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERLAN F. FERIA, MICHAEL LANGE, and ANDREW DESARNO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.B.
MASON CO., INC.; LEO MEEHAN; CHRIS MEEHAN; STEVE GREENE; and ROGER
AHFELD, Case No. MID-L-002014-21, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey, Middlesex Vicinage, Law Division,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 7,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-10955 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law and for breach of contract, common law
fraud and unjust enrichment arising out of W.B. Mason's purported
failure to pay earned commissions to the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated employees.

W.B. Mason Co., Inc. is an American business products company, with
its principal place of business in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         David A. Tauster, Esq.
         NIXON PEABODY LLP
         50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
         Jericho, NY 11753-2728
         Telephone: (516) 832-7500
         Facsimile: (516) 832-7555
         E-mail: dtauster@nixonpeabody.com

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Court Dismisses Cafe Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAFE INTERNATIONAL HOLDING COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff v.
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
20-21641-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division, grants Westchester's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismisses the complaint.

Westchester issued a commercial property insurance policy to Cafe
International -- the owner and operator of IT Italy, a restaurant
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- for the policy period from Nov. 29,
2019 to Nov. 29, 2020.  The Policy specifies what it covers and
what it does not.  Coverage is available only if Cafe International
proves that a "Covered Cause of Loss" caused direct physical loss
of or damage to the property.  The Policy defines "Covered Cause of
Loss" as "direct physical loss unless the loss is excluded or
limited in this policy."

The Policy provides three types of coverage relevant in the case:
Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority.  Each type of
coverage is triggered only where there is (i) direct physical harm
to property (ii) caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of
Loss.

Cafe International filed suit on April 20, 2020, asserting six
claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment on the
theory that it is entitled to Business Income, Extra Expense, and
Civil Authority coverage from Westchester for certain losses Cafe
International allegedly suffered during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Complaint alleges that, in March 2020, Cafe International was
"forced to suspend business operations at its restaurant, as a
result of COVID-19" and because civil authority orders allegedly
"prohibited public access" to the restaurant.

The Complaint also asserts a legal conclusion that the suspension
of Cafe International's business operations resulted from "the
presence of COVID-19 causing direct physical loss of and/or damage
to" Cafe International's restaurant.  But the Complaint does not,
and cannot, allege facts supporting this conclusory allegation.
Moreover, at the hearing on Westchester's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the Plaintiff's counsel was likewise unable to
articulate any specific facts about this conclusory allegation; he
said it was not commercially feasible to now pinpoint any specific
property which was in fact damaged.

In particular, the Plaintiff's counsel argued that the physical
attachment of the virus to restaurant property is a physical
injury.  And, he further argued, because the virus is and was
pervasive, it is "highly likely" that a vast amount of surfaces
would have been contaminated by the virus.  But neither the
Complaint nor the explanations offered up at the hearing pinpointed
any fact-specific allegations of physical damage.

Westchester emphasizes that insurance contracts must be interpreted
through the plain language of the policy.  It contends that the
policy language is clear and unambiguous, and that the Plaintiff
cannot sufficiently allege, let alone establish, coverage.
Westchester's motion also contends that the Civil Authority
provision of the policy will provide coverage only where the civil
authority prohibits access to the insured property due to damage to
property elsewhere.  The Defendant contends that the Civil
Authority did not prohibit access to the restaurant and that the
damage alleged was not elsewhere.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that it has alleged
physical damage and that the Court is therefore required to accept
that allegation as true for now, when evaluating a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  The Plaintiff also contends that the
myriad other cases which ruled for insurers in Covid-19 cases are
distinguishable because they did not involve an insured (like
Westchester) which issues some policies with a separate
virus-exclusion provision but others which lack the exclusion.
Therefore, it contends, it is illogical for Westchester to suggest
that courts treat both types of policies identically.

In addition to focusing on the absence of a virus exclusion in the
instant policy and its presence in other Westchester policies, the
Plaintiff also contends that a "holistic" interpretation of the
policy undermines Westchester's suggested interpretation.  At the
hearing, its counsel slightly modified this contention, arguing
that a "harmonious construction" of the policy is required.

Magistrate Judge Goodman holds that the question before the Court
is whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show that the
plain language of the Policy's affirmative grant of coverage --
"direct physical loss of or damage to property" -- covers their
alleged economic losses as a result of COVID-19 and subsequent
government shutdown orders.  The plain meaning of the terms "direct
physical loss of or damage to property" unambiguously requires
actual, tangible damage to the physical premises itself, not merely
economic losses unaccompanied by a demonstrable physical alteration
to the premises itself.  This straightforward view of the
unambiguous language of the policy is consistent with the Eleventh
Circuit's decision in Mama Jo's Inc. v. Sparta Ins. Co., 823 F.
App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2020), which provides guidance and supports
Magistrate Judge Goodman's determination.

In Mama Jo's, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
conclusion that a restaurant failed to establish that it suffered a
direct physical loss that would trigger coverage under an insurance
policy.  The restaurant claimed a loss after nearby roadway
construction blew dust and debris inside its facility, causing an
economic loss due to decreased customer traffic and imposing
cleaning expenses on the restaurant.  The insurer denied the claim
after concluding that the restaurant did not suffer a "direct
physical loss or damage" to the insured property, and the district
court thereafter entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying Florida law.
The Court noted that "an item or structure that merely needs to be
cleaned has not suffered a 'loss' which is both 'direct' and
'physical.'"

Applying that guidance in the case supports the clear meaning of
the Policy language at issue: The loss needs to come directly from
an actual, demonstrable, physical harm to the premises itself.
Magistrate Judge Goodman holds that the Plaintiff's conclusory
allegations are insufficient.  Pleading the bare elements of a
claim is insufficient as a matter of law.  Cafe International's
Complaint points to no tangible changes in the insured restaurant
property itself.  Similarly, counsel did not at the hearing specify
any new allegations of tangible changes to the property itself
which could be asserted in an amended pleading.  Lacking those
critical allegations supported by factual assertions, the Plaintiff
is unable to state a viable claim.

Magistrate Judge Goodman concludes that the Plaintiff has not
established or adequately alleged coverage, which requires direct
physical loss of or damage to its property.  He agrees with
Westchester's argument that notwithstanding Cafe International's
conclusory assertions to the contrary, reading the policy as a
whole further confirms that the Plaintiff has not alleged any
direct physical loss of, or damage to, its restaurant.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Goodman grants Westchester's
motion and dismisses the Complaint.

In its Opposition, the Plaintiff mentions its desire to file an
amended complaint.  At the hearing, the counsel slightly amplified
the reasons for this comment, but he did not pinpoint any specifics
sufficient to overcome the overwhelming authority establishing that
the virus did not trigger coverage because there are no plausible,
sufficiently specific allegations of direct physical loss of or
damage to the restaurant.  Even if experts were permitted to
inspect the restaurant and even if they concluded that the virus
contaminated the restaurant or its equipment, this hypothetical new
series of allegations would still be inadequate.

Leave to amend can only be granted where a plaintiff identifies the
legally cognizable allegations it will offer, and Cafe
International does not and cannot do that.  Because the Plaintiff's
proffered amendment would be futile, the dismissal is with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/7nyywd9z from Leagle.com.


WHEELABRATOR SAUGUS: Sweetland Sues Over Incinerator's Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA SWEETLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEELABRATOR SAUGUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10759-LTS (D. Mass., May 8, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for nuisance, negligence and
gross negligence, and trespass.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly construct,
operate, and maintain its Wheelabrator trash incinerator, landfill,
and waste-to-energy facility to prevent causing offensive offsite
odor, air particulates, and fugitive dust impacts into surrounding
residential properties. The Defendant's facility and its noxious
emissions have been the subject of frequent complaints from
residents in the nearby residential area. Despite clear knowledge
of its odor and contaminant emission problem, the Defendant
repeatedly continued to frequently emit severe fugitive off-side
noxious odors and contaminants into the ambient air. The Plaintiff
and Class members have suffered injury in fact as a result of the
invasion of their property by the Defendant's release of noxious
odors and air contaminants, causing damage to their property, the
suit contends.

Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. is a waste management service provider,
with its principal place of business in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         William P. Doyle, III, Esq.
         COLONNA & DOYLE
         26 Main Street, 3rd Floor
         Lynnfield, MA 01940
         Telephone: (781) 245-1127
         Facsimile: (781) 245-1148
         E-mail: bill@colonna-doyle.com

                 - and –

         Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
         Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
         Albert Asciutto, Esq.
         LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
         975 E. Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48207-3101
         Telephone: (313) 392-0015
         Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
         E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                 lsheets@ldclassaction.com
                 aasciutto@ldclassaction.com

WHITSONS RESOURCE: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Serrano, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. WHITSONS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a WHITSONS CULINARY
GROUP, Case No. 2:21-cv-02616 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, seeking from the Defendants: unpaid wages due to time-shaving,
unpaid overtime wages due to time-shaving, unpaid wages for
compensable work time outside of scheduled work hours, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was scheduled to work from 6:30am to 2:30pm, for 5
days a week. However, in reality, the Plaintiff began work at
6:00am every workday. The Plaintiff was instructed not to write
that she was starting work earlier than 6:30am since the Defendant
did not have the budget to compensate the Plaintiff for all of her
actual hours  worked. The Plaintiff was only compensated for her
hours worked until 2:30pm. However, at least 3 times per week, the
Plaintiff was required to stay until 3:00pm to finish her work. As
a result, the Plaintiff was not compensated for at least 4 hours
per workweek. During weeks in which these additional hours exceeded
40 hours per week, such hours should have been paid at the overtime
rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a lead cook on August
2019.

Whitsons Culinary Group provides food service to multiple
industries  throughout the United States, including schools,
healthcare, among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (718) 971-0326
          Fax: (718) 795-1642
          Email: clam@bkllawyers.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Settlements in Merger Related Suits Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that
settlements in the merger related suits granted preliminary
approval.

The Company was named as a defendant in two consolidated actions
arising out of the 2016 'merger of equals' between Towers Watson
and Willis, consisting of a consolidated shareholder class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, captioned 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA (the
Federal Action), and a consolidated putative shareholder class
action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned 'In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,' C.A. No.
2018-0132-KSJM (the Delaware Action).

The complaints in these actions generally allege that the
defendants omitted material information from the proxy disclosures
relating to the Merger, including with respect to potential
conflicts of interest, and, as a result, that Towers Watson's
stockholders approved the Merger based on inadequate information.
Based on these allegations, among others, the complaint in the
Federal Action asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the complaint in the Delaware
Action asserts claims under Delaware state law for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On or about November 19, 2020, the parties to the Federal Action
and the Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the Federal Action and the Delaware Action for $75 million
and $15 million, respectively.

The Company agreed to the settlement and the payment of the
settlement amounts to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense
and uncertainty of further litigation. Further, in reaching the
settlement, the parties understood and agreed that there is no
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any of the
other defendants in either the Federal Action or the Delaware
Action.

The Company and the other defendants expressly deny any liability
or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Federal
Action and the Delaware Action.

On January 15, 2021, the parties to the Federal Action and the
Delaware Action signed formal stipulations of settlement, which
memorialized the terms of the agreement in principle, and which the
plaintiffs in the Federal Action and the Delaware Action then filed
with each of the respective courts.

Also on January 15, 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Action filed
a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement. On January 21,
2021, the court in the Federal Action preliminarily approved the
settlement, approved the form of notice to be disseminated to class
members, and scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement
for May 21, 2021.

On January 25, 2021, the court in the Delaware Action approved the
form of notice to be disseminated to class members and scheduled a
final fairness hearing on the settlement for May 25, 2021.

The settlement is contingent upon final approval by the courts in
both the Federal Action and the Delaware Action.

Willis Towers said, "The Company made the $90 million aggregate
settlement payment in escrow in February 2021, but it will not be
distributed to class members unless and until the settlement is
finally approved by the courts in both the Federal Action and the
Delaware Action and not subject to any further appeal."

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.

WINE CHATEAU: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WINE CHATEAU
MARKETPLACE, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WINE CHATEAU
MARKETPLACE, LLC, D/B/A WINE CHATEAU, INC., D/B/A WINECHATEAU.COM,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02580 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Wine Chateau -- https://winechateau.com/ -- sells a large selection
of fine wines at excellent prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


WINEACCESS INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WineAccess, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. WineAccess, Inc, Case No.
2:21-cv-02578 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021).

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

Wine Access -- https://www.wineaccess.com/ -- is a direct line to
wines typically reserved for industry insiders and Michelin-starred
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Ward Sues Over Excessive Unearned Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ward, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A., an Arizona credit
union, Case No. 3:21-cv-08103-MTL (D. Ariz. May 11, 2021), is
brought to challenge two improper practices of the Defendant with
regard to two automated practices of the Defendant which generate
excessive unearned fee income for the Defendant primarily at the
expense of its customers who are least able to pay such fees.

First, Zions holds deposited funds in a manner inconsistent with
the plain language of the Bank's contract. The Bank acts like these
funds--which are being held by the Bank--are unavailable, resulting
in massive improper fee income for Zions. Second, the Bank assesses
more than one fee based on a customer's lack of funds to pay a
single debit item, such as a check. Thus, Zions charges two or more
fees as to one check or other debit item. This too is done in
violation of the terms of the Bank's contracts with customers.
These practices breach contractual promises, violate the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and result in the Bank being
unjustly enriched. Zions customers have been injured by the Bank's
improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from
their accounts in violation of their agreements with Zions, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Arizona, residing in
Kingman, and has a Zions checking account via the Bank's National
Bank of Arizona brand.

Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Salt Lake City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Phone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gol, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 202.350.4783 Telephone
          Facsimile: 202-871-8180 Facsimile
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com


ZOCALO FOODS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zocalo Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Zocalo Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04169-AJN (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021).

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

Zocalo Foods -- https://www.zocalofoods.com/ -- offers Latin
American food products & Groceries from Mexico, Central and South
America and the Carribean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZURICH NORTH AMERICA: Park Place Sues Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park Place Master Tenant LLC, d/b/a Hotel Constance Pasadena f/k/a
Dusitd2 Hotel Constance on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, and ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02471 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2021),
is brought for declaratory relief and breach of contract arising
from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the Defendants.

At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities,
and/or due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Plaintiff
received a drastic number of reservation cancellations at the
Hotel, which constructively closed the Hotel, causing an
interruption to, and loss of, Plaintiff's business income. The
Plaintiff and the Class purchased and paid for an "all-risk"
Commercial Insurance Policy from the Defendants, which provides, in
part, broad property insurance coverage for all non-excluded, lost
business income, including the losses asserted. The Plaintiff
submitted timely notice of its claim to the Defendants, but the
Defendants have refused to provide the purchased coverage to its
insured, and has denied the Plaintiff's claim for benefits under
the Policy. The Defendants have similarly refused to, or will
refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk" policy(ies)
purchased by the other members of the putative Class of insureds,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Park Place operates Hotel Constance Pasadena located
in Pasadena, California.

Zurich NA is one of the largest providers of insurance solutions in
the United States and Canada, and is incorporated and has its
principal place of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 kiverson@carlsonlynch.com


ZYNGA INC: Oeste Class Suit Moved From D. Md. to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES OESTE and MARISSA OESTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZYNGA, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01566, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-03394-KAW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of implied
contract, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, breach
of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of confidence,
constitutional invasion of privacy, and violations of the
California Civil Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
by its failure to properly safeguard and protect users' personally
identifiable information following a data breach.

Zynga, Inc. is a mobile gaming application developer, with its
principal office and headquarters located in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
         David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
         Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
         Z LAW, LLC
         2345 York Road, Ste. B-13
         Timonium, MD 21093
         Telephone: (443) 213-1977
         E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com
                 dmt@zlawmaryland.com
                 jct@zlawmaryland.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***