---

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

              Tuesday, May 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 98

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Claims
3M COMPANY: B. Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Lusby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Lynch Suit Transferred to District of South Carolina

3M COMPANY: Mingus Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
4 ALL PROMOS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
6D GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Puddu Suit Gets Final Approval
6D GLOBAL: Partial Final Judgment Entered in Puddu Class Suit
ABLE INNOVATIONS: Underpays Mechanics, Gerena Suit Alleges

ACADIA PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ACADIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ACV AUCTIONS: Putative Class Suit in New York Underway
AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Suit Remanded to Madison County Cir. Ct.
ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit

ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
ALL-POINTS CONSTRUCTION: Foster Sues Over Retaliation, Unpaid Wages
ALLDECOR LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTICE USA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Wiley Suit to 2nd Cir
ALYN INDUSTRIES: Garcia Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations in Cal.

AMAZING FLOOR: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Overtime
AMDOCS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 8 Deadline
APOLLO NEUROSCIENCE: Quezada Seeks Blind People's Website Access
ASHFORD INC: Employment Class Action Against Subsidiary Ongoing
ASPEN AMERICAN: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Jan. 10, 2022

ATHLETA LLC: Barnett Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Scheme Responsible for $1.5B Unlawful Debts
AYRO INC: Discloses Nonpayment of $45K Counsel Fees in DropCar Suit
B & J FABRICS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Discovery Ongoing in Parker Class Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Checchia Sues Over Improper Assessment of Fees
BANK OF AMERICA: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D. Florida
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Peiffer Sues Over Control of Crop Inputs' Prices
BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
BLOCKBUSTER COSTUMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Discovery in Boyd Putative Class Suit Underway
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Discovery in Johansen Suit Ongoing
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Dismissal of Potje Class Suit Under Appeal
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed

BOTACH INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Carlson Class Action
CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANAAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CARSON OPTICAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CASPER SLEEP: Putative Class Suit in New York Dismissed
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Faces Banks FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
CENTRAL LOAN: Holmes Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Walburn Class Suit in Ohio Pending

CENTRUS ENERGY: Oral Argument on Matthews Appeal Set for June 8
CENTURI CONSTRUCTION: Millan Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
CHARLESTON AREA: Plaintiffs Settle for $23M in Sexual Abuse Case
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Gross Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action

CHENG DU: Liu FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Khalid Appeals Antitrust Class Suit Dismissal
CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
CLOOPEN GROUP: Faces IPO Related Securities Class Suit in New York
CONAGRA BRANDS: Wienhoff Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices

CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Faces Maas Putative Class Suit in California
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Class Suit v. Subsidiary Underway
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Tabizon Suit
COVERHOUND INC: Suarez Sues Over Insurance Advisors' Unpaid Wages

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Kapasi Says
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Extend Discovery Cutoff Date in Smith Pending
CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown Appeals ERISA Class Suit Dismissal
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Misled Investors About Nodax, Caballero Claims

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Skistimas Sues Over Misleading Statements
DELI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT, Rogers Claims
DELI MANAGEMENT: Reinhold Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: New York Consolidated Class Suit Junked
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending

EAST COAST: Mendez Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
EASTERN MUSHROOM: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Winn-Dixie Denied
EHANG HOLDINGS: Klein Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
EQT CORP: Seeks May 28 Deadline Extension of Class Status Briefing

ERIKA JAYNE & TOM GIRARDI: List Palatial Pasadena Palace For $13M
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
EVE NATURALS: Gold Suit Removed to E.D. New York
EVOLUS INC: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Jeuveau Suit Pending
FENNEC PHARMA: Bid to Nix Chapman Putative Class Suit Pending

FIBROGEN INC: Continues to Defend Clinical Studies-Related Suits
FIBROGEN INC: Faces Gutman Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
FIRST SAVINGS: Faces Policy and Practice Related Class Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Ludlow Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
FUBOTV INC: Consolidated Said-Ibrahim & Lee Class Actions Underway

GEICO GENERAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 17
GEICO GENERAL: Green's Bid for Relief Related to Judgment Denied
GEICO GENERAL: Sept. 17 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
GEO GROUP: Trial in Washington Class Suits to be Done Remotely

GERON CORP: Court Narrows Claims in IMbark-Related Class Suit
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Class Deal in Miranda Suit Has Final Approval
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Sale of Users' Personal Info
GREEN BAY, WI: Court Strikes Class Claims in Rodriguez Suit
GRUBHUB INC: Za-Zen Enterprises Suit Removed to C.D. California

H.P. SERVICES: Rodriguez-Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HARRISON SECURITY: Martin Files Suit in California Superior Court
HEALTH NET: Vunisa Suit Removed to N.D. California
HEALTHY MARKET: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
HENRY ARMENTA: Garcia Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Minors Suit

HERMAN QUAY: Scott et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
HOME CITY: Seeks Denial of Pansiera Bid for Class Certification
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Junks Pelayo Class Suit
INTERFACE INC: Swanson Securities Class Action Underway
INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Purported Class Suit in Texas

JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
JAMI SNYDER: Hennessy-Waller Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd
JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Hiciano Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Clerks
JW MARRIOTT: Jones Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
KOFFEE KUP: Employees Forced to Return Earned Time Pay Out

KOLOR MARKETING: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
LAURA DAVIDSON: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LCMC HEALTH: Uptown New Orleans Residents File Class Action
LENCIONI FARM: Trejo Files Suit in California Superior Court
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Nigles Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs LLANY Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v LLANY Underway
LMD & ASSC: Improperly Pays Workers, Hernandez-Adorno Suit Says
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
LOUISIANA: Giroir Must Class Certification Bid by September 3

LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action
MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Claim
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to June 14
MARRIOTT INT'L: Partly Obliged to Reply to Hall's Discovery Bids
MCKESSON CORP: Agreement Reached in Suit Against RelayHealth

MCKESSON CORP: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit Under Appeal
MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Pension Fund Wins Class Status Bid
MCKESSON CORP: Reliable Pharmacy Class Action Underway
MCKESSON CORP: Trial in Health Chiropractic Suit Set for Oct. 18
MDL 2925: Defendants Must Show Docs in Surcharge Antitrust Suit

MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Suits in Arizona Ongoing
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Partial Lifting of Stay Pending
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lira Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Mergner Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Class Suit
NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware
NEW YORK GLOBAL: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Scott Suit
NEW YORK GLOBAL: Scott Suit Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Marijuana Discriminatory Arrests

NEW YORK: Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Richardson Suit
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Files Suit in District of South Carolina
NEWSMAX MEDIA: Cohen Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEXTERA ENERGY: Renne Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
NFP RETIREMENT: Lauderdale Has Until Nov. 29 to File Class Cert Bid

NICOM LIVING: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NOVATION COMPANIES: Approval of Settlement in NJCHF Suit Appealed
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: $3.15MM Settlement in IBT Suit Gets Final Nod
OI SA: Still Defends Class Suit Related to Customer Service Rules
OI SA: Suits Related to Re-Opening of Service Centers Ongoing

OMAZE INC: Faces Knuttel Suit Over Alleged Illegal Lotteries
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Continues to Defend EasyPark Card Suit
ONESHARE HEALTH: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit
PAYSIGN INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 28 Deadline

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PENNSYLVANIA: Dept. of Health Faces COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Breach of Confidential Health Info

PHH MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Reopen Law & Motion in Munoz RESPA Suit
PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE: Filing of Consent Notice in Teblum Ordered
PINTEREST INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 28 Deadline
PITTSBURGH, PA: Attorneys Criticize Health Department Over Breach
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed

PRIME NOW: Adami Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Lawsuit on Behalf of Ex Coach Victims
RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
RCI HOSPITALITY: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Class Lawsuit
REPRO-MED SYSTEMS: Portnoy Law Reminds of May 25 Deadline

ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Seeks to Extend Response Time on Class Cert. Bid
ROLF C. HAGEN: Kramer Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces Hiller Suit Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages
RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Thomson Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
S.MA'AT: Denial of Rast Bid to Certify Class Endorsed

SAN ANTONIO: Faces Orozco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
SBF FINANCE: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Duban Suit Removed to S.D. New York
SCI TENNESSEE: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SKILLZ INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of July 7 Deadline

SNAP FINANCE: Wesley Reply in Support of Class Cert. Bid Due May 28
SO-YOUNG INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
SONY COMPUTER: Facing Class-Action Over Digital Game Monopoly
SOS LIMITED: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SPANDEX HOUSE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SPANDEX WORLD: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ST. JOHN KNITS: Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Calif.
STRAIGHT ARROW: Ryan Files Suit in S.D. New York
SUN INDUSTRIES: Underpays Foremen, Hales FLSA Suit Claims
SUNPATH LTD: Fratilla Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

SYLVIA BEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
TARGET CORPORATION: Chen Files Suit in District of Minnesota
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Keuch Must File Class Status Bid by Sept. 17
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit
TRINITY INTERNATIONAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: MacMann's Form & Plan of Class Notice OK'd
ULTA SALON: Bailey Suit Removed from Com. Pleas Court to W.D. Pa.
UMASS AMHERST: Parents Sues Over Students' Suspension From School
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
UNITED PARCEL: Failed to Pay Proper OT Compensation, Santiago Says

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
UNITED STATES: Another Round Looms for GFC Class Actions
UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Nakka Suit Against USCIS & DOS Denied
UNITED STATES: FAA's Bid to Dismiss in Part Brigida Suit Denied
UNITED STATES: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Doe FERSA Class Suit

URBAN HEALTH: Tueros Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
URBAN NATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roman Suit Alleges
US BANK: Continues to Face Student Loan Suits in Chancery Court
VALVE CORP: Facing Antitrust Lawsuit Over Steam Digital Dominance
VIATRIS INC: Dismissal of Ranitidine-Related Suit Under Appeal

VIRGINIA: Cox Sues Over Unlawful Unemployment Benefits System
VIVINT INC: Class Discovery Deadline in Cunningham Suit Due June 23
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 29 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 29 Deadline
VROOM INC: Faces Hudda Securities Suit Over Market Value Drop

VROOM INC: Faces Three Putative Class Actions in New York
W. DOUGLAS COLLINS: Torres Revised Bid for Class Certification OK'd
WAL-MART STORES: Griego Seeks June 7 Deadline to File Reply
WALMART INC: Brito Sues Over Body Care Products' Deceptive Labels
WAWA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Data Security Class Suit

WELLPET LLC: Zeiger Renewed Class Certification Bid Due July 6
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Becker's ERISA Class Suit
WESTERN REFINING: Dilworth Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
WESTPAC BANKING: $1M in Attorney Fees Awarded in Byrne Class Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Delivery Worker Arrested During 2020 Curfew Sues NYPD

WILHELMINA INT'L: Mediation in Shanklin and Pressley Suits Ongoing
WINCO FOODS: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
WISCONSIN: Residents Combat Water Contamination Aftereffects
YOH SERVICES: Stewart Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01493-RMG
(D.S.C., May 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

Archroma Management LLC is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

BASF Corporation is a chemical company headquartered in New
Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: B. Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------
Butch Kennedy, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01381-RMG (D.S.C., May 7,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


3M COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald David Barber, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01370-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


3M COMPANY: Lusby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------
Dudley James Lusby, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01328-RMG
(D.S.C., May 4, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the complaint says.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


3M COMPANY: Lynch Suit Transferred to District of South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Paul Lynch, on behalf of himself and
"E.L.," a minor, on their own and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co.; Tyco Fire Products LP successor-in-trust to THE
ANSUL COMPANY; National Foam Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment CO.;
Chemguard; EI Dupont De Nemours & Company; The Chemours Company
LLC; Case No. 3:21-cv-00066 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01455-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The 3M Company -- https://www.3m.com/ -- is an American
multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of
industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol St., Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 346-2889
          Fax: (304) 346-2895
          Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

               - and -

          Stephen G Skinner, Esq.
          SKINNER LAW FIRM
          115 E Washington Street
          Charles Town, WV 25414
          Phone: (304) 725-7029
          Fax: (304) 725-4082
          Email: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com


3M COMPANY: Mingus Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Dean Alan Mingus, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01329-RMG (D.S.C., May 4,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney and testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, says the complaint.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


4 ALL PROMOS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4 All Promos, LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 4 All Promos, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04517 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

4AllPromos -- https://www.4allpromos.com/ -- is a premier
promotional products company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


6D GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Puddu Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joseph Puddu, et al., Plaintiffs v. 6D Global
Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-8061 (AJN)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and their Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and
Awards to Plaintiffs.

On Oct. 1, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants
6D Global Technologies, Inc., Tejune Kang, Mark Szynkowski, and
Terry McEwen.  A hearing was held on Feb. 23, 2021, during which
time the Court heard the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class
Members were notified about the Settlement by: (a) receiving an
email with the Summary Notice for those for which the Strategic
Claims Services, the class action administration firm that handled
this, was able to obtain email addresses; or (b) receiving a
Postcard Notice if no email address could be obtained. Further,
Summary Notice was disseminated on GlobeNewswire.  The Claims
Administrator also posted the Long Notice and Proof of Claim on its
website, which provided a link for online claim filing and listed
important deadlines.

The Notice advised the potential class members of the terms of the
Settlement and Plan of Allocation; that the Lead Counsel would seek
a fee award not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Amount
attributable to the efforts of Lead Counsel in the Action, recovery
of actual litigation expenses not to exceed $65,000, and an award
to the Plaintiffs of $1,500 each (or $6,000 in total); and that any
objections to any aspect of the Settlement or to the fee and
expense request were due to be postmarked by Feb. 2, 2021.

The Lead Counsel seeks attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third
(33.3%) of the Settlement Fund, or $133,333.33, together with a
proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at the same
rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of the
establishment of the fund to the date of payment.  They also seek
expenses in the amount of $52,663.79.

The Plaintiffs received 415 claim forms as of the date that claims
were due, and of those, 180 claims were deemed valid.  Of the 180
valid claims, the recognized losses were $3,436,987.  hat amounts
to a rough recovery of 6.05% of the valid claimants' recognized
losses.

Having considered the written submissions of the parties, having
held a final fairness hearing, and having considered the arguments
offered at that hearing, Judge Nathan ordered that the Class is
finally certified and the Settlement is finally approved.

The settlement defines the class as "all persons that purchased or
acquired 6D Global Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a CleanTech Innovations,
Inc.) securities between June 16, 2014 and September 10, 2015, both
dates inclusive."  The Plaintiffs may take discovery to determine
whether any claimant is an excluded person.

Judge Nathan finds that (i) the Class satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; (ii) the settlement and the plan of allocation, which
efficiently and fairly allocates the fund to the Settlement class
members on a per-share basis, are fair, reasonable, and adequate;
and (iii) the requested attorneys' fees and expenses are
reasonable.

For the reasons stated, Judge Nathan determined that the Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly, he granted the
Plaintiffs' Motions.  He entered the parties' Proposed Order and
Partial Final Judgment and Proposed Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs.  The Order
resolves Dkt. Nos. 229 and 231.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9nvmbczy from
Leagle.com.


6D GLOBAL: Partial Final Judgment Entered in Puddu Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Order and Partial Final Judgment in the
case, JOSEPH PUDDU, MARK GHITIS, VALERY BURLAK, and ADAM BUTTER,
Plaintiffs v. 6D GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NYGG (ASIA), LTD.,
BENJAMIN TIANBING WEI A/K/A BENJAMIN WEY, TEJUNE KANG, MARK
SZYNKOWSKI, TERRY McEWEN, AND NYG CAPITAL LLC D/B/A NEW YORK GLOBAL
GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-8061-AJN (S.D.N.Y.).

On Feb. 23, 2021, a hearing having been held before the Court to
determine: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated Oct. 7, 2019 are fair, reasonable
and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by the
Settlement Class against the Settling Defendants, including the
release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties, and
should be approved; (2) whether judgment should be entered
dismissing the Settling Defendants with prejudice; (3) whether to
approve the proposed Plan of Allocation as a fair and reasonable
method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class
Members; (4) whether and in what amount to award Lead Counsel as
fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5) whether and in what
amount to award the Plaintiffs as incentive fees.

It appears in the record that the Summary Notice, substantially in
the form approved by the Court in the Court's Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, dated Oct. 1, 2020, was published; the Postcard Notice
was mailed to all the reasonably identifiable Settlement Class
Members; and the Notice was emailed to all the reasonably
identifiably Settlement Class Members and posted to the website of
the Claims Administrator; all in accordance with the Preliminary
Approval Order and the specifications of the Court.

Having considered all matters submitted to her at the hearing and
otherwise, Judge Nathan finds that, for settlement purposes only,
the prerequisites for a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied.  The
Settlement Class is being certified for settlement purposes only.

The Judge finally certifies the action as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of "all Persons
(including, without limitation, their beneficiaries) all persons
and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased publicly traded 6D Global Technologies, Inc. f/k/a
CleanTech Innovations, Inc. ("6D Global" or the "Company")
securities from June 16, 2014 through September 10, 2015, both
dates inclusive."

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
the purposes of the Settlement only, the Plaintiffs are certified
as the class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class and
the Lead Counsel previously selected by the Plaintiffs and
appointed by the Court is appointed as the Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

The Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class.  The Action and all claims
contained therein, as well as all of the Released Claims, are
dismissed with prejudice as against the Settling Defendants and the
Released Parties.  The Settling Parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Stipulation.

Judge Nathan finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair
and reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among the
Settlement Class Members, and the Class Counsel and the Claims
Administrator are directed to administer the Plan of Allocation in
accordance with its terms and the terms of the Settlement
Stipulation.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Defendants, and
the Class Representatives may agree to reasonable extensions of
time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement
Stipulation.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order and
Partial Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the
Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tb9bndv9 from Leagle.com.


ABLE INNOVATIONS: Underpays Mechanics, Gerena Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GERENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABLE INNOVATIONS, INC. d/b/a HELSEL'S
AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11515-KM-JBC (D.N.J.,
May 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage
Payment Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated mechanics overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Mr. Gerena worked for the Defendant as a mechanic in Puerto Rico
from October 2017 to April 2018.

Able Innovations, Inc., doing business as Helsel's Automotive, LLC,
is an auto repair shop in Palm Bay, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

                - and –

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
         Andrew 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
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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

ACADIA PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: June 15, 2020 - Apr. 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ACAD
Contact An Attorney Now: ACAD@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD) Securities Fraud
Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented facts
concerning Acadia's supplemental new drug application ("sNDA") for
NUPLAZID(R) (pimavanserin), which treats dementia-related psychosis
("DRP").

Specifically, on July 20, 2020, Acadia announced the FDA accepted
for filing the sNDA and stated that its pivotal study for the drug
showed a meaningful reduction of psychosis symptoms and a nearly 3X
reduction in the risk of relapse for patients continuing on
pimavanserin vs. placebo. Thereafter, the company repeatedly stated
the FDA had not identified any potential review issues and
reiterated the drug's efficacy.

But the truth began to emerge on Mar. 8, 2021, when Acadia
announced that on Mar. 3, 2021 the FDA informed the company that it
had identified deficiencies in the sNDA.

Then, on Apr. 5, 2021, Acadia announced the FDA had rejected the
sNDA, citing a lack of statistical significance regarding some of
the subgroups of dementia and inadequate numbers of patients with
some less common dementia subtypes.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Acadia misled
investors by concealing FDA-related review risks for the sNDA,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are an Acadia investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Acadia should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ACAD@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.[GN]


ACADIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00762, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia
securities between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Acadia securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 18, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that
address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders.
The Company is developing pimavanserin as a treatment for
dementia-related psychosis and as an adjunctive treatment for
schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive treatment for major
depressive disorder.

In April 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approved pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and
delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis.

In June 2020, Acadia submitted a supplemental New Drug Application
("sNDA") with the FDA to expand pimavanserin's label to include
treatment for dementia-related psychosis (the "pimavanserin
sNDA").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin sNDA contained
statistical and design deficiencies; (ii) accordingly, the
pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support that the Company
had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the FDA was
unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 8, 2021, post-market, Acadia issued a press release
providing a regulatory update on the pimavanserin sNDA, disclosing
"that the Company received a notification from the [FDA] on March
3, 2021, stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the
Company's [sNDA], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." Acadia advised that "[t]he notification does not
specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA and there has been
no clarification by the FDA at this time."

On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $20.76 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021.

Then, on April 5, 2021, pre-market, Acadia issued a press release
announcing that the Company had received a Complete Response Letter
("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the pimavanserin sNDA could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, the press
release stated that, "the [FDA Division of Psychiatry], in the CRL,
cited a lack of statistical significance in some of the subgroups
of dementia, and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less
common dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of
effectiveness to support approval."

On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%,
to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


ACV AUCTIONS: Putative Class Suit in New York Underway
------------------------------------------------------
ACV Auctions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

On March 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed against ACV
Auctions, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal antitrust
laws and New York State law related to an alleged conspiracy to set
bids on the company's marketplace from transactions that originated
from one seller.

The complaint seeks statutory damages under such laws and other
relief.

ACV Auctions said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
this case. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome and cannot estimate
the range of any potential loss at this time. However, we believe
that the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial position."

ACV Auctions Inc. develops mobile application. The Company offers
platform that enables used car dealers to view, bid, and purchase
car inventory via online auctions. ACV Auctions serves customers in
the United States. The company is based in Buffalo, New York.


AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Suit Remanded to Madison County Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GRETZINGER and ANGELA GRETZINGER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIR
METHODS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1233-SMY (S.D.
Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois remands the case back to the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

Plaintiffs Michael Gretzinger and Angela Gretzinger are former
employees of Defendant Air Methods.  In October 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class action in the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois
against Air Methods alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law ("IMWL"), 820 ILCS 105/4a, and asserting claims for unjust
enrichment. Air Methods removed the case to this court based on
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1446.  On March 15, 2021, the
Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to remove the class
allegations.

The case is now before the Court for consideration of the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.  The Plaintiffs assert that Air
Methods cannot establish the requisite amount in controversy for
diversity jurisdiction.  Air Methods has not filed a response to
the motion and the time for doing so has passed.

Judge Yandle construes Air Methods' failure to respond to the
motion to remand as an admission of the merits of the motion.
Consequently, Air Methods has not provided the Court with competent
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
requirements of CAFA or diversity jurisdiction and has therefore
failed to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Judge Yandle finds that the Court does not have proper
subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and is obligated,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), to remand the case back to
the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ptv98n6w from Leagle.com.


ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Aliera Companies, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON,
JUSTINE LUND; and JAIME and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC.,
formerly known as ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ONESHARE
HEALTH, LLC, formerly known as UNITY HEALTHSHARE, LLC and as
KINGDOM HEALTHSHARE MINISTRIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
corporation, Case No. 1:20-CV-02130-RBJ, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants over alleged breach
of fiduciary duties.

Defendant The Aliera Companies is seeking a review of the order
dated April 16, 2021, entered by Judge R. Brooke Jackson, denying a
motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Smith, et al. v. The Aliera
Companies, et al., Case No. 21-1185, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Notice of appearance is due on June 1, 2021 for Jaime Beard,
Jared Beard, Ellen Larson, Justine Lund; and

   -- Transcript order form, notice of appearance, and docketing
statement are due on June 1, 2021 for The Aliera Companies, Inc.
[BN]

Defendant-Appellant THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC. is represented by:

          Sarah R. Craig, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          One Tampa City Center
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 3200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 367-5766
          E-mail: scraig@burr.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON, JUSTINE LUND,
JAIME BEARD, and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH
          8300 Arista Place, Suite 300
          Broomfield, CO 80020
          Telephone: (303) 800-1580
          E-mail: pjbernal@michaelbest.com

               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: ele@sylaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael David Myers, Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY PLLC
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 398-1188
          E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com

ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that limited
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit filed against
Faneuil, Inc. by Donna Marshall.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento against Faneuil, Inc. and ALJ.

Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.

In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act (the "PAGA Claim").

Faneuil demurred to the PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed
by the trial court.

The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery.

A mediation was held on March 11, 2021 and discussions are ongoing.


Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend
this case vigorously.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.


ALL-POINTS CONSTRUCTION: Foster Sues Over Retaliation, Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL-POINTS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ALL-POINTS
ROOFING, LLC, and BRYCE SUMINGUIT, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01037 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and unlawful
retaliation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

Mr. Foster was hired by the Defendants as a laborer on or around
November 11, 2019.

All-Points Construction, LLC is a construction company with its
offices in Cleveland, Ohio.

All-Points Roofing, LLC is a roofing company with its offices in
Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Chris P. Wido, Esq.
         Samuel B. Robb, Esq.
         THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
         25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
         Beachwood, OH 44122
         Telephone: (216) 291-4744
         Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
         E-mail: Chris.Wido@spitzlawfirm.com
                Sam.Robb@spitzlawfirm.com

ALLDECOR LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLDECOR, LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. ALLDECOR, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02832 (E.D.N.Y., May
19, 2021).

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

Alldecor doing business as DecoratorsBest --
https://www.decoratorsbest.com/ -- is the largest e-commerce
company specializing in first-quality designer fabric, wallpaper,
trim, pillows and rugs at the best prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTICE USA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Wiley Suit to 2nd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Altice USA, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BRITTANY WILEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTICE USA,
INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1297, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to redress Altice's alleged unlawful and negligent disclosure
of thousands of its employees' and customers' personally
identifiable information in a major data breach in November 2019.

The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are current and
former employees and customers of Altice, who entrusted Altice with
their PII. The Defendant betrayed the Plaintiff's trust and that of
the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their PII and thereby enabling cyber criminals to steal
their PII, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Data Breach occurred as a result of a phishing campaign on
Altice company e-mail accounts. An undisclosed number of Altice
employees, apparently ill-equipped to protect themselves, were
tricked into providing their login information to the cyber
criminals. With these credentials, the cyber criminals were able to
remotely login to Altice company accounts, where they found a
treasure trove of PII, according to the complaint.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated April
15, 2021, denying its motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Neville McFarlane v. Altice USA,
Inc., Case No. 21-1290, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 18, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Altice USA, Inc., a New York Corporation, is
represented by:

          Stephen M. Baldini, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1 Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 872-1062
          E-mail: sbaldini@akingump.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Edward Hellyer, Neville McFarlane, Haseeb
Raja, Shariq Mehfooz, Melissa Pinson, DeAnna Cottrell, John
Frontera, Carrie Mason-Draffen, and Ronnie Gill individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com  

               - and -

          Cedric Bond, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: ccmb@federmanlaw.com

ALYN INDUSTRIES: Garcia Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCELIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALYN INDUSTRIES, INC., SCOTT ALYN, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21VECV00671 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to provide
employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to
pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time in,
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation,
failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when
employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related
expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and
accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from in or about 2016 until on or about November 30, 2020.

Alyn Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic products
based in Van Nuys, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

AMAZING FLOOR: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZING FLOOR SERVICE CORP. and SEAN ROCK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02799 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 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 overtime, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and
failure to furnish accurate wage notice.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a floor installer and
laborer from on or around September 1, 2015 through November 30,
2019.

Amazing Floor Service Corp. is a company that provides hardwood and
laminate floor installation and repair services, headquartered in
Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
         Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
         Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 248-5550
         Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

AMDOCS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ: DOX) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Dec. 13, 2016 - Mar. 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/DOX
Contact an Attorney Now: DOX@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ: DOX) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and omitted
material facts, including that: (i) Amdocs overstated its profits,
cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs
concealed its large borrowing; (iii) while Amdocs' reported results
showed that its North American business was stable, that business
was actually deteriorating annually, in part because the Company
was losing AT&T as a customer; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

The Complaint alleges that on Mar. 31, 2021, the truth emerged when
Jehoshaphat Research published a scathing report entitled, "Where
Did Amdocs' Profits And Auditors Go?", concluding that Amdocs is "a
massive financial deception" and "the stock is uninvestable."

Based on a review of Amdocs international subsidiaries' filings
overseas, Jehoshaphat claims Amdocs has overstated profits by as
much as 50%, that its reported profit margins are "wildly"
inflated, and approximately 1/3 of Amdocs' stated cash is
unavailable for use.   Jehoshaphat reported that former employee
and direct competitor interviews confirmed its findings that Amdocs
"has been losing business for years but has made up for these
losses by inflating financials, sometimes to a point beyond
recognition by the country managers." Jehoshaphat also raised
concerns about the Company subsidiaries' auditor resignations
during the last two years.

In response, the price of Amdocs shares fell over 11% on Mar. 31,
2021, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder
value.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Amdocs cooked its
books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are an Amdocs investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Amdocs should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email DOX@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


APOLLO NEUROSCIENCE: Quezada Seeks Blind People's Website Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04511-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.apolloneuro.com, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) lack of proper
label element or title attribute, (3) redundant title elements, and
(4) host of broken links.

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

Apollo Neuroscience, Inc. is a provider of health care solutions
based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Mars Khaimov, Esq.
         MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
         10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
         Forest Hills, NY 11375
         Telephone: (929) 324-0717
         E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com

ASHFORD INC: Employment Class Action Against Subsidiary Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that a company subsidiary continues to defend
a class action suit alleging violations of certain California
employment laws.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's
subsidiaries alleging violations of certain California employment
laws.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were
allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's
previous written policy requiring employees to stay on premises
during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt
former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon
separation from employment.

Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.

Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.

Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there
remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, we do not believe that any potential loss to the Company is
reasonably estimable at this time. As of March 31, 2021, no amounts
have been accrued."

Ashford Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on April 2, 2014,
subsequently reincorporated in Maryland, that provides asset
management and advisory services to Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
and Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc.


ASPEN AMERICAN: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Jan. 10, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIE JO BERKSETH-ROJAS
DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:20-cv-00948-D (N.D. Tex., Filed April 17, 2020), the Plaintiff
Berkseth-Rojas DDS files Motion to Schedule Class Certification
Briefing.

   -- Motion for Class Certification shall         Jan. 10, 2022
      be filed by and opening class
      certification expert reports (if any):


   -- Deadline for Defendants to file              Feb. 7, 2022.
      opposition to Plaintiffs' class
      certification motion and rebuttal
      expert reports (if any).

   -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' to file             March 14, 2022
      reply in support of class
      certification motion and sur-rebuttal
      expert reports (if any).

Aspen American Insurance Co operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides fire and casualty insurance services to its
clients.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hGjqJQ  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Ralph D. McBride, Esq.
          Alex J. Brown, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                  skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                  mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2302
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                  jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                  jbair@bbblawllp.com
                  fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Adam B. Reed, Esq.
          REED CARTER, PLLC
          8390 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Suite 570
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: 214-540-7730
          E-mail: adam@reedcarterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Yvette Ostolaza, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-3401
          Facsimile: 214-981-3400
          E-mail: Ayvette.ostolaza@sidley.com


ATHLETA LLC: Barnett Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jillian Barnett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Athleta LLC, Case No.
21-008870-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May
19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21863-JAL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Athleta -- https://athleta.gap.com/ -- designs clothing that
integrates performance and technical features for active women and
girls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley Elizabeth Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          Jordan David Maglich, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 222-2083
          Fax: (813) 222-8189
          Email: ashley.trehan@bipc.com
                 jordan.maglich@bipc.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
          2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 347-4080
          Fax: 347-4089
          Email: jennifer.olmedo-rodriguez@bipc.com


AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Scheme Responsible for $1.5B Unlawful Debts
---------------------------------------------------------------
theguardian.com reports that a judge has described the botched
robodebt scheme as a "very sorry chapter in Australian public
administration", as a court hears the total estimate of unlawful
debts raised by the government has increased to $1.5 billion.

Federal court justice Bernard Murphy made the comment after
victims' stories were aired by the court-appointed contradictor,
Fiona Forsyth QC, who represents the interests of 600,000 members
of a Gordon Legal class action.

Forsyth read from some of the more than 600 submissions objecting
to what they considered an inadequate settlement reached between
Gordon Legal and the government last year.

The court is currently considering whether to approve the
settlement, which includes $112m in interest payments and a
guarantee all unlawful debts worth about $1.5bn will be refunded or
"zeroed".

Forsyth said objectors argued the "stress and anxiety" caused by
robodebt was not reflected in the settlement, which only covers
economic loss.

Objectors described the "shame and anger" of being "treated like a
welfare cheat", including one woman who said she couldn't eat or
sleep when she received her debt, the court heard.

The court was told another person said they had fallen into
"financial ruin" after a debt led them to apply for a payday loan.

Forsyth quoted another person who argued that the government had
not been held to account for its mistakes.

"The government is once again getting away with being shysters,
while making the little people feel like it is they that did
wrong," she quoted the person as saying.

When Forsyth finished reading from the submissions, Murphy said:
"You don't need to persuade me this is a very sorry chapter in
Australian public administration."

About 200,000 people are set to miss out on compensation because
their debts – which were initially invalid – were later
substantiated by pay information welfare recipients provided in
response to Centrelink's debt letters.

The court has heard the legal case for these class members to be
included is considered "weak". Bernie Quinn QC, for Gordon Legal,
argued that while these members will not get any financial benefit,
they have been given clarity through the court process.

He argued the class action had forced the government to announce it
would refund the other 400,000 victims.

Forsyth said: "It is a good settlement for those who receive money,
but it's not a good settlement for those who receive nothing."

Murphy has generally described the settlement as "good", but said
he had some difficulty with it.

One of his concerns is those who would not get any financial
benefit are being asked to sign away their rights to bring a future
legal claim against the government. He has also noted the prospects
of such a claim succeeding were not high.

Michael Hodge QC, for the commonwealth, questioned $4.4m in costs
that Gordon Legal has asked to be deducted from the settlement to
administer the compensation scheme.

The court heard Gordon Legal has said much of those costs will be
eaten up by communications with people who won't receive anything
from the settlement, which Hodge described as "troubling".

Hodge singled out "$14,000 for video production" he told the court
was contained in a costs report, and noted one of these videos
posted to YouTube saw Gordon Legal promote legal arguments for
people now excluded from the settlement.

Hodge said those people "should never have been included to begin
with" – and thus Gordon Legal would be being paid for "promoting
an unmeritorious claim".

The firm's total costs have previously been estimated at $14m. In
general, Murphy has not taken issue with the total sum of costs so
far.

The court also heard the total figure of unlawful debts raised by
the government is now estimated about $1.5bn, an increase from an
early estimate of about $1.1bn in November 2020.

It confirms an exclusive report in Guardian Australia from July
2020, months before the settlement had even been reached.

Murphy criticised the government for failing to tell Jennifer
Miller whether her son Rhys, who took his own life in 2017, had
been caught up in the robodebt scheme.

Murphy is expected to rule on the settlement at a later date. [GN]


AYRO INC: Discloses Nonpayment of $45K Counsel Fees in DropCar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company has not yet paid the $45,000
as payment for counsel fees, in a class action suit involving
DropCar, Inc.

DropCar was a defendant in a class action lawsuit which resulted in
a judgement entered into whereby the Company is required to pay
legal fees in the amount of $45,000 to the plaintiff's counsel.

As of March 31, 2021 and December 31,2020, the balance due remains
$45,000.

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

Ayro, Inc. designs transportation equipment. The Company
manufactures electrical locomotives such as vehicles for logistics
industry. Ayro serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Round Rock, Texas.

B & J FABRICS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B & J FABRICS, INC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. B & J FABRICS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02831
(E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

B&J Fabrics -- https://www.bandjfabrics.com/ -- is a luxurious and
unusual cloths for the red carpet, start a fashion line, or costume
a film set in the 30's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Discovery Ongoing in Parker Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the derivative and class action complaint entitled,
Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.

On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder filed a derivative
and class action complaint against certain of the Company's
directors (current and former), executives and significant
stockholders and the Company (as a nominal defendant).

The action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and is
captioned Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not
properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the
2019 rights offering and related transactions.

The case is currently in discovery.

Babcock & Wilcox said, "We believe that the outcome of the
Stockholder Litigation will not have a material adverse impact on
our condensed consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows, net of any insurance coverage."

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BANK OF AMERICA: Checchia Sues Over Improper Assessment of Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Checchia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 210501685 (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., May 19, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant ("BofA"), arising from the improper assessment of
more than one fee, including non-sufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees")
and/or overdraft fees ("OD Fees"), on the same check ("Multiple
Fees").

According to the complaint, BofA charges account-holders the
following fees relevant to these allegations: (1) a $35 NSF fee
when there are insufficient funds to pay a check and it rejects the
check; (2) a $35 OD Fee when there are insufficient funds to pay a
check and it accepts the check. It is a breach of BofA's Account
Documents and reasonable consumer expectations for BofA to charge
more than one $35 NSF Fee and/or OD Fee on the same check, since
the Account Documents explicitly states and reasonable consumers
understand—that the same check can only incur a single NSF or OD
Fee. While Defendant may generally assess contracted for account
fees in any number, amount, or method it desires, it may not assess
such fees in breach of its binding contracts with its
accountholders.

The Plaintiff, and other BofA customers, have been injured by
BofA's Multiple Fees practice. On behalf of himself and the Class,
the Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and declaratory relief for
BofA's breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of North Carolina and Pennsylvania consumer
protection laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff maintains a checking account at BofA.

BofA is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place
of business located in Charlotte, NC, with branches located
throughout Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Phone: (215) 985-9177
          Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America N.A.,
et al. The case is styled as Kim S. Sullivan, also known as:
Kimberly S. Sullivan, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Bank of America N.A., Safeguard Properties Management
LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80828-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
The Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Bank of America, National Association --
https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFOSN GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
          SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          6810 North State Road 7
          Coconut Creek, FL 33073
          Phone: (561) 569-7062
          Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Peiffer Sues Over Control of Crop Inputs' Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE PEIFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., CARGILL
INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD
SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED COOPERATIVES
LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK
FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-01239 (D. Minn., May 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, and violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, state
consumer protection statutes, and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case arises from an unlawful agreement between Defendants,
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop
protection chemicals to artificially increase and fix the prices of
these chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides
used by farmers. The cost of seeds and crop protection chemicals is
increasing at a significantly faster rate than profits from
farmers' crop yields. The skyrocketing prices are causing farmers
to take on operating debt and often forcing them into bankruptcy,
creating a crisis situation in the agriculture community for
American farmers who are critical to the nation's food supply.
Neither the cost increases nor the price disparities are
attributable to any independent legitimate cause, such as weather
or other factors, the suit says.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants have maintained
supracompetitive prices for crop chemicals by denying farmers
access to accurate pricing information and have injured farmers by
forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that drastically
outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices.

Bayer Cropscience LP is a crop science company based in Saint
Louis, Missouri.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is a producer of seeds for
agriculture, headquartered in Johnston, Iowa.

Cargill Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

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

Syngenta Corporation is a company that provides crop protection
products based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of seed
and crop protection products, headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.

Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Downers Grove, Illinois.

Federated Cooperatives Ltd. is a co-operative federation providing
procurement and distribution to member co-operatives in Western
Canada.

CHS Inc. is a Fortune 100 business owned by United States
agricultural cooperatives, farmers, ranchers, and thousands of
preferred stock holders, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights,
Minnesota.

Nutrien AG Solutions Inc. is an agriculture inputs company based in
Colby, Kansas.

Growmark Inc. is a regional agricultural supply cooperative based
in Illinois.

Growmark FS, LLC is a fertilizer supplier located in Milford,
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a farm supplies company based in
Rayville, Louisiana.

Tenkoz, Inc. is a distributor of crop protection products based in
Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
         GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
         161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
         Conshohocken, PA 19428
         Telephone: (484) 342-0700
         E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Blink Charging Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled,
Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, is
pending.

On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael
Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer).

On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action
lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No.
20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and
seeking to recover the same alleged damages.

On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit
with the Bush Lawsuit and on December 21, 2020 the court appointed
Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 19,
2021. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and
functionality of the Blink Network, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Amended Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to
recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Blink's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19,
2020.

On April 20, 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. The deadline for the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs to file an opposition brief in response to the motion to
dismiss is June 21, 2021 and the deadline for Blink to file a reply
in support of the motion to dismiss is July 21, 2021.

The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and
completely disputes the allegations therein. The Company has
retained legal counsel in order to defend the action vigorously.
The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as
of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency
was either not probable or estimable.

Blink Charging Co. a leading owner, operator and supplier of
proprietary electric vehicle charging equipment and networked EV
charging services. The company serves both residential and
commercial EV charging settings, enabling EV drivers to easily
recharge at various location types. The company is based in Miami
Beach, Florida.
  

BLOCKBUSTER COSTUMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blockbuster Costumes,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Blockbuster Costumes, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04513 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Blockbuster Costumes -- https://blockbustercostumes.com/ -- offers
Halloween and holiday officially licensed and classic character
costumes for adults and kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company has
assumed liability of Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) in
relation to the class action suit filed against the latter.

On August 12, 2019, a former employee of VCB and participant in its
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "VCB ESOP") filed a class action
complaint against VCB, Virginia Community Bank, and certain
individuals associated with the VCB ESOP in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to VCB ESOP participants in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended.

The complaint alleges that the VCB ESOP incurred damages "that
approach or exceed $12 million." The Company automatically assumed
any liability of VCB in connection with this litigation as a result
of the Company’s acquisition of VCB. The outcome of this
litigation is uncertain, and the plaintiff and other individuals
may file additional lawsuits related to the VCB ESOP.

The defense, settlement, or adverse outcome of any such lawsuit or
claim could have a material adverse financial impact on the
Company.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and no loss has
been accrued for this lawsuit.

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

Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Charlottesville, Virginia. It provides commercial and consumer
banking and financial services through its wholly-owned bank
subsidiary, Blue Ridge Bank, National Association, and its non-bank
financial services affiliates. The Company was incorporated under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in July 1988 in connection
with the holding company reorganization of the Bank, which was
completed in July 1988.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Discovery in Boyd Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by Eddie
Boyd.

On July 18, 2019, Eddie Boyd, et al. filed an action alleging that
BVU and co-defendants violated the Missouri Merchandise Practices
Act for allegedly making false statements and misrepresentations
with respect to the sale of vacation ownership interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs further have filed a purported class action allegation
that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law, and have also asserted that we
and our outside counsel engaged in abuse of process by filing a
lawsuit against plaintiffs' counsel (The Montgomery Law Firm).

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

On August 31, 2020, the court certified a class regarding the
unauthorized practice of law claim and dismissed the claims
regarding abuse of process.

On January 11, 2021, the Court issued an order that the class
members are not entitled to rescission of their contracts because
they failed to plead fraud in the inducement.

Discovery is ongoing.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit
and intend to move to decertify the class."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Discovery in Johansen Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by Kenneth
Johansen against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).

On July 14, 2020, Kenneth Johansen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
against BVU for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Specifically, the named plaintiff alleges that he received numerous
telemarketing calls from BVU while he was on the National Do Not
Call Registry.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, and plaintiff in response
filed an amended complaint on September 18, 2020.

On February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify a class of thousands of individual
proposed class members.

On April 15, 2021 a court ordered mediation was conducted at which
time the parties were not able to resolve the lawsuit.

Discovery is ongoing.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We intend to oppose the class
certification and we are vigorously defending this action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Dismissal of Potje Class Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that plaintiffs' appeal
on the summary judgment order dismissing the purported class action
suit initiated by Stephen Potje, is pending.

On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis,
Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela
Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada,
Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and
Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
company which asserts claims for alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False
Advertising Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with the company's sales of vacation
ownership interests (VOIs).

The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
after mediation.  

However, during April 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their individual
claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Subsequently, on October 15, 2019, the Court entered an order
granting summary judgment in the company's favor and dismissed all
claims.

The company had moved for reimbursement of its attorneys' fees."

Plaintiffs have appealed the summary judgement order.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the purported class
action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha, remains stayed.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"), specifically that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited
(BVU) called plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes
using an automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give
BVU his express written consent to do so.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons
in the United States who received similar calls from or on behalf
of BVU without the person's consent.  Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a
separate action brought against a VOI company by a plaintiff
alleging violations of the TCPA.

On January 7, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling consistent
with BVU's position, and on June 26, 2020, the FCC also issued a
favorable ruling.

The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, which issued a ruling
favorable to our position on April 1, 2021.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We believe the Facebook ruling disposes
of the plaintiff's claim and filings have been made with the court
seeking dismissal of the case."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BOTACH INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Botach, Inc. The case
is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Botach, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04516
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Botach, Inc. -- https://botach.com/ -- offers the latest & greatest
law enforcement, military & public safety gear at the lowest prices
online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Carlson Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 11, 2021,
that the company is facing a class action suit entitled, Carlson v.
Allen Wolff, Michael Gottlieb, Richard Simtob, Susan Miller, and
NTN Buzztime, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0193-KSJM (Del. Ch. Ct.)

On March 25, 2021, BIT Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Brooklyn Inc. (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) merged with and
into Brooklyn LLC, with Brooklyn LLC surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Brooklyn Inc.. This transaction was completed in
accordance with the terms of an agreement and plan of merger and
reorganization dated August 12, 2020, or the Merger Agreement,
among Brooklyn Inc., BIT Merger Sub, Inc. and Brooklyn LLC.

On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported
stockholder of the Pre-Merger Company, filed a verified class
action complaint against the Pre-Merger Company and its
then-serving directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary
duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.

In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an
annual stockholder meeting.

Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment at the same time that he
filed his complaint. In order to moot the claim addressed in the
complaint, Brooklyn LLC has agreed to hold its annual meeting on
June 29, 2021.

The parties have agreed to extend defendants' time to respond to
the complaint by thirty days and are presently negotiating an
extended briefing schedule on the motion for summary judgment.

Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-tech company.
The Company focuses on exploring the role that the human immune
system can have in treating patients with cancer and immunologic
diseases, both as a single agent and in combination with other
therapies. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.


CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cable News Network,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cable News Network, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04512 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Cable News Network -- https://www.cnn.com/ -- is a multinational
news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANAAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities class
action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Feb. 10, 2021 - Apr. 9, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CAN
Contact An Attorney Now: CAN@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895

Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) Securities Fraud Action:

The complaint is focused on Canaan's statements about its bitcoin
mining machine business.

According to the complaint, in past months, Canaan has falsely
touted substantial improvement in its revenue visibility, its
ability to more precisely forecast revenues, and its receipt of
larger orders for its bitcoin mining machines. As recently as Apr.
9, 2021, Canaan's CEO reportedly assured investors that the global
shortage of chips used in its equipment did not negatively impact
the company.

But, on Apr. 12, 2021, Canaan reported horrible Q4 and FY 2020
financial results. Blaming supply chain disruptions, the company
reported Q4 2020 total computing power sold tanked 93%
year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter. Canaan also reported FY
2020 total computing power sold tanked 37% year-over-year. During
the company's earnings conference call that morning CEO Nangeng
Zhang admitted, contrary to earlier statements, that Canaan had in
fact run into a severe shortage of chip supply.

This news sent the price of Canaan American Depositary Shares
crashing nearly 30% lower that day.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Canaan
intentionally and falsely assured investors of its forecasted
revenues and its insulation from the chip shortage," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Canaan investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Canaan should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email CAN@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


CARSON OPTICAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Optical, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Carson Optical, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04515 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Carson Optical -- https://carson.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer
of optics including magnifiers, binoculars, microscopes,
telescopes, digiscoping accessories & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASPER SLEEP: Putative Class Suit in New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Casper Sleep Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit filed in the New York State Supreme Court, has been
dismissed.

Beginning in June 2020, several putative class actions have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and the New York State Supreme Court by certain of the
company's shareholders against the company, its directors, certain
of its officers, and certain of the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the initial public offering. The cases are in
preliminary stages.

Plaintiffs moved voluntarily to dismiss the lawsuit filed in New
York State Supreme Court.

The dismissal became effective upon the filing of a stipulation of
discontinuance on May 3, 2021.

As a result of the voluntary dismissal of the New York State
Supreme Court complaint, the Company notified the Federal Court it
would withdraw its pending motion to stay the Federal Action.

Once the motion is withdrawn, the Company anticipates moving to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Federal Action complaint.

Casper said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them."

Casper Sleep Inc. manufactures home furnishing products. The
Company designs, produces, and markets range of mattresses, sheets,
pillows, duvet, and bed frames. Casper Sleep serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York.


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Celestron
Acquisition, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Celestron Acquisition,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04514 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Celestron Acquisition, LLC -- https://www.celestron.com/ --
manufactures life science equipment. The Company offers telescope
parts, optics, astrophotography, binoculars, spotting scopes, and
digital microscopes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Faces Banks FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAEARTHA BANKS and ARIA LAMBERT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC and CENTENE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00429-JM (E.D. Ark., May 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Banks was employed by the Defendants as a utilization
manager from February of 2019 until March of 2021.

Plaintiff Lambert was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
practical nurse and concurrent review nurse from July of 2019 until
February of 2021.

Centene Management Company, LLC is a managed care company based in
Missouri.

Centene Corporation is a managed care company, with its principal
place of business in Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Daniel Ford, Esq.
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AK 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

CENTRAL LOAN: Holmes Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Brent D. Holmes and Kathleen A. Holmes, On Their
Own Behalf and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL
LOAN ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING, a/k/a CENLAR FSB and CITIBANK,
N.A., Case No. 2020L12 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Coles County, Illinois to the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on May 7, 2021,
and assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02094-CSB-EIL.

The Plaintiffs allege misconduct with regard to customer late fees
and other assessments on mortgage loans which Cenlar has serviced
for Citibank. The Plaintiffs assert against Citibank a claim for
breach of contract (Count I), for which they seek an award of all
late fees, processing fees, and delinquency charges assessed
together with the costs of suit, and a claim for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("IFCA") (Count III), for which they seek an award of compensatory
and punitive or exemplary damages, costs of suit, and attorney's
fees. Plaintiffs also assert an IFCA claim against Cenlar (Count
II), seeking compensatory and punitive or exemplary damages, costs
of suit, and attorney's fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Louis F. Bonacorsi, Esq.
          Ketrina G. Bakewell, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          122 North Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025-1902
          Phone: 314-259-2000
          Facsimile: 314-259-2020
          Email: lfbonacorsi@bclplaw.com
                 kgbakewell@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory C. Ray, Esq.
          CRAIG & CRAIG, LLC
          1807 Broadway Avenue
          P.O. Box 689
          Mattoon, IL 61938-0689
          Phone: 217-234-6481
          Facsimile: 217-234-6486
          Email: gcr@craiglaw.net


CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Walburn Class Suit in Ohio Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit initiated by Jeffrey Walburn, is
pending.

On September 3, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., nine other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP
site, and eleven individuals in their personal capacity, some of
whom are current and former DOE employees, were named as defendants
("Walburn Defendants") in a class action complaint filed by Jeffrey
Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr., Kimberly M. Lawson, James A.
Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs, Donald Slone, Vicki P. Slone,
Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl R. Hartley, Heather R.
Hartley, Vina Colley, Antony Preston, David B. Rose, Michael E.
Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue Brogdon (deceased),
Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and Jon Doe(s), and Jane
Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint alleges that the named defendants conspired and
concealed nuclear incidents in violation of the Price-Anderson Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and other
state claims.

The complainants seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief
arising from economic losses, property losses, and non-economic
damages resulting from toxic and radioactive releases from the
Portsmouth GDP.

On November 20, 2020, the Walburn Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to add two individuals to the complaint as defendants in
their individual capacity. One of those individuals is Daniel
Poneman, Centrus' Chief Executive Officer.

In the 78-page complaint, Mr. Poneman is referenced only twice,
without any cited allegations against him; once in the caption and
once referencing his position at the Company. The Company has
notified its insurance carrier regarding the claim.

On February 11, 2021, the Walburn Plaintiffs amended their
complaint for a second time to replace two corporate defendants
with two others (one of whom was a contractor to Enrichment Corp.
and also to its predecessor prior to its privatization in 1998 and
the other a former DOE contractor) and removed four named
individual defendants from the complaint.

On March 2, 2021, Walburn Defendants filed their motion to dismiss.


The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability
should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act.

Centrus said, "The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided
notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the
Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions."

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTRUS ENERGY: Oral Argument on Matthews Appeal Set for June 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that oral argument on the
appeal made in the class action suit initiated by James Matthews,
is scheduled on June 8, 2021.

On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other
DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP
site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by
James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate
of A.R., and others similarly situated (the "Matthews Plaintiffs"),
in the Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio. On January 3, 2020,
the complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio for adjudication.

The complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged
off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the
Portsmouth GDP site.

The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contended that the ongoing and
continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and class members
were not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the
Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims
concerning traditional-style state regulation."

On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp.
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because
the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the
Price-Anderson Act, which preempts state law. On August 18, 2020,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On November 17, 2020, the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their appellant
brief and on February 1, 2021, the Matthews Defendants filed their
brief. On February 22, 2021, the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their
reply brief.

The case is scheduled for oral argument on June 8, 2021.

The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations. Further, the Company believes that any such liability
should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act.

The Company and Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTURI CONSTRUCTION: Millan Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY MILLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CENTURI CONSTRUCTION GROUP; CENTURI
GROUP, INC.; NPL CONSTRUCTION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CVRI 2100539, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00870 to the proceeding.

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

Centuri Construction Group is an energy construction company in
Phoenix, Arizona.

Centuri Group, Inc. is an energy construction company in Phoenix,
Arizona.

NPL Construction is an energy and infrastructure construction in
Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
         Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
         Bernice E. Diaz, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92612-4414
         Telephone: (949) 223-7000
         Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
         E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
                 christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                 bernice.diaz@bclplaw.com

CHARLESTON AREA: Plaintiffs Settle for $23M in Sexual Abuse Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
wvgazettemail.com reports that a judge approved a final settlement
in a class-action lawsuit against a former Charleston doctor
accused of sexually abusing his patients while they were under
anesthesia.

The class of almost 2,500 women treated by Dr. Steven Matulis at
Charleston Area Medical Center from 2010 to 2016 will divide a $23
million settlement figure. Matulis, who was a licensed
gastroenterologist, was convicted in October 2018 for sexually
abusing patients when a jury found he touched unconscious patients'
breasts and vaginas without their consent. He was sentenced to up
to five years in prison.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit would have received a colonoscopy
from Matulis some time between 2010 and 2016. Each is expected to
receive about $5,000.

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey ordered a hearing for
Sept. 9 to finalize settlement details and work out any
distribution issues. Matulis' time in court, however, will extend
beyond September, as additional cases are pending against the
former doctor and Charleston Area Medical Center.

The settlement wraps up one of the most highly litigated civil
cases in recent Kanawha County Circuit Court history, with more
than 1,000 entries of proceedings, hearings, notices, depositions
and motions appearing on the case docket. The first filing came
April 5, 2016, with a criminal complaint, where a 25-year-old Boone
County woman alleged that Matulis sexually assaulted her while she
was under anesthesia for a colonoscopy in February 2016.

The settlement also is separate from the July 2020 settlement
involving Matulis and 372 plaintiffs at the Charleston Day Surgery
Center. Bailey approved an $890,000 settlement figure in that
case.

Matulis was criminally charged with five counts of second-degree
sexual assault and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse in 2018,
but four of those charges were dismissed, and two did not have
enough evidence to lead to a conviction, leaving only the lone
sexual abuse conviction.

But Matulis was accused in court of several sexual crimes by former
CAMC nurses and surgical technicians. It got to the point where
nurses and technicians said they would put a star next to the names
of female patients whom they believed would later be sexually
abused by Matulis, according to court records.

In addition, Matulis sexually harassed female employees, asking
them about their favorite sex positions and if they performed
certain sexual acts, they said during depositions. He was accused
of commenting on female employees' breasts and asking them about
their personal grooming habits.

Employees also said Matulis took photos of patients' tattoos while
they were under anesthesia, then would clean and wipe patients
after colonoscopy procedures as a means to "discreetly abuse female
patients." The employees said Matulis was the only doctor in CAMC's
endoscopy suite who would clean patients. [GN]


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI) common stock between November 26,
2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). ChemoCentryx
investors have until July 6, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

ChemoCentryx is a biopharmaceutical company. Its lead drug
candidate is avacopan, which is developed as a potential treatment
for ANCA-associated vasculitis ("AAV").

On July 9, 2020, ChemoCentryx announced that it had filed its New
Drug Application ("NDA") for avacopan to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the treatment of AAV.

On May 4, 2021, the FDA released a "Briefing Document" concerning
the Company's NDA for avacopan, stating that "[c]omplexities of the
study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions
about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically
meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of
AAV." The FDA also noted that "several areas of concern [that]
rais[ed] uncertainties about the interpretability of these data and
the clinical meaningfulness of these results." The FDA also raised
serious safety concerns with avacopan for the treatment of AAV.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $22.19 per share, or
45.45%, to close at $26.63 per share on May 4, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the study
design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about the
interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically
meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III
ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3)
these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the
viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased ChemoCentryx common stock during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than July 6, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Gross Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of ChemoCentryx, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCXI)

Investors Affected : November 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
ChemoCentryx, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial
presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data to
define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in
the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the
Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for
avacopan; (3) these issues presented a substantial concern
regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the
treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=15573&from=1

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

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

CHENG DU: Liu FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YI CHING LIU, a/k/a Shu
Jung Liu YUNG CHANG HSU, and XIAOLONG YANG on their own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CHENG DU 23 INC d/b/a
Cheng Du 23; and YONGYI JIANG a/k/a Robert Jiang, CHING XING LIN
a/k/a Kevin Lin, and MAO YAN LIN a/k/a CINDY LIN, Case No.
2:17-cv-12867-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA");

   2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this

      Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and
      last name, last known address with apartment number (if
      applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-
      mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames

      (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and
      position of:

      "ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
      employees employed at any time from December 10, 3014 (three

      years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when

      the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
      Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list,

      whichever is later";

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
      any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website

      or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of

      the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete

      and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants

      certifying that the list is complete and from existing
      employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
      on the Plaintiffs' counsel's website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may

      also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the English, Chinese-speaking American immigrant
      worker community;

   7. directing the the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
      in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the
      Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
      newspaper should the Defendants fail to furnish a complete
      Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
      undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
      English, and English, Chinese; and

   9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit
      be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in
      Period.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 6, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3484n3G at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, are:

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Khalid Appeals Antitrust Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, Esq., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ATM Shafiqul Khalid, an
individual, and Xencare Software, Inc., on behalf of similarly
situated v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, AKA John
Doe n, Case No. 2:20-cv-00711-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 22, 2020, the
lawsuit wants the Court to determine if a corporation gets
liability in antitrust and racketeering for a deliberate and
extortionate act of detaching constitutional rights from the
constitutional entity and converting the constitutional protection
into pure contractual rights.

The lawsuit is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for
allegedly creating restraint of trade with overbroad employee
agreement among Citrix and its employees.

According to the complaint, Citrix intentionally withheld Khalid's
severance money for 9+ years to date, forced Khalid and his team to
spend more than $2.8 million by refusing $50,000/patent license to
cause fear in Khalid of financial loss and pressure Khalid to give
up his patent right. Citrix asserted right to Khalid patent using
an illegal and unenforceable Employee Agreement that equates Citrix
made the claim without any contractual basis. Citrix's attempt to
interpret its illegal contract based on its wish to claim Khalid's
patent in collaboration with Microsoft with threat equates to
robbery by force, threat, fear, or bad faith.

Because of Citrix's wrongful action, the Plaintiffs contend that
they sustained damages in the state court proceeding: a) at least
$4 million in cost, fees and interest b) recovery of $27 million
lost profit c) accumulate interest on judgment d) damages
identified in state court to make it treble. The Plaintiffs argue
that Citrix is responsible for treble damage for violating the
Antitrust and Racketeering Act.

Mr. Khalid seeks a review of the Court's Order dated April 14, 2021
and Judgment dated April 15, 2021, granting the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Atm Khalid, et al v. Citrix
Systems, Inc., Case No. 21-35376, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Atm Shafiqul Khalid opening brief is due on July
13, 2021;

   -- Appellee Citrix Systems, Inc. answering brief is due on
August 12, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, Esquire, an individual and
on behalf of similarly situated, of Redmond, Washington, appears
pro se.

Defendant-Appellee CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
AKA John Doe n, is represented by:

          Sarah Elizabeth Ames Benedict, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 778-5463
          E-mail: sarahames@dwt.com

               - and -

          Paula L. Lehmann, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500
          Bellevue, WA 98004-4786
          Telephone: (425) 646-6100
          E-mail: paulalehmann@dwt.com

CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the lawsuit
related to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016
remains pending.

In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged,
among other things, that the members of

Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate
sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly
undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information
about the 2016 Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger
Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

- Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

- Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),
- Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

- L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel,
and dismissed the investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per
agreement of the parties.

Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish were captioned as follows:

- Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

- Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098
(filed November 19, 2014), and

- Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed.

Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed
a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish
and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in
Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases
from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. By operation of the
December 2014 order of the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish, the Butler, Cashen, and Creative Life Services
actions were consolidated into the actions pending in Rapides
Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District
Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015, the
plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed exceptions
seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July 2015. The
LPSC voted to approve the 2016 Merger before the Court could
consider the plaintiffs' peremptory exceptions.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.

The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition
and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request
for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an
additional executive officer as a defendant.

The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth
amended Petition. In September 2016, the District Court granted the
exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and
dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana
Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In December 2017, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of
action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December
21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as
defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only
remaining defendants certain former executive officers and
independent directors.

The District Court denied the defendants' exceptions on January 14,
2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
class was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the
hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited
class.

On September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class limited
to shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting, or did
not vote on the 2016 Merger.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

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

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


CLOOPEN GROUP: Faces IPO Related Securities Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloopen Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is
facing a securities class action suit related to its initial public
offering (IPO).

On April 19, 2021, the Group and certain of the Group's current and
former directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial
public offering and the agent for service of process in the United
States were named as defendants in a securities class action filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who
allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
American Depositary Shares (ADSs), alleges that the Group's
registration statement on Form F-1 in connection with the initial
public offering contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of the U.S. federal securities laws, including those
relating to the estimates on financial results of the fourth
quarter of 2020.

The plaintiff sought to, among others, have the court certify the
class action as well as award damages, reasonable costs and
expenses and other relief as deemed appropriate by the court in
favor of the class.

Cloopen said, "This action remains in its preliminary stage, and
the Group are currently unable to estimate the potential loss, if
any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuit, if it
proceeds. The Group believe this case is without merit and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. In accordance with ASC Topic 450,
no accrual of loss contingency was accrued as of December 31, 2020
since it is not probable that a liability has incurred and the
amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated."

Cloopen Group Holding Limited a leading multi-capability
cloud-based communications solution provider in China offering a
full suite of cloud-based communications solutions, covering
communications platform as a service, or CPaaS, cloud-based contact
centers, or cloud-based CC, and cloud-based unified communications
and collaborations, or cloud-based UC&C.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Wienhoff Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Wienhoff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501
(S.D. Ill., May 19, 2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regard to its pudding under the Snack Pack brand in flavors
including chocolate.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's relevant front label
representations include "Pudding," "NEW, SMOOTHER RECIPE!," and a
tab which states, "Made With Real Milk" and a bottle of overflowing
milk. The Product's promotion of "REAL MILK" is false, deceptive
and misleading because it lacks any milkfat.

The representations of "Real Milk" give consumers the impression
that the Product's fat content will come exclusively or
predominantly from milkfat. Consumers are misled because none of
the Product's fat content is from milkfat. It is false and
misleading to consumers to highlight "real milk" when its most
significant part -- milkfat -- is replaced with palm oil, a cheaper
and nutritionally inferior ingredient. Although the Filled Milk law
was passed to prevent the sale of separate milk products, i.e.,
cans of "milk," the replacement of milkfat with vegetable oils and
the promotion of this food -- or ingredient -- as real, or whole
milk, to consumers. The Defendant's Product is deceptively labeled
relative to competitor products which truthfully identify the type
of milk used and do not create a misleading impression they are
made with whole ("real") milk, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on at least one occasion within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action.

Conagra Brands, Inc. manufactures, labels and sells pudding under
the Snack Pack brand in flavors including chocolate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Gary
D. Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P. ("CD&R Fund VIII"), and certain
directors of the Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.

An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The Amended
Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach of
fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in connection
with the Merger.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February
10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the
director defendants.

Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

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

Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


COVENANT LOGISTICS: Faces Maas Putative Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Covenant Transport,
Inc. faces a putative class action suit initiated by Wesley Maas.

On February 11, 2021, a lawsuit was filed against Covenant
Transport, Inc. on behalf of Maas (a California resident and former
driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, California.

The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay all lawful wages,
failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to comply with
itemized wage statement provisions, failure to indemnify for
expenditures, and violations of California Labor Code and unfair
competition laws. Covenant Transport intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of  March 31,
2021."

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Class Suit v. Subsidiary Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary, continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Curtis Markson.

On August 2, 2018, Curtis Markson, et al., filed a putative class
action case in United States District Court, Central District of
California generically claiming that five specified trucking
companies (including the company's subsidiary Southern Refrigerated
Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which
they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were
"under contract" with a fellow defendant.

The allegations center around new drivers in California who
received their commercial driver's license through driving schools
associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in
exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a
specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months).

Over the ensuing 18 – 24 months, the Plaintiffs added more
trucking companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including
Covenant Transport on April 23, 2020.

The lawsuit claims that the named defendants sent letters to one
another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new
California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to
the driver completing their contractual obligations. Plaintiffs
contend that these notifications evidence a collusive agreement by
the named defendants to restrain competition among trucking
companies in California and suppress wages.

Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. and Covenant Transport, Inc.
are vigorously defending themselves against these claims.

Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of March 31,
2021."

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


COVENANT LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Tabizon Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
suit initiated by Richard Tabizon, was settled at mediation for an
immaterial amount, pending court approval.

The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. is a defendant in
a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tabizon (a California resident
and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as
a class action. The complaint asserts that the time period covered
by the lawsuit is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges
claims for failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement
of business related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure
to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide
all wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour
claims under the California Labor Code.

Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.

Subsequent to March 31, 2021, this lawsuit was settled at mediation
for an immaterial amount, pending court approval.

Covenant said, "Our accruals related to this claim as of March 31,
2021 were sufficient to cover this settlement."

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


COVERHOUND INC: Suarez Sues Over Insurance Advisors' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVERHOUND, INC., KEITH MOORE, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21VECV00672 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to provide
employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to
pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time in,
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation,
failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when
employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related
expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and
accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an insurance advisor
from November 2015 until on or about November 2, 2020.

Coverhound, Inc. is an insurance company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Kapasi Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAND KAPASI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT, L.P. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04471 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Credit Management sent a
misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff in connection to
his alleged financial obligation to Charter Comm. The Plaintiff
alleges that the letter fails to inform the least sophisticated
consumer what action is necessary to resolve the account and fails
to inform the least sophisticated consumer who would be reporting
the account to the credit bureau.

Credit Management, L.P. is a debt collection firm with offices
located at 6080 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 100, Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
         JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
         One Grand Central Plaza
         60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (646) 459-7971
         Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
         E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

CV SCIENCES: Bid to Extend Discovery Cutoff Date in Smith Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to extend
the discovery cutoff date in the purported class action suit
initiated by David Smith, is pending.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements
in the Company's public filings that led to stock price
fluctuations and financial harm. Several additional individuals
filed similar claims, and the Smith Complaint and each of the other
suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on
Twitter on August 20, 2018, suggesting that the Company misled
investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to
secure patent protection for CVSI-007 had been "finally rejected"
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").

On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions.

On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee
for the Ina Family Trust, filed a "consolidated amended complaint".


On March 5, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the action. The
Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and the
parties have commenced discovery in the action with a discovery
cutoff date of May 24, 2021.

However, on April 30, 2021, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to
extend the discovery cutoff date. At this time no hearing date has
been set.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Michelene Colette remains stayed.

On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a
putative class action complaint in the Central District of
California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products
violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint.

Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to
file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020.

On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this
proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended
complaint.

The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed
until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that
govern cannabidiol products. When such FDA Rules are promulgated,
the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask the court to reopen the
proceeding.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


DAIKIN AMERICA: Brown Appeals ERISA Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Justin Brown and Telisa Lipscomb filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit 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, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17, 2021, Judge
Paul A. Crotty of 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.

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 Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion & Order and
Judgment dated May 4, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Brown v. Daikin America, Inc.,
Case No. 21-1289, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on May 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Justin Brown and Telisa Lipscomb,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0557
          E-mail: dpantazis@wcqp.com

Defendant-Appellee Daikin America, Inc. is represented by:

          Ian H. Morrison, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: imorrison@seyfarth.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Misled Investors About Nodax, Caballero Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CABALLERO, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIMER SCIENTIFIC, INC., STEPHEN
E. CROSKREY, and JOHN A. DOWDY III, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00095-LAG (M.D. Ga., May 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the environmental benefits of Nodax, Danimer's
brand name of a purportedly biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate
(PHA), in order to artificially inflate prices of Danimer
securities from December 30, 2020 to May 3, 2021. Specifically,
Danimer misled investors with regard to Nodax's viability as a
fully biodegradable alternative to conventional plastic, its level
of demand, and its average selling price. When the truth emerged,
the price of Danimer stock declined by $6.43 per share, from $49.98
per share on March 19, 2021 to $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021,
or approximately 13% and further fell by $1.49 per share, from
$23.63 per share on May 3, 2021 to $22.14 per share on May 4, 2021,
or approximately 6%, the suit says.

Danimer Scientific, Inc. is a manufacturer of plastics known as
polyhydroxyalkanoates, headquartered in Bainbridge, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         H. Lamar Mixson, Esq.
         Amanda Kay Seals, Esq.
         Jennifer L. Peterson, Esq.
         BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 881-4100
         Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
         E-mail: mixson@bmelaw.com
                 seals@bmelaw.com
                 peterson@bmelaw.com

                 - and –

         Avi Josefson, Esq.
         Scott Foglietta, Esq.
         Rebecca Kim, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400
         Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
         E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                 scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
                 rebecca.kim@blbglaw.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Skistimas Sues Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Skistimas and John Skistimas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DANIMER SCIENTIFIC, INC. f/k/a
LIVE OAK ACQUISITION CORP., STEPHEN A. CROSKEY, and JOHN A. DOWDY,
III, Case No. 1:21-cv-02824 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021), is brought on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Danimer securities between October 28, 2020 and May 4, 2021,
inclusive to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regard to the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in
securities market value.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sells
polyhydroxyalkanoates ("PHAs") under the brand name Nodax for a
wide variety of plastic applications, including water bottles,
straws, and food containers. On December 29, 2020, Meridian
Holdings Group., Inc. d/b/a Danimer Scientific became a public
entity via merger with Live Oak, a blank check company formed for
the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses.

The complaint alleges that 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: (1) that biodegradable materials such as Nodax could
take years to break down; (2) that, as a result, the Company's
marketing claims that Nodax products could biodegrade within months
were exaggerated and misleading; (3) that monthly biopolymer
production and natural gas usage at the Company's Kentucky and
Georgia facilities were materially overstated; (4) that Danimer
faced compliance violations for its Kentucky facility from the
Division of Air Quality; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiffs and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased Danimer securities during the Class
Period.

Danimer is a performance polymer company that develops and produces
bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based
plastics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 914-5007


DELI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT, Rogers Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELI MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a JASON'S DELI,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00089-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., May 18, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated assistant managers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Mr. Rogers worked for the Defendant as an assistant manager in
Florida from February 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017.

Deli Management, Inc. is an owner and operator of Jason's Deli
restaurants in over 25 states in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 447-8888
         E-mail: gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com

                 - and –

         Seth Lesser, Esq.
         Christopher Timmel, Esq.
         KLAFTER LESSER LLP
         Two International Drive, Suite 350
         Rye Brook, NY 10573
         Telephone: (914) 934-9200
         Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
         E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
                 christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com

DELI MANAGEMENT: Reinhold Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM REINHOLD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELI MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a
JASON'S DELI, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-00861-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.,
May 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated assistant managers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Mr. Reinhold worked for the Defendant as an assistant manager in
Florida from October 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017.

Deli Management, Inc. is an owner and operator of Jason's Deli
restaurants in over 25 states in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 447-8888
         E-mail: gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com

                 - and –

         Seth Lesser, Esq.
         Christopher Timmel, Esq.
         KLAFTER LESSER LLP
         Two International Drive, Suite 350
         Rye Brook, NY 10573
         Telephone: (914) 934-9200
         Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
         E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
                 christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com

DIEBOLD NIXDORF: New York Consolidated Class Suit Junked
--------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the New York consolidated putative class action lawsuit,
has been granted.

In July and August 2019, shareholders filed putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits collectively assert that the Company and three former
officers made material misstatements regarding the Company's
business and operations, causing the Company's common stock to be
overvalued from February 14, 2017 to August 1, 2018.

The lawsuits were consolidated before a single judge in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
lead plaintiff appointed.

In March 2021, the judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and
in April 2021 judgment was rendered in the Defendants' favor.

Diebold said, "Plaintiff can appeal but has not done so at this
time. Given the Company's success in the litigation thus far,
management remains confident that it has valid defenses to these
claims. As with any pending litigation, the Company is unable to
predict the final outcome of this matter."

Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, incorporated on August 11, 1876,
provides connected commerce services, software and technology. The
Company's geographic segments include North America, Asia Pacific,
Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Latin America. These segments
sell and service financial self-service, retail solutions, and
security systems. The Company provides connected commerce solutions
to financial institutions. The company is based in North Canton,
Ohio.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains
pending.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet
minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.

The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and the Southwest United
States Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994
and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


EAST COAST: Mendez Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETRONA AGUILAR MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST COAST NEWS, CORP.;
ACCUPAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a DDMO, LLC; LEONIDA SANCHEZ; GREG
GUBNER; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21VECV00667
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for employment discrimination based on
medical condition in violation of the California Government Code,
wrongful termination under the California Family Rights Act, unfair
business practices pursuant to the California Business and
Professions Code, and for breach of implied contract of continued
employment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a picker/packer from
July of 2010 until August 15, 2019.

East Coast News, Corp. is a distributor of adult novelties located
at 7731 Hayvenhurst Ave., Van Nuys, California.

Accupayment Solutions, LLC, doing business as DDMO, LLC, is a
limited liability company located at 7731 Hayvenhurst Ave., Van
Nuys, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Haik Beloryan, Esq.
         Vahe Shakhgeldyan, Esq.
         BELORYAN & MANUKYAN LLP
         4730 Woodman Ave., Ste. 405
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
         Telephone: (818) 387-6428
         Facsimile: (818) 387-6893
         E-mail: Beloryanlaw@gmail.com

EASTERN MUSHROOM: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Winn-Dixie Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. EASTERN
MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-6480 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

The case is one of a related series of actions dealing with alleged
price-fixing and collusion in the market for fresh agaricus
mushrooms.  In February 2006, WM Rosenstein & Sons Co. filed a
class action complaint alleging that various players in the
mushroom industry colluded to inflate the price of mushrooms by
agreeing on minimum prices and by decommissioning various mushroom
farms in order to reduce mushroom supply.  That complaint was later
consolidated with six similar class actions, and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on Nov. 13, 2007.

Winn-Dixie, along with co-plaintiff Bi-Lo, opted out of the class
action and initiated the instant action in 2015.  The Plaintiffs'
Complaint was similar in all meaningful respects to the class
action complaint that preceded it.  Their First Amended Complaint,
filed in January 2019, asserts claims, pursuant to the Sherman Act
and Clayton Act and alleges that Winn-Dixie "purchased Agaricus
mushrooms directly from one or more Defendants."

Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment against Winn-Dixie, which argues that Winn-Dixie cannot
maintain an action for antitrust damages during a portion of the
alleged conspiracy period because it did not purchase mushrooms
directly from an alleged conspirator.  The Defendants argue that
from late 2004 through 2010, Winn-Dixie purchased mushrooms from
Oakshire Mushroom Sales, LLC (OMS), which is not a party to this
action and was not a member of the alleged conspiracy, thereby
rendering Winn-Dixie an indirect purchaser.

In support of this argument, the Defendants present the
Certification of Gary Schroeder, sole shareholder and President of
both OMS and Defendant Oakshire Mushroom Farm, Inc.  Schroeder
states that OMF was incorporated in 1985 for the purpose of
growing, packaging, and selling specialty mushrooms.  In 2001, OMF
joined the EMMC, and Schroeder was also elected Treasurer of the
EMMC.  OMS was formed in 2002 to market and sell mushrooms under
the brand name "Dole."  It "kept separate books and records from
OMF," but "the two companies shared some common employees and used
a common ordering system."  

OMS began selling mushrooms to Winn-Dixie in 2004.  Schroeder
states that OMS purchased all of the mushrooms that it resold to
Winn-Dixie either from OMF "at prices that included the packaging
and delivery costs," or from South Mill Mushrooms and Country Fresh
Mushrooms "at negotiated prices which included the packaging and
delivery costs."  Schroeder states the prices negotiated between
OMS and Winn-Dixie "were not affected or influenced by any rule,
regulation or program adopted by the EMMC."  He states that OMS did
not offer or attempt to join the EMMC, nor did Schroeder ever agree
"that OMS would follow any of the rules, regulations or pricing
policies adopted by the EMMC."

The Defendants present two supply agreements between Winn-Dixie and
OMS that were signed in 2005 and 2007.  Winn-Dixie does not dispute
that it entered into a two-year supply agreement in 2005 and a
three-year supply agreement in 2007 to purchase mushrooms "from the
Oakshire companies, including OMS."  However, it disputes that
these agreements were solely between it and OMS, because it states
that OMS "was acting on behalf of its affiliated and commonly owned
and controlled sister company, OMF."

The Plaintiff contends that genuine issues of material fact exist
as to whether Winn-Dixie was an indirect purchaser and whether OMS
was owned or controlled by OMF.  In opposition to the Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment, the Plaintiff submits the
class action deposition testimony of Schroeder, and Kirk Reichert,
who was the controller for OMF.  In further support, Winn-Dixie
presents the deposition testimony of representatives of several
other EMMC members, as well as the EMMC Membership Agreement signed
by Schroeder, sales data from OMS, and analysis of its expert Dr.
Keith Leffler.

Discussion

The question raised by the Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment is whether Winn-Dixie can bring an action for antitrust
damages for its purchases of mushrooms from non-party OMS.  As a
threshold matter, Judge Schiller considers and denies the
Plaintiff's request to strike the Certification of Schroeder.  The
Defendants' motion relies entirely on the Schroeder Certification
and its accompanying exhibits, so the Judge must first determine
whether he may consider this Certification before he can assess the
Defendants' motion.  Then the Judge turns to the merits of the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

A. Plaintiff's Request to Strike the Schroeder Certification

The Plaintiff makes two distinct arguments to exclude the Schroeder
Certification offered in support of the Defendants' motion.  First,
it argues that the Certification does not meet the requirements of
28 U.S.C. Section 1746 or Rule 56(c)(4).  Second, because OMS and
OMF are in bankruptcy, the Plaintiff argues that the Schroeder
Certification violated the automatic stay of the bankruptcy court.


Judge Schiller rejects both of these arguments.  He holds that the
Plaintiff has not shown that the bankruptcy proceedings of OMF and
OMS should prevent the Court from considering Schroeder's
Certification in support of the Defendants' motion.

Upon review of the Schroeder Certification, nearly all of its
contents are based upon Schroeder's personal knowledge.  Schroeder
is the sole shareholder and President of OMS and OMF.  The Judge
concludes that Schroeder's statements throughout the affidavit
concerning OMS's and OMF's formation and business operations are
based on his personal knowledge.  Therefore, the Judge will not
exclude those statements from consideration.  Schroeder is also the
OMS signatory on the two supply agreements with Winn-Dixie, and
therefore has personal knowledge of those agreements.  Thus, he
will not exclude those exhibits from consideration.

Finally, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff has not offered an
affidavit or declaration concerning its inability to take discovery
from Defendant OMF or non-party OMS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d).  Even absent this procedural defect, he would not exclude
the Schroeder Certification on these grounds, for two reasons.
First, the class action deposition testimony of Schroeder is not
sufficient to convince the Court that Defendants withheld from
discovery any documents previously produced in the class action.
Second, although the automatic stay may have prevented the
Plaintiff from collecting discovery directly from OMF, it could
have propounded discovery requests to Country Fresh or South Mill
concerning their supply of mushrooms to OMS, if it believed such
discovery was necessary.

Therefore, the Judge proceeds to consider the merits of the
Defendants' motion, excluding Exhibit C of the Certification.

B. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

The Defendants argue that Winn-Dixie cannot pursue damages on the
basis of its purchases from non-party OMS because antitrust damages
claims can only be sustained by parties who directly purchase from
members of the conspiracy.  They further argue that OMS is not
owned or controlled by OMF, so the exception to the direct
purchaser rule for entities that are owned or controlled by members
of the conspiracy does not apply.

Judge Schiller considers first the Plaintiff's argument that the
direct purchaser rule does not apply to the facts of the case.
Then, he turns to the question of whether OMS is owned or
controlled by OMF.  Third, he addresses the alleged pleading
deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint.  Finally, he considers
the Defendants' arguments concerning the impact on damages of
mushrooms OMS purchased from Defendants other than OMF.

Upon review of the record, Judge Schiller concludes that there is a
genuine dispute of fact as to whether OMS is owned or controlled by
OMF.  The Judge agrees with the Defendants that Illinois Brick Co.
v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) controls the analysis of
Winn-Dixie's potential damages for purchases from OMS.  Winn-Dixie
is an indirect purchaser in a distribution chain impacted by a
horizontal conspiracy, which is exactly the circumstance in which
Illinois Brick and its progeny apply.  Therefore, Winn-Dixie cannot
recover damages from Defendants based on purchases from OMS -- an
alleged co-conspirator that is not joined as a defendant -- unless
an exception to the Illinois Brick doctrine applies to those
purchases.

Judge Schiller next considers the exception to Illinois Brick that
may govern Winn-Dixie's purchases from OMS.  He finds that the
Defendants are not surprised or prejudiced by the Plaintiff's
assertion of the ownership and control exception to Illinois Brick.
He concludes that Winn-Dixie's failure to plead that it purchased
from OMS, and that OMS was owned or controlled by OMF, should not
prohibit Winn-Dixie from asserting this theory of recovery in
opposition to summary judgment or at trial.

Finally, Judge Schiller declines to hold that Winn-Dixie is barred
from seeking damages for any mushrooms OMS purchased from Country
Fresh, South Mill, or any other Defendant.  He treats these
mushrooms equivalently to those mushrooms OMS purchased from OMF.
Of course, the Judge has not issued any opinion as to whether an
exception to Illinois Brick would allow Winn-Dixie to seek damages
from the Defendants for its mushroom purchases from OMS.  He has
merely determined that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
on this question that cannot be resolved at summary judgment.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schiller denied the Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment.  An Order consistent with his
Memorandum will be docketed separately.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/exbbht9k from Leagle.com.


EHANG HOLDINGS: Klein Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAN KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED, HUAZHI HU, RICHARD
JIAN LIU, and EDWARD HUAXIANG XU, Case No. 2:21-cv-01811, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on May 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04484-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing
materially false and misleading statements regarding EHang Holdings
Limited's business, operations, and compliance policies in order to
artificially inflate prices of EHang securities between December
12, 2019 and February 16, 2021.

EHang Holdings Limited is an autonomous aerial vehicle (AAV)
technology platform company headquartered in China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                 - and –

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

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Emergent Biosolutions
Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the
date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Emergent Biosolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS)

Investors Affected: July 6, 2020 - March 31, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant had
a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for
massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks
and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string
of FDA citations; (iii) the Company previously had to discard the
equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers
at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple
COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=15573&from=1

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

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


EQT CORP: Seeks May 28 Deadline Extension of Class Status Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: EQT Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00754-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Defendants EQT
Corporation, Steven T. Schlotterbeck, Robert J. McNally, David L.
Porges, David E. Schlosser, Jr., Jimmi Sue Smith, James E. Rohr,
Vicky A. Bailey, Philip G. Behrman, Kenneth M. Burke, A. Bray Cary,
Jr., Margaret K. Dorman, Stephen A. Thorington, Lee T. Todd, Jr.,
Christine J. Toretti, Daniel J. Rice IV, and Robert F. Vagt submit
an unopposed motion to extend deadlines for class certification
discovery and briefing to May 28, 2021.

On February 10, 2021, the Court entered the Case Management Order
providing, among other deadlines:

   -- the completion of depositions of Plaintiffs as to class
      certification and depositions of Plaintiffs' experts as to
      class certification by May 5, 2021,

   -- the the filing of the Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification and all supporting evidence,
      along with Defendants' expert report as to class
      certification by June 4, 2021,

   -- the the filing of any motion by Plaintiffs for leave to file

      a Rebuttal Expert Report by June 18, 2021,

   -- the the completion of depositions of Defendants' experts as
      to class certification by July 1, 2021,

   -- the filing of Defendants' response to any motion by
      Plaintiffs for leave to file a Rebuttal Expert Report by June

      25, 2021; and

   -- and the filing of Plaintiffs' reply in support of class
      certification and the completion of class certification
      discovery by July 16, 2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bKU2ib at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
          Matthew Solum, Esq.
          Daniel Cellucci, Esq.
          Jenny Lee, Esq.
          Courtney Carvill, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: sandra.goldstein@kirkland.com
                  msolum@kirkland.com
                  dan.cellucci@kirkland.com
                  jenny.lee@kirkland.com
                  courtney.carvill@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Thomas L. Allen, Esq.
          James L. Rockney, Jr., Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: tallen@reedsmith.com
                  jrockney@reedsmith.com

ERIKA JAYNE & TOM GIRARDI: List Palatial Pasadena Palace For $13M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Warner at celebritynetworth.com reports that here's a dirty
little Hollywood secret that may shock you to the core: Reality
shows are totally fake. Don't believe me? Take Erika Jayne and
ex-husband Tom Girardi. The Girardis first became famous in 2015
when Erika joined the cast of "The Real Housewives of Beverly
Hills." And while you might assume that this show's stars are
required to be residents of the 90210 zip code, in actual reality,
Tom and Erika lived about an hour away in the 91105 zip code. Aka
Pasadena.

Let me say right now that even if you don't care at all about "The
Housewives" and have never heard of Erika Jayne or Tom Girardi,
you're going to find the story of their recent financial upheaval
fascinating. Just a few years ago, Tom estimated his net worth at
$264 million. He recently claimed to have no money at all and was
forced into bankruptcy. Their financial upheaval caused the couple
to break up and they are seeking buyers for their Pasadena mansion.
The list price? $13 million. All proceeds will reportedly go
towards paying down roughly $60 million worth of debt.

The King of Class Actions
Tom Girardi earned his fortune through class action lawsuits
against major corporations. His firm, Girardi & Keese, pioneered
the practice of taking major cases on contingency. That's where
clients paid no money up front and in return the lawyers would keep
25-40% of the final judgements amounts. These cuts made Tom
extremely wealthy.

In one of Tom's most famous cases, he represented the residents of
the town of Hinkley, California in a class action case against
Pacific Gas & Electric. Tom and a team of lawyers sued PG&E,
alleging that the company caused Hinkley residents to develop
various forms of cancer after it contaminated local groundwater.
Tom and his team were victorious. A jury ultimately awarded a $460
million judgment to be paid by PG&E to 650 residents of Hinkley.
The case inspired the 2000 Julia Roberts film "Erin Brockovich".

Over the decades, Tom's law firm won literally billions of dollars
for clients. His largest settlement was $4.85 billion paid by
pharmaceutical company Merck, in connection to a pain medication
called Vioxx.

In 2014 ,Tom was inducted into the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame.

In a 2015 loan application Tom estimated his personal net worth to
be $264 million. That same year, wife Erika Jayne began starring on
"The Real Housewives".

Tom and Erika have a 40-year age gap. When they married two decades
ago, she was in her 20s and he was in his 60s. They met at a
restaurant in Beverly Hills where she was working as a waitress.

On "The Real Housewives", Erika and Tom happily showed off their
palatial 1.7-acre mansion. . . . which as we mentioned was
technically in Pasadena. They presented themselves as flying around
on private planes, having millions of dollars worth of jewelry and
spending nearly-unlimited amounts each month on personal luxuries.

Here's a video tour of their $13 mansion:

So what caused Erika and Tom's financial upheaval?

Today, Tom reportedly owes $57 million to various legal finance
firms and hedge funds that lent him money over the years. In
December 2020, the debts from these loans caused Girardi & Keese to
file for bankruptcy. Subsequently Tom and Erika's assets were
frozen. A month before the bankruptcy filing, Erika filed for
divorce.

There were allegations of embezzlement and clients who claimed to
have been shorted millions of dollars worth of settlement
distributions. There were allegations that Tom and Erika used
client funds to finance their lifestyle, which at one point
included TWO private jets and $40,000 spent each month on Erika's
hair, makeup and clothes.

In a 2020 deposition, Tom claimed:

"At one point, I had about $80 million or $50 million in cash.
That's all gone. I don't have any money."

He also reportedly had $50 million worth of stocks at one point.
According to court testimony, by the end of 2020 his stock
portfolio was worth a negligible amount.

One particularly salacious accusation involves funds that were
allegedly transferred to Erika in the years prior to the financial
downfall. According to court testimony, a creditor claimed that
Girardi transferred at least $20 million to Erika's entertainment
company in prior years. Plaintiffs in the bankruptcy case claimed
Tom and Erika's divorce was a "sham", and that she was sitting on
that $20 million.

Unfortunately, even if creditors recover that $20 million +
whatever proceeds are generated by this Pasadena house sale,
they're still gonna be around $25 million short of the $57 million
total alleged debt.

For her part, Erika is still listed as a main cast member of "The
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills". Today she is apparently living
in a $10k-per-month rental in an LA neighborhood called Hancock
Park. Amazingly, she is still nowhere near Beverly Hills! Hancock
Park is at least 30 minutes from Beverly Hills in the middle of the
day with light traffic.[GN]


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Utilities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit related to the "do not consume"
water advisory.

During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a do not consume
advisory for some of its water customers in one division served by
the Company's Illinois subsidiary.  Although the Company has
determined that it is reasonably possible that a fine or penalty
may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible range of loss at
this time and no liability has been accrued for these future costs.


In addition, on September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action
against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in
Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory.  

The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees,
and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages,
and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water
provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in
University Park Illinois.  The complaint contains allegations of
damages as a result of supplied water that exceeded the standards
established by the federal Lead and Copper Rule.  

The complaint is in the discovery phase and class certification has
not been granted.  

The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim. A claim
for the expenses incurred has been submitted to the Company's
insurance carrier for potential recovery of a portion of these
costs, and on August 3, 2020, the Company received $2,874 in
insurance proceeds.  

The Company continues to assess the potential loss contingency on
this matter.

Essential Utilities said, "While the final outcome of this claim
cannot be predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could
negatively impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of
management, the final resolution of this matter is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."  

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

Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the
holding company for regulated utilities providing water,
wastewater, or natural gas services to what the company estimate to
be almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas,
Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands.


EVE NATURALS: Gold Suit Removed to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wendy Gold, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Eva Naturals, Inc., Case No.
604795/2021 was removed from the Nassau County Supreme Court,
County of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on May 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02842 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Eva Naturals -- https://evanaturals.com/ -- is a family owned
company with a reputation for high quality skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mohammad Basim Pathan, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1251 6th Ave 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 603-6414
          Email: mohammadpathan@dwt.com


EVOLUS INC: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Jeuveau Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the appointment of a lead
plaintiff in the consolidated putative securities class action suit
entitled, In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
1:20-cv-08647 (PGG), is pending.

On October 16 and 28, 2020, two putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Evolus shareholders Armin Malakouti and
Clinton Cox, respectively, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants. The complaints assert violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants
made false and materially misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts related to the Company's
acquisition of the right to sell Jeuveau(R), the ITC Action and
risks related to the ITC Action.

The complaints assert a putative class period of February 1, 2019
to July 6, 2020.

The court consolidated the actions on November 13, 2020, under the
caption In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-08647
(PGG).

Four putative shareholders have since moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff.

Under the court's November 13, 2020 order, defendants need not
move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaints until 60 days
after a lead plaintiff is appointed and files a consolidated,
amended complaint.

Evolus, Inc. in a performance beauty company with a
customer-centric approach focused on delivering breakthrough
products in the self-pay aesthetic market. The company is based in
Newport Beach, California.


FENNEC PHARMA: Bid to Nix Chapman Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative class action lawsuit, Chapman v. Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc., is still pending.

On September 2, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit, Chapman v.
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed against the company, its
Chief Executive Officer, Rostislav Raykov, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Robert Andrade, in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina.

The complaint alleged that prior to our August 10, 2020 receipt of
a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for PEDMARKTM, the company made materially
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the status of our PEDMARKTM manufacturing facility, its
compliance with current good manufacturing practices, and the
impact its status and compliance would have on regulatory approval
for PEDMARKTM.

On December 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class.

On February 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint added members of the company's board of
directors as defendants, asserts a putative class period from
December 10, 2018 through August 10, 2020, makes allegations
similar to those in the original complaint, and claims the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On March 3, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 2, 2021, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion. On April 16, 2021, defendants filed a reply brief in
support of the motion.

The court has not scheduled argument or issued an order on the
motion.

Fennec said, "We believe that the suit is without merit and intend
to defend it vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of this
suit. Failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the suit
could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We have not recorded a
liability as of March 31, 2021, because we believe a potential loss
is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary
nature of the proceedings."

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development of Sodium Thiosulfate for the prevention of
platinum-induced ototoxicity in pediatric cancer patients.


FIBROGEN INC: Continues to Defend Clinical Studies-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fibrogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend several class action suits related to its false and
misleading statements regarding its Phase 3 clinical studies data
and prospects for Food and Drug Administration approval between
November 2019 and December 2020.

In April 2021, three putative securities class action complaints
were filed against FibroGen and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuits allege that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and
prospects for FDA approval between November 2019 and December 2020.


Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased FibroGen securities between November 8, 2019 and April 6,
2021.

In May 2021, two additional putative securities class action
complaints were filed against Defendants alleging the same claims.


One of the lawsuits alleges that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements between October 2017 and December 2020
and seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased FibroGen securities between October 18, 2017 and April 6,
2021.

The other lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements between December 2018 and February 2020 and
seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased
FibroGen securities between December 20, 2018 and April 6, 2021.

All plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Motions for lead plaintiff are due on June 11, 2021.

Fibrogen said, "Once a lead plaintiff is appointed by the Court, we
expect to receive an amended consolidated complaint. We believe
that the claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously
defend against them. However, any litigation is inherently
uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against us
or any adverse settlement could materially and adversely impact our
business, results of operations, financial condition, and
prospects."

Fibrogen, Inc. a leading biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing a pipeline of first-in-class therapeutics. The
company applies its pioneering expertise in hypoxia-inducible
factor (HIF) biology, 2-oxoglutarate enzymology, connective tissue
growth factor (CTGF) biology, and clinical development to advance
innovative medicines for the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease,
and cancer. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


FIBROGEN INC: Faces Gutman Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GUTMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FIBROGEN, INC. ENRIQUE CONTERNO, and JAMES SCHOENECK,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02725-YGR (April 15, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
FibroGen securities between November 8, 2019 and April 6, 2021,
inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a
statement "provid[ing] clarification of certain prior disclosures
of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat
Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of chronic kidney
disease ('CKD')." Specifically, the Company stated that the safety
analyses "included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors."
FibroGen further revealed that, based on analyses using the
pre-specified stratification factors, the Company "cannot conclude
that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.90, or 43%, to
close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, 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,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that certain safety
analyses submitted in connection with FibroGen's NDA for roxudustat
included post-hoc changes to stratification factors.

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

Plaintiff Gutman purchased FibroGen securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for
the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. Its most
advanced product is roxadustat, an oral small molecule inhibitor of
hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase ("HIF-PH") activity
that acts by stimulating the body's natural pathway for red cell
production. In December 2019, the Company filed its New Drug
Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for the approval of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia
due to chronic kidney disease ("CKD"). The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIRST SAVINGS: Faces Policy and Practice Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Savings Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
faces a class action suit related to its policy and practice of
assessing customer fees related to items presented on accounts with
insufficient funds (NSF items).

The Bank received notice of a class action lawsuit on March 23,
2021 regarding its policy and practice of assessing customer fees
related to items presented on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF
items).  

The Company has not accrued a loss contingency for this pending
litigation at March 31, 2021 because it has not determined that a
probable loss will occur and cannot reasonably estimate a potential
loss amount.

First Savings Financial Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. The
Company, through its banking subsidiary, offers a variety of
deposit products and provides residential and commercial real
estate loans and construction loans and, to a lesser degree,
consumer loans, including home equity lines of credit, and
commercial business loans to small businesses. The company is based
in Jeffersonville, Indiana.



FLOWERS FOODS: Ludlow Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LUDLOW,
individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated; and
WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly-situated, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation;
FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and
FLOWERS FINANCE, Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt LLC, a
limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-01190-TWR-JLB (S.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 25, 2021 to
enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 with two classes:

      -- The Distributor Class defined as:

         "All persons who worked in California pursuant to a
         "Distributor Agreement" or similar arrangement with
         Flowers Food, Inc., or one of its subsidiaries, that were

         classified as "independent contractors" the period
         commencing four years prior to the commencement of this
         action through judgment. "Absentee" distributors are not
         part of this class definition;" and

      -- The "Usury Class," defined as:

         "All persons in California who entered a "Distributor
         Agreement" or similar arrangement purchasing a route or
         territory from Flowers Food, Inc., or one of its
         subsidiaries, during the period commencing four years
         prior to the commencement of this action through judgment

         who received financing for their route or territory at
         interest rates above percent from Flowers Finance, LLC,
         Flowers Foods, Inc., and/or its other subsidiary(ies);"

   2. appointing themselves Daniel Ludlow and William Lancaster as

      the Class Representatives -- Mr. Ludlow and Mr. Lancaster for

      the Distributor Class, and Mr. Lancaster for the Usury
      Class; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP as class

      counsel.

In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that themselves and other
Flowers' distributors were misclassified as independent contractors
and denied the benefits of California employment laws. Mr.
Lancaster further alleges that Flowers financing to purchase his
and other distributors' Flowers "territories" was usurious in
violation of California law.

Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer
and marketer of packed bakery food. The company operates 47
bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and
tortillas.

A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oF9L7D
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FUBOTV INC: Consolidated Said-Ibrahim & Lee Class Actions Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
FuboTV Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defnd a
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re fuboTV Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y.).

On February 17, 2021, putative shareholders Wafa Said-Ibrahim and
Adhid Ibrahim filed a class action lawsuit against the Company,
co-founder and CEO David Gandler, Executive Chairman Edgar M.
Bronfman Jr., and CFO Simone Nardi.

Plaintiffs allege that Class Action Defendants violated federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial health and operating condition,
including the Company's ability to grow subscription levels, future
profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations, ability to
generate advertising revenue, valuation, and prospects of entering
the online sports wagering market.

The Plaintiffs allege that Class Action Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek
damages and other relief.

Plaintiffs seek to pursue this claim on behalf of themselves as
well as all other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Company securities publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange
between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive, and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.

On February 24, 2021, putative shareholder Steven Lee filed a
nearly identical class action lawsuit against the same Defendants.

On April 19, 2021, putative shareholder Nordine Aamchoune filed a
motion to consolidate the two lawsuits and be appointed lead
plaintiff.

On April 29, 2021, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and
appointed Mr. Aamchoune as lead plaintiff. Mr. Aamchoune will now
file an amended, consolidated complaint, and the Class Action
Defendants will file a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company believes the claims alleged in both lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend these litigations.

FuboTV Inc. is a sports-first, live TV streaming company, offering
subscribers access to tens of thousands of live sporting events
annually as well as leading news and entertainment content. The
compoany's platform, fuboTV, allows customers to access content
through streaming devices and on SmartTVs, mobile phones, tablets,
and computers. The company is based in New York, New York.


GEICO GENERAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McNichols v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-01497 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting motion for extension
of time.

The deadlines are adjusted as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due
      on or before September 17, 2021;

   -- Defendant's response to the motion for class certification
      shall be due on or before November 16, 2021;

   -- Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's response shall be due on or

      before December 16, 2021;

   -- Parties' summary judgement motions shall be due on or before

      January 3, 2022;

   -- Parties' responses to summary judgement motions shall be due

      on or before February 2, 2022;

   -- Parties' replies to summary judgement motions shall be due on

      or before March 4, 2022; and

   -- the telephonic status conference scheduled for November 17,
      2021 is rescheduled to January 10, 2021 at 10:00 AM.

The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance.

Geico General Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company.[CC]

GEICO GENERAL: Green's Bid for Relief Related to Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER,
and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, C.A. No. N17C-03-242 EMD CCLD (Del.
Super.), the Superior Court of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Relief Related to Declaratory Judgment.

The case is a class action assigned to the Complex Commercial
Litigation Division of the Court.  Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain &
Rehabilitation Center ("WPRC"), and Rehabilitation Associates, P.A.
("RA") sued on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.  The Plaintiffs filed suit against GEICO, alleging that
GEICO uses two computerized rules, the Geographic Reduction Rule
("GRR") and the Passive Modality Rule ("PMR") to evaluate insurance
claims submitted by insureds or their assignees to GEICO.

The civil action involves breach of contract and declaratory
judgment claims brought by the Plaintiffs against GEICO.  The
Plaintiffs alleged that GEICO violated the policies and Delaware
law by using the Rules to process no-fault personal injury
protection ("PIP") claims.

GEICO sells Delaware automobile insurance policies that provide PIP
coverage.  GEICO's PIP claims-processing system is entirely
automated, systematized, and ruled-based, notwithstanding any
contractual, regulatory, and statutory obligations to investigate
and accurately process claims.  GEICO determines whether a claim is
denied or allowed based only on the Rules.

In Sept. 12, 2011, Ms. Green was injured in a car accident.  Ms.
Green, as an individual insured, submitted her medical bills to
GEICO under her PIP policy.  GEICO used the Rules to process her
PIP claim.  It denied Ms. Green's PIP benefits.  It also denied
claims submitted by RA and WPRC as assignees of their insured
patient's claims.  GEICO used the Rules to process RA and WPRC's
claims for PIP benefits.14 GEICO denied RA and WPRC's claims.

The Plaintiffs first filed their civil action in the Court of
Chancery.  The Court of Chancery transferred the initial class
action complaint to the Court on March 20, 2017.

GEICO filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2017.  The Plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 12, 2017.  The
Amended Complaint alleged that in Count I that GEICO breached the
GEICO Policies.  In Count II, the Plaintiffs contended that GEICO
committed a bad faith breach of contract under Section 2118B(d).
In Count III, the Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that
GEICO's continued use of the Rules violated Section 2118.  Finally,
in Count IV, the Plaintiffs alleged that GEICO violated 6 Del. C.
Section 2532(a)(5) and (12).

GEICO filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Aug. 1,
2017.  The Court issued an opinion dismissing Count IV but allowing
the rest of the claims to proceed.

On Jan. 3, 2019, GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment.  The
Court stayed the GEICO Motion until after hearing and decision on
class certification.

On Aug. 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
The Court certified "the Plaintiffs' class for the limited purpose
of determining whether Geico's use of the Rules was a breach of
contract, bad faith breach of contract, and to rule on a
declaratory judgment."  It lifted the stay on the GEICO Motion.  On
Dec. 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs' filed a cross motion for summary
judgment after certifying their class.

After briefing and oral argument, the Court granted GEICO's Motion
as to Counts I and II, the breach of contract and bad faith breach
of contract claims.  Relevant to the Motion, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion as to Count III and found that GEICO violated 21
Del. C. Section 2118 by using the Rules to determine PIP claims.

The Plaintiffs now move for relief related to declaratory judgment
under Section 6508.  Alternatively, they seek to amend the Opinion
under Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(d).  They
argue that further relief is necessary or proper under Section 6508
because Section 2118 contemplates penalties.

GEICO opposes the motion.  It contends that the Plaintiffs are
judicially estopped from seeking damages and that supplemental
relief is neither necessary nor proper.  GEICO also contends that
the Plaintiffs do not assert a Rule 59(d) argument.

The Plaintiffs seek penalties under 21 Del. C. 2118B(c) because the
Court ruled that GEICO violated 21 Del. C. Section 2118 by using
the Rules to deny PIP claims.  They also seek to compel GEICO to
disclose information related to individual claims GEICO denied
using the Rules so that the Court can award penalties and damages
to each class member.  The Plaintiffs never sought damages for
GEICO's violation of Section Section 2118.  They Plaintiffs only
seek damages for this violation post-trial.

While damages may be an appropriate remedy in a declaratory
judgment proceeding, the Superior Court holds that they are not a
necessary remedy.  Damages would also be improper relief in this
class action.  When certifying the Plaintiffs' class, the Court
specifically noted that it would not determine individual liability
or damages so that "common issues predominate any individual claim
for damages."  Proper or necessary relief at this stage would be to
seek permanent injunction from the Court of Chancery, or for
individual claimants to file separate suits seeking damages.  The
Superior Court, therefore, finds that it is not necessary nor
proper to award the Plaintiffs' further relief under Section 6508.

GEICO also correctly notes that the Plaintiffs do not argue any
grounds to amend or alter the Court's judgment under Rule 59(d),
the Superior Court holds.  Furthermore, no such grounds exist.
There is no change of controlling law, new evidence or clear error
of law that justifies amending or altering judgment.

The Plaintiffs argue that avoiding further proceedings in the
action would be manifestly unjust to claimant class members whose
claims GEICO denied using the Rules.  Again, such claimant class
members may bring individual suits proving their damages.
Accordingly, the Superior Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not
meet Rule 59's heavy burden.

The Plaintiffs neither show that further relief is necessary and
proper under Section 6508, nor that the Court should alter or amend
the judgment under Rule 59(d).

For these reasons, the Superior Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Relief Related to Declaratory Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9euu85bd from Leagle.com.

Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esquire -- rcross@crosslaw.com --
Christopher P. Simon, Esquire -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- Cross &
Simon, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center, and
Rehabilitation Associates, P.A.

Paul A. Bradley, Esquire -- pab@maronmarvel.com -- Stephanie A.
Fox, Esquire -- saf@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, George M. Church,
Enquire, Joshua Kahn, Esquire, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, Meloney Perry, Esquire -- mperry@mperrylaw.com -- Perry
Law, P.C., in Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant GEICO General
Insurance Company.


GEICO GENERAL: Sept. 17 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN MCNICHOLS, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01497-KAD (D. Conn.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension
of time to complete class certification and summary judgment and
order the below briefing schedule:

-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class       September 17, 2021
    Certification  (including any
    expert declarations in support):

-- The Defendant's Response to            November 16, 2021
    Motion for Class Certification
    (including any expert
    declarations in support):

-- The Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's   December 16, 2021
    Response:

-- Parties' Summary Judgment Motions:     January 3, 2022

-- Parties' Responses to Summary          February 2, 2022
    Judgment Motions:

-- Parties' Replies in Support of         March 4, 2022
    Summary Judgment Motions:

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bIHjwF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David N. Rosen, Esq.
          DAVID ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          400 Orange Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 787-3513
          Facsimile: (203) 787-1605
          E-mail:drosen@davidrosenlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
          Normand PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          P. O. Box 1400036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
                  amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
                  service@normandpllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          Meghana Shah, Esq.
          Alexander P. Fuchs, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          The Grace Building, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
          E-mail: meghanashah@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com

GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the purported shareholder class action suit pending before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, is pending.

On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C.
Zoley, and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

On October 1, 2020, the Court entered an unopposed order appointing
lead plaintiffs, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the
initial complaint, and setting a deadline for the filing of an
amended complaint.  

On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges that
the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as J. David
Donahue, the Company's former Senior Vice President and President
of the U.S. Secure Services division, and Ann M. Schlarb, the
Company's Senior Vice President and President of the GEO Care
division––made materially false and misleading statements
and/or omissions related to GEO's business––including quality
of operations, corporate social responsibility, competitive
strengths, business strategies, health and safety, sources of
financing, dividend expectations, and COVID-19 procedures.  

The amended complaint is brought by lead plaintiffs James Michael
DeLoach and Edward Oketola, individually and on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities––other than the
defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have
or had a controlling interest who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities during the alleged class period from
November 7, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive.  

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs.
Zoley, Evans, and Donahue and Ms. Schlarb violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may
deem proper.  

On December 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 19, 2021, and defendants' reply was
filed on February 2, 2021.  

The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed.

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GEO GROUP: Trial in Washington Class Suits to be Done Remotely
--------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court overseeing
two Washington cases ruled that the entire trial will be conducted
remotely.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing
Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation
of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal
Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed, two in Washington and one in
California.

The first of the two Washington lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  

The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws.

However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's
equivalent state statute. The California court certified a
nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek
injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if
they are successful on the merits of their claims.

On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial.

The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019,
the United States Department of Justice filed a Statement of
Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior
denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the
case.

While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.

After putting them on "standby" for most of 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court entered an order setting both
suits for an estimated three-week trial beginning June 1, 2021.

The court ordered a remote trial, but with the possibility of
in-person proceedings. The order notes the Company's exception to
the remote trial setting.

The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge's order
setting a remote trial on April 8, 2021, requesting that the trial
date be moved from June 1, 2021 to the earliest possible date after
July 1, 2021, when the State of Washington plans to allow in-person
trials to resume.

On April 9, 2021, the Washington court denied the motion for
reconsideration for an in-person trial, ruling that a "hybrid"
trial, with some parts being conducted in-person with COVID-19
precautions, will begin on June 1, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the
court ruled that the entire trial will be conducted remotely.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual
relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered
probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GERON CORP: Court Narrows Claims in IMbark-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted in
part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit related to IMbark.

Between January 23, 2020 and March 5, 2020, three putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
certain of its officers.

One of the lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed on March 19, 2020.

The other two lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the Northern District, were
consolidated by the Court on May 14, 2020, and on August 20, 2020,
the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the company related to IMbark during the period from March 19,
2018 to September 26, 2018.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose facts related to the alleged
failure of IMbark to meet the two primary endpoints of the trial,
spleen response rate and Total Symptom Score, and that our stock
price dropped when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated putative securities class action
complaint seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable
costs, including attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
class action complaint on November 23, 2020. The hearing on the
motion to dismiss was held on February 8, 2021. On April 12, 2021,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion
to dismiss.

The company's answer to the complaint is due on May 13, 2021.

Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc. The company is based in Foster, California.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Class Deal in Miranda Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER MIRANDA and PATRICIA TERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDEN
ENTERTAINMENT (NV), INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00534-APG-DJA
(D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Parties have entered into the Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement, with its attached exhibits, signed and filed with the
Court on Oct. 12, 2020, to settle the Action.

By Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement between the
parties in the Action, ordering the dissemination of Class Notice
to potential Class Members, providing them with an opportunity
either to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to the
proposed settlement, and issuing related Orders.

The Court also preliminarily certified a Class, for settlement
purposes only, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms
of notice, and set a Fairness Hearing to take place on May 12,
2021.

On that date, Judge Gordon held a duly noticed Fairness Hearing.
Having considered the papers submitted by the Parties and by all
other persons who timely submitted papers in accordance with the
Preliminary Approval Order, and having heard oral presentations by
the Parties and all persons who complied with the Preliminary
Approval Order, and based on all of the foregoing, together with
his familiarity with the Action, the Judge granted the Motion for
Final Approval and the Counsel's request for an award of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses.

The Class preliminarily certified by the Court is finally
certified, for settlement purposes only, under Rules 23(a)
and(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").  The
Class will consist of all customers, vendors, and current and
former employees of Golden to whom Golden mailed notice that
between May 30, 2019, and October 6, 2019, Golden was the target of
a cyberattack in which third parties sent phishing emails to
Golden's employees in the hopes of gaining access to Golden's
computer systems and might have resulted in unauthorized parties
accessing personal information.

One Class Member, Kevin Berghel, has submitted a valid request for
exclusion from the Class.  Accordingly, all the Class Members other
than Mr. Berghel will be bound by the Order.

Judge Gordon designated the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
Class and finds that these Plaintiffs have adequately represented
the Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the
Agreement.  He appointed the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as
the counsel for the Class.

The terms and provisions of the Agreement, including any and all
amendments and exhibits, have been entered into in good faith and
are hereby fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to, and in the best interests of, each of the Parties
and the Class Members, and in full compliance with all applicable
requirements of the FRCP, CAFA, the United States Constitution
(including the Due Process Clause), and any other applicable law.

There are no timely or valid objections to the Settlement.  The
Settlement is approved.  The Parties and the Class Members are
directed to implement and consummate the Agreement in accordance
with its terms and provisions.  The Plaintiffs' Counsel will take
all steps necessary and appropriate to provide the Class Members
with the benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of the
Agreement.

The Defendant will pay any Court-ordered Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, the Plaintiffs' incentive awards, any and all the
Settlement Administration Expenses separately from the Settlement
Agreement.  The claims submitted by the Class Members will be
administered and implemented by Heffler Claims Group, LLC under the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties will be deemed to
have, and by operation of the Final Order and Final Judgment will
have, fully, finally and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged all Released Claims against the Released Persons.

Judge Gordon is concurrently issuing a separate Order with respect
to Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and the Incentive Awards to the
representative Plaintiffs, entitled Final Order Approving
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards.

The Parties are authorized, without needing further approval from
the Court, to agree to written amendments, modifications, or
expansions of the Agreement and its implementing documents
(including all exhibits) without further notice to the Class or
approval by the Court if such changes are consistent with this
Order and do not materially alter, reduce, or limit the rights of
the Class Members under the Agreement.

The Action (including all individual and Class claims presented
therein) are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without
fees or costs to any Party except as otherwise provided in the
Order, the Final Order Approving Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Incentive Awards, and the Agreement.

In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, certification
will be automatically vacated and the Order, the Final Order
Approving Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards, and
all other orders entered and releases delivered in connection
therewith, will be vacated and will become null and void.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/23cnud6x from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Sale of Users' Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron at The Mercury News reports that Google is making a
fortune by selling users' personal information despite the
company's pledge that it never sells the data, a lawsuit filed
claims.

"Google promises its hundreds of millions of users that it 'will
never sell any personal information to third parties' and 'you get
to decide how your information is used.' These promises are false,"
the lawsuit claims, quoting a 2019 New York Times op-ed by Google
CEO Sundar Pichai. "In fact, Google monitors its consumers' digital
footprint, then makes billions of dollars by selling their
sensitive personal information." The suit also cites Google's terms
of service that say, "We don't sell your personal information to
anyone."

The purported sales of data occur "continually and surreptitiously"
via the Mountain View technology giant's "real-time bidding" system
for digital advertising spots, according to the suit filed in U.S.
District Court in San Jose by three Google users, who are seeking
class-action status.

While advertisers use the data to put targeted ads in front of
people who will be most receptive, other companies are also
"siphoning off" and storing the "bidstream" data of Google users,
the suit alleged. "Many participants do not place bids and only
participate to conduct surveillance and collect ever more detailed
data points about millions of Google's consumers," the suit
claimed.

Google, in a brief emailed statement, said privacy and transparency
are core to how its ad services work. "We never sell people's
personal information and we have strict policies specifically
prohibiting personalized ads based on sensitive categories,"
spokesman José Castañeda said.

The suit alleged Google's handling of users' data violates
California and federal law.

Plaintiffs in the case added to their suit two letters about
Google's data practices sent to the Federal Trade Commission last
year and to Google CEO Sundar Pichai last month, signed mostly by
Democrats - including Bay Area members of Congress Zoe Lofgren,
Anna Eshoo and Ro Khanna - and Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy.

"Few Americans realize that companies are siphoning off and storing
that 'bidstream' data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them,"
both letters said. "These dossiers include their web browsing,
location, and other data, which are then sold by data brokers to
hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to the government
without court orders."

While Google says user information is "anonymized" and shared with
"just a few partners," it allows ad-auction participants to match
data they already have from other sources with unique identifiers
provided by Google to identify individual users - even those who
have taken measures to keep from being tracked, the suit claimed.

The suit points to "a history of privacy violations" at Google that
have drawn government sanction. In 2010, the Federal Trade
Commission charged that the company "used deceptive tactics and
violated its own privacy promises to consumers" when it launched a
now-defunct social network. Google settled with the FTC. But two
years later, after being charged by the FTC with violating the
settlement by misrepresenting to users of Apple's Safari browser
that it would not place tracking 'cookies' or serve targeted ads to
them, the company paid a $22.5 million fine.

In 2019, Google agreed to pay $170 million to settle claims by the
FTC and New York Attorney General that YouTube illegally collected
personal information from children without their parents' consent,
the suit noted. Last year, a French high court upheld a 50 million
Euro fine against Google over alleged failure to obtain users'
consent for using their data for ad targeting, the suit said.

The plaintiffs - California residents Meaghan Delahunty and John
Kevranian, and Meghan Cornelius of Texas - claim that a "large
portion" of Google's 2020 ad revenue of $147 billion came from
collecting and selling user information. They allege Google is
breaking laws related to privacy, contracts and unjust enrichment,
and are seeking unspecified damages for themselves and millions of
other Americans they seek to bring in as class members. [GN]


GREEN BAY, WI: Court Strikes Class Claims in Rodriguez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARDO RODRIGUEZ and MANALI OLEKSY, Plaintiff v. CITY
OF GREEN BAY, Defendant, Case No. 20-C-1819 (E.D. Wis.), Judge
William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin grants the City's motion to strike the class
allegations from the Complaint.

Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Oleksy filed a class action lawsuit
against Defendant City of Green Bay, alleging that the City
deprived the class of their federal rights as a result of a curfew
enacted on June 1, 2020.  The Plaintiffs brought their claims on
behalf of a class consisting of any person arrested or cited under
the City's curfew on June 1, 2020.

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the Plaintiffs were to
file a motion for class certification by April 15, 2021.  To date,
they have not filed a motion to certify the class.  The City now
moves the Court for an order denying the Plaintiffs' class
certification and striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The Plaintiffs
have neither responded to the motion nor requested an extension of
time to respond, and the time to do so has passed.

Judge Griesbach explains that the Plaintiffs were required to file
a motion for class certification by April 15, 2021.  They failed to
do so.  They also did not seek an extension from the Court or
explain why class certification should be saved for a later time.
Because the Plaintiffs have not offered any reason for their
failure to comply with the Court's order, the Judge grants the
City's motion and strikes the class allegations from the Complaint.
The class allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint are stricken.
The City's motion to deny class certification is denied a moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/h2mp64cd from Leagle.com.


GRUBHUB INC: Za-Zen Enterprises Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ZA-ZEN ENTERPRISES, LLC dba SHIBUMI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRUBHUB INC. and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13874, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04131 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Section
200.71 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code by purportedly charging
restaurants in the City of Los Angeles fees and commissions that
exceed the COVID-19 fee cap.

Za-Zen Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shibumi, is an owner and
operator of a Japanese restaurant in Los Angeles, California.

Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local
restaurants, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
         San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
         Telephone: (415) 393-8200
         Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
         E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

H.P. SERVICES: Rodriguez-Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez-Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. H.P. SERVICES, CORP., Case No.
2:21-cv-11509-KM-JBC (D.N.J., May 19, 2021), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Puerto
Rico Wage Payment Statute, and the Virgin Islands Fair Wage and
Hours Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40
hours each week. The Defendant failed to properly compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers. When these
workers were paid a day rate, they were not paid overtime. When
they were paid hourly, the Defendant failed to properly calculate
their rate of pay by failing to include all remuneration received,
thereby depriving them of the appropriate rate of overtime pay. The
Defendant also improperly classified the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated as independent contractors. This action seeks to
recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these
workers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Louis Berger through H.P. Services and
performed deliveries for them and in the Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico.

The Defendant HP Services is registered and headquartered in Puerto
Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 300-0375

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


HARRISON SECURITY: Martin Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harrison Security
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Marquise Martin, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Harrison Security Services, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004623 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., March 18, 2021).

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

Harrison Security Services, Inc. -- https://harrisonss.com/ -- is a
security guard service in Visalia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTH NET: Vunisa Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joweli Vunisa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Health Net, LLC, Health Net of
California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, Health Net
Community Solutions, Inc., California Health & Wellness, Centene
Corporation, Accellion, Inc., Case No. 21CV379187 was removed from
the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-03425-SVK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Health Net -- https://www.healthnet.com/ -- provides quality
affordable health plans for individuals, families, Medi-Cal
members, Medicare and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1100
          Fax: (619) 338-1101
          Email: tblood@bholaw.com
                 pbrown@bholaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq.
          Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 395-8129
          Fax: (415) 395-8095
          Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com
                 michael.rubin@lw.com



HEALTHY MARKET: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HEALTHY MARKET PLACE CORP. (D/B/A HEALTHY MARKET
PLACE), FDR DELI CORP. (D/B/A HEALTHY MARKET PLACE), GENUINE REALTY
CORP. (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET PLACE), TUNNEL GOURMET CORP. (D/B/A
HUDSON MARKET PLACE), JACOB & JACOB DELI CORP. (D/B/A HUDSON
MARKET PLACE), SCHWARTZ FRUITS & VEGGIES CORP. (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET
PLACE), NASSAR NAGI, AHMED A. MUSLEH, SALEH A. MUSLEH, BILLAL
MUSLEH, and BASHAR NASSAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-03317 (S.D.N.Y., April
15, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he has had to
work over 10 hours a day, he adds.

Plaintiff Gonzalez is a former employee of the Defendants. He was
employed as a cashier at the Defendants' two delis.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two delis, one of which is
called Healthy marketplace and is located at 217 1st Avenue, New
York, New York, and the other one called Hudson marketplace located
at755 9th Ave, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HENRY ARMENTA: Garcia Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Minors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIO V.; GERALDINE JULIE B.; I.G.V., a minor by and
through Guardian Ad Litem MARIO V.; OSCAR G.; CHRISTINA G.; O.D.G.,
a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem CHRISTINA G.; Y.P., a
minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem CHRISTINA G.; HUGO P.;
ALICIA P.; A.P.H., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem ALICIA
P.; and other Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs v. HENRY
ARMENTA and DIANA GARCIA, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00041-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
Garcia's motion for summary judgment; and denied Armenta's motion
for summary judgment.

The putative class action was filed after an elementary school
teacher performed blood sugar testing on students without their
parents' knowledge or consent.  Several students and parents
brought suit against the teacher, the school principal, the school,
and the school district.  The school and the school district
thereafter were dismissed, leaving only the teacher, Henry Armenta,
and the school principal, Diana Garcia, as Defendants in the case.
Armenta and Garcia are sued in their individual capacities.

Mr. Armenta taught fifth grade at Oscar F. Loya Elementary School.
He ran an after school program in his classroom for students who
needed help with their homework or a place to do homework.  Armenta
is diabetic, and he tests his blood sugar levels in the afternoon
with a glaucometer.  The test involves pricking a finger with a
lancet.

In 2011, Armenta began offering to administer glaucometer tests to
students who came to his classroom after school and volunteered to
be tested.  He rewarded children who agreed to the testing with
Gatorade, potato chips, and other treats.  Armenta did not notify
the children's parents that he would be pricking their fingers with
a lancet, nor did he obtain parental consent for the blood
testing.

On Feb. 6, 2017, the parents of a Loya student informed the school
principal, Garcia, that Armenta had performed blood testing on
their child and on other children.  Garcia reported the information
to the school district, to Child Protective Services, and to the
Salinas Police Department.  She also interviewed the child of the
reporting parents, as well as six other students.  Garcia spoke
with Armenta, who admitted to doing blood sugar testing on
students.  She directed Armenta to report to the school district.
Armenta has not taught at Loya since Feb. 6, 2017.  He now works as
a Lyft driver.

Several students ("Minor Plaintiffs") and their parents ("Parent
Plaintiffs") filed the action on Jan. 3, 2018.  The operative SAC
asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Claim 1, against
both Garcia and Armenta, is a Section 1983 claim for violation of
the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Claim 2, against
Armenta only, is a Section 1983 claim for violation of the Minor
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.

The Plaintiffs seek to litigate these claims on behalf of
themselves, all similarly situated Loya students who were subjected
to blood testing by Armenta, and those children's parents.

Discussion

Ms. Garcia has filed a motion for summary judgment, which is joined
by Armenta.  She has filed a motion for summary judgment on Claim
1, the only claim asserted against her.  Armenta, against whom
Claim 1 also is asserted, has filed a joinder.

A. Ms. Garcia

Claim 1 is for violation of the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment
right to family association.  The Plaintiffs assert that Armenta
violated this right by testing students' blood without parental
consent, and that Garcia violated the right by failing to stop him.
As to Garcia, the Plaintiffs allege that she "knew or should have
known about the unsafe medical practices, including pricking the
fingers of multiple students using a blood sugar testing device to
extract blood from minor fifth grade students, happening on school
premises for several years."  The Plaintiffs further allege that
Garcia "fail[ed] to take action to stop or correct Defendant
Armenta's abusive conduct."

Ms. Garcia contends that she is entitled to summary judgment
because there is no evidence that she knew about Armenta's blood
testing of students before any of the named Minor Plaintiffs were
pricked.  She also contends that the Plaintiffs' allegations that
she "should have known" about Armenta's conduct are insufficient to
raise a constitutional claim.  Finally, Garcia argues that the
Minor Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of their protected
liberty interests.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that there is a factual dispute
as to when Garcia learned about Armenta's blood testing activities.
They do not dispute Garcia's contention that allegations as to
what she "should have known" are insufficient to raise a
constitutional claim.  They argue only that there is evidence that
Garcia knew Armenta was performing blood testing on students
without notice to or consent from their parents.  They also argue
that the Minor Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of their
protected liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment.

First, Judge Freeman agrees that the Plaintiffs' evidence is
sufficient to create a factual dispute as to whether Garcia learned
of Armenta's blood testing of students during the 2015-2016 school
year, rather than on Feb. 6, 2017 as she claims.  However, even
assuming for purposes of the motion that Garcia was informed of
Armenta's conduct during the 2015-2016 school year, there is no
evidence that the named the Minor Plaintiffs were tested after
Christina G. called the school, thus rendering this disputed fact
immaterial to the claims.  Absent some evidence that Garcia knew
about Armenta's blood testing of students prior to the time the
named Minor Plaintiffs were pricked, no reasonable trier of fact
could find Garcia liable for violating the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth
Amendment rights.

Accordingly, Garcia's motion for summary judgment is granted.  The
possibility that the other unnamed class members were injured after
Christina G.'s call to the school does not save this claim.  Prior
to class certification, if it is found that the Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on the named Plaintiffs' individual
claims, "there is no further action for the district court to
take."  Summary judgment for Garcia therefore is appropriate
regardless of the Plaintiffs' class allegations, as the action has
not been certified.

Second, while Claim 1 could be pleaded more artfully, the Judge
finds that when liberally construed Claim 1 encompasses a
Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of the right to family
association on behalf of both the Parent Plaintiffs and the Minor
Plaintiffs.  She declines Garcia's invitation to disregard the
language in Wallis as erroneous or mere dicta.

Moreover, the Judge finds Garcia's argument that children do not
have a right to make their own medical decisions to be a
mischaracterization of the Minor Plaintiffs' claim. The Minor
Plaintiffs have asserted a violation of protected liberty interests
based on Armenta's testing of their blood without parental
consent.

Therefore, Garcia's alternative motion for summary judgment against
Minor Plaintiffs is denied.  However, Garcia is entitled to summary
judgment on other grounds.

B. Armenta

Mr. Armenta joins Garcia's motion for summary judgment.  The bulk
of the motion, addressing Garcia's knowledge of Armenta's conduct,
does not apply to Armenta.  However, Armenta joins the portion of
the motion arguing that summary judgment against the Minor
Plaintiffs is appropriate as to Claim 1, because California
Education Code Section 48200 does not give rise to a Fourteenth
Amendment liberty interest in a safe school campus.

As she discussed, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have
abandoned their Fourteenth Amendment claim grounded in Section
48200.  However, she finds that when liberally construed Claim 1
encompasses a Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of the right
to family association on behalf of both the Parent Plaintiffs and
the Minor Plaintiffs.  Consequently, Armenta is not entitled to
summary judgment against Minor Plaintiffs on Claim 1.  Armenta's
motion for summary judgment is denied.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman (i) granted Garcia's
motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied Armenta's motion for
summary judgment.  Her order terminates ECF 73 and 74.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4as3vkma from Leagle.com.


HERMAN QUAY: Scott et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCOTT, et al., v.
FORMER WARDEN HERMAN QUAY, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-ERK-PK
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs David Scott, Jeremy Cerda, Osman Ak,
Merudh Patel, Gregory Hardy, and Larry Williams will move the Court
for an order certifying two plaintiff classes, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3), consisting of:

   (1) all those people who were confined in the Metropolitan
       Detention Center's West Building during the Conditions
       Crisis, which lasted from January 27, 2019 until February 3,

       2019, and who have or will in the future have satisfied the

       exhaustion requirement imposed by; and

   (2) all those people who were confined in the Metropolitan
       Detention Center's West Building during the Conditions
       Crisis.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 6, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at  https://bit.ly/347uqb8 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
          O. Andrew F. Wilson, Esq.
          Scout Katovich, Esq.
          Sonya Levitova, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY
          WARD & MAAZEL LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000

               - and -

          Betsy Ginsberg, Esq.
          Kira Brekke, Esq.
          Clare Haugh, Esq.
          Alexander A. Reinert, Esq.
          CARDOZO CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
          55 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 790-0871

HOME CITY: Seeks Denial of Pansiera Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK PANSIERA, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. THE HOME CITY ICE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01042-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant Home
City asks the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, for appointment of class
representative, and for appointment of class counsel.

The Defendant contends that because the proposed classes so clearly
do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a), the Court need not
determine whether they can be certified under either Rule 23(b)(2)
or 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff's proposed class definitions are not
administratively feasible. The proposed classes do not meet Rule
23(a)'s numerosity, typicality, or adequacy requirements. Nor do
the proposed classes satisfy the implied requirement that class
membership be ascertainable. Also, indicative of the problems with
the proposed class definition, the Plaintiff, the proposed class
representative, does not belong to the proposed classes.
Accordingly, the Motion must be denied.

Home City has been in business for more than a century. Today, it
has over 100 properties that provide ice for approximately 50,000
merchandisers (the freezer boxes at retail locations) for over
30,000 retail customer locations.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/348HwEQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Roberts, Esq.
          Darren W. Ford, Esq.
          GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 629-2799
          Facsimile: (513) 651-3836
          E-mail: mroberts@graydon.law
                  dford@graydon.law

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Junks Pelayo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara Pelayo, et al. v.
Hyundai Motor America, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01503-JLS-ADS
(C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an
order:

   1. granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend the pleading,
      correcting the identified deficiencies in a manner consistent

      with all Rule 11 obligations.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may not add claims or new
defendants to their pleading. Any amended complaint shall be filed
within 21 days of the date of this Order. Any claim not included in
a timely-filed amended complaint will be deemed dismissed. The
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' class allegation should be
stricken except as to the 2016 Hyundai Accent, 2015 Kia Rio, 2016
Kia Soul, and 2019 Kia Rio. The Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs cannot assert claims on behalf of those who purchased or
leased Hyundai and Kia vehicles equipped with Gamma Engines other
than the four models that Plaintiffs owned. However, the Court
cannot evaluate whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue on behalf
of all consumers who own vehicles equipped with the Gamma Engines.
The Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead a defect common to
all Gamma Engines. And because Plaintiffs have failed to identify a
defect, they have also necessarily failed to plead whether the
Gamma Engines in all the vehicles they seek to include in the class
are substantially similar in relevant respects."

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 5, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bM3stN at no
extra charge.[CC]

INTERFACE INC: Swanson Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Interface Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a
securities class action suit entitled, Swanson v. Interface, Inc.
et al. (case :120-cv-05518).

On November 12, 2020, the Company, the Company's current and former
president and chief executive officer, and its current chief
financial officer were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al. (case :120-cv-05518).

The lawsuit is a federal securities law class action that alleges
that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. The specific allegations relate to the subject matter of
the concluded SEC investigation described above. The complaint does
not quantify the damages sought.

In the putative class action lawsuit, the Court has appointed a
lead plaintiff, which recently filed an Amended Complaint that,
among other things, added the Company' s former chief financial
officer as a defendant.

As in the original complaint, the allegations in the Amended
Complaint relate to the subject matter of the concluded SEC
investigation.

The Company is evaluating the Amended Complaint, but believes that
it is without merit and that the Company has good defenses to it.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the
action.

Interface Inc. is a worldwide leader in design, production and
sales of modular carpet, also known as carpet tile. As a global
company with a reputation for high quality, reliability and premium
positioning, the company markets modular carpet under the
established brand names Interface(R) and FLOR(R), and the company
markets LVT under the brand Interface(R). On August 7, 2018, the
Company acquired nora Holding GmbH, a worldwide leader in the
rubber flooring category under the established nora brands
norament(R) and noraplan(R). The company is based in Atlanta,
Georgia.


INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Purported Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces a
purported class action lawsuit, entitled, Celeste v. Intrusion Inc.
et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307.

On April 16, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:21-cv-00307 against the Company and the Company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer alleging, among other
things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements
or omissions about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of The Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit claims compensatory damages and legal fees.

The Company believes the claims in the lawuit are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Intrusion Inc., is a leading global provider of enterprise security
solutions for the information-driven economy. Intrusion's suite of
security products help businesses protect critical information
assets by quickly detecting, analyzing and responding to network-
and host-based attacks. The company is based in Plano, Texas.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to
defend a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Brown v. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. et al.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Brown v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al) alleging that the Proxy
Statement issued in connection with the shareholder meeting held in
June 2020 contained misstatements regarding the manner in which
broker votes would be counted and that such votes were improperly
included in approving the company's Reverse Stock Split at the
meeting.

The purported class action seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the company's directors. The
company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

JAKKS said, "Since the action was recently commenced, however, we
cannot assure you of its outcome and cannot estimate the range of
any potential damage award. On April 30, 2021, we held a Special
Meeting of the Shareholders to obtain shareholder ratification of
the filing of the Certificate of Amendment to our Certificate of
Incorporation effecting the Reverse Stock Split, in accordance with
ratification procedures under Delaware law, which approval was
obtained. We intend to seek settlement and dismissal of the
lawsuit."

JAKKS Pacific, Inc. develops, produces, and markets consumer and
related products worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Halloween. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.


JAMI SNYDER: Hennessy-Waller Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janice Hennessy-Waller, et
al., v. Jami Snyder, Case No. 4:20-cv-00335-SHR (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Scott H. Rash entered an order that:

   1. the defendant's motion for time to conduct class discovery
      and respond to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification

      is granted in-part, to the extent this order requires the
      parties to focus first on discovery related to class
      certification and therefore provides Defendant with
      additional time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification, and is denied in all other respects;

   2. a thirty-minute telephonic status conference is set for
      Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:00 A.M. before the Honorable
      Scott H. Rash. The parties shall appear telephonically and
      shall call 888-363-4735 at the exact time of the hearing. The

      access code is 2872694; and

   3. the parties shall file a joint status report on or before
      Monday, August 2, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hFwW07 at no extra charge.[CC]

JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Hiciano Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Clerks
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HICIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOYERIA ELIZABETH I, CORP., and JOYERIA
ELIZABETH II, CORP., and JOYERIA ELIZABETH III, CORP., and JOYERIA
ELIZABETH IV, CORP., TOMASA IZAQUIRRE, and MICHELLE IZAQUIRRE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04508 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 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 overtime for all hours worked and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales clerk from June
2013 to December 18, 2020.

Joyeria Elizabeth I, Corp. is a jewelry business located at 551
West 207th Street, New York, New York.

Joyeria Elizabeth II, Corp. is a jewelry business located at 551
West 207th Street, New York, New York.

Joyeria Elizabeth III, Corp. is a jewelry business located at 551
West 207th Street, New York, New York.

Joyeria Elizabeth IV, Corp. is a jewelry business located at 551
West 207th Street, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Timothy M. Gallagher, Esq.
         Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
         Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 248-5550
         Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

JW MARRIOTT: Jones Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN JONES, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. JW MARRIOTT ANAHEIM RESORT, an unknown business entity; MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01183306-CU-OE-CXC (Filed February
8, 2021), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 15, 2021.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:21-cv-00703 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for the following
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid rest premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, and wages not
timely paid during employment under California Labor Code.[BN]

Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq.
          Abigail Stecker Romero, Esq.
          J. Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 493-3988
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
          E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com
                  aromero@kcozlaw.com
                  scarr@kcozlaw.com

KOFFEE KUP: Employees Forced to Return Earned Time Pay Out
----------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Cutler at wcax.com reports that former Koffee Kup Bakery
employees are coming forward, saying the now-closed business has
dealt another blow, sending some people's bank accounts into the
red.

As the future of Vermont's Koffee Kup Bakery remains up in the air,
some employees woke up to find out the bank had taken back vacation
time, which was already paid out. Gary Pasquale was one of them. He
and other workers received accrued vacation and sick time they'd
saved up over the years. Pasquale paid off outstanding bills, and
then went to buy a pair of boots for his new job.

"And I was declined," Pasquale said. "I called my bank and I'm
minus $300."

Pasquale and numerous other former employees tell WCAX News Koffee
Kup reversed the payments, which over drafted some employees' bank
accounts. Other employees say some cashed out on hundreds of hours
of PTO, totaling thousands of dollars.

However, the specific reason why employees had to return benefits
is unclear. Former sales representatives with Koffee Kup tell us
that there's a disagreement between who should be responsible for
paying out employee obligations.

Chad Carpentier, a former sales rep with the company, says there's
still money coming into the company from orders placed before its
abrupt closure a few weeks ago. "There are still funds coming in,"
Carpentier said. "Not that that matters because the funds to pay
these people are available in any account. We know that because the
deposits cleared."

Koffee Kup is now owned by American Industrial Acquisition
Corporation. Jeff Sands, a managing member of Dorset Partners LLC,
tells us in an email that he is not directly involved in payroll.
He adds that he suspects the court-appointed receiver is in charge
of payroll.

KeyBank writes in a statement, "The sudden closure of Koffee Kup
Bakery is truly an unfortunate situation for all concerned. For
client privacy and legal reasons, KeyBank is unable to comment on
any issues related to the client's account."

The financial turmoil comes against the backdrop of a class-action
lawsuit brought on by the former employees who claim Koffee Kup
violated federal law, requiring companies give 60 days notice
before closing.

But as legal and financial challenges persist, some are interested
in Koffee Kup, including prospective buyers who took a tour of the
Burlington plant.

Pasquale says he's loved his time at Koffee Kup and that he's
worked just about every position over the last eight years.

"I started at the bottom, I worked my way up, they've given me that
opportunity," Pasquale said. "They've paid me well, I'm close to
home, I've loved the people I've worked with. But now I could never
come back and trust this place, no matter who it's owned by."

But Pasquale and some of the other 240 laid-off employees say the
loss of Koffee Kup has been painful, as they say goodbye to the
workplace they loved. And they say part of that closure involves
getting the benefits they're entitled to.[GN]

KOLOR MARKETING: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kolor Marketing Inc.
The case is styled as Toby Hoy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kolor Marketing Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00956-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2021).

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

Kolor Marketing Inc. is located in Oceanside, California and is
part of the Advertising & Marketing Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


LAURA DAVIDSON: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laura Davidson Direct
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Laura Davidson
Direct Inc. doing business as: Laura, Case No. 1:21-cv-02838
(E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Laura Davidson -- https://www.lauradavidsondirect.com/ -- provides
high-quality, modern, comfortable chairs for affordable
prices.[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


LCMC HEALTH: Uptown New Orleans Residents File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Six Uptown neighbors claim the Children's Hospital's helicopter pad
was built illegally without a city permit and are suing the
facility's owner, claiming the flights to and from the pad have led
to hearing loss, sleep disturbance, mental health issues and
diminished property values.

They filed a lawsuit in Orleans Civil District Court that seeks
class-action status, meaning other aggrieved neighbors could join
their case. The plaintiffs claim LCMC Health, which owns Children's
Hospital, erected the helicopter pad on top of the hospital roof
and broke the law when they didn't allow public feedback on the
project.

The plaintiffs claim the hospital filed an application in 2017 with
the city to construct a four-story tower with no mention of a
helipad. The city did not approve the application, and the hospital
continued construction anyway, according to the lawsuit.

A permit to build the helipad was filed in 2019 and issued after
the tower was constructed, the suit said. The city was unaware of
the construction of a heliport atop the tower but continued to let
the hospital use it without a permit, the plaintiffs maintain.

The neighbors say LCMC Health "began a marketing plan to vilify
your Petitioners by suggesting they did not care of (sic) about
saving babies," the lawsuit reads.

LCMC Health did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
the lawsuit. [GN]


LENCIONI FARM: Trejo Files Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lencioni Farm
Services. The case is styled as Juan Carlos Trejo, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lencioni Farm Services, Case No.
BCV-21-101136 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 19, 2021).

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

Lencioni Farm Services -- http://lencionifarmservices.com/-- is
General contractor in Shafter, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett Gunther, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128


LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Nigles Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lightfire Partners
LLC. The case is styled as Charles Nigles, individually an on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lightfire Partners LLC,
a Missouri company, Case No. 4:21-cv-00575 (E.D. Mo., May 19,
2021).

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

LightFire Partners -- https://lightfirepartners.com/ -- is a
full-service, direct response, business-to-consumer advertising
agency that specializes in lead generation, lead management and
sales.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J. Dean, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK DEAN
          12747 Olive Blvd., Suite 300
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 675-0000
          Fax: (314) 272-6378
          Email: markdeanlaw@gmail.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs LLANY Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Andrew Nitkewicz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v LLANY Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the class
action suit entitled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is still ongoing.  

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

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

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LMD & ASSC: Improperly Pays Workers, Hernandez-Adorno Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN HERNANDEZ-ADORNO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LMD & ASSC., LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-11507-KM-JBC (D.N.J., May 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Mr. Hernandez-Adorno worked for the Defendant from November 2017 to
January 2018.

LMD & Assc., LLC is a company that provides technology services and
products to the hospitality industry, headquartered in Summerville,
South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

                - and –

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
         Andrew 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
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Lordstown Motors
Corp. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the
date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Lordstown Motors Corp (NASDAQ:RIDE)

Investors Affected : August 3, 2020 - March 24, 2021

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/lordstown-motors-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=15573&from=1

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

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


LOUISIANA: Giroir Must Class Certification Bid by September 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL GIROIR, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated. v. JAMES LEBLANC, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ (M.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge John W. Degravelles entered an order that the
case is consolidated with Humphrey v. LeBlanc, Case No.
3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. 2020) for the purposes of
discovery;

The Court said, "Consolidation at this time is for discovery
purposes only. The maximum numbers of discovery items permitted by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules (i.e.,
number of interrogatories, depositions, etc.) shall apply to each
case separately and not to both cases in combination. Class
certification discovery for Giroir will be completed by August 17,
2021. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Giroir will be
due on or before September 3, 2021, Defendants' response will be
due on or before October 1, and Plaintiffs'[ reply will be due on
or before October 15.

The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a state agency
of Louisiana, headquartered in Baton Rouge. The agency comprises
two major areas: Public Safety Services and Corrections Services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3415ZMs at no extra charge.[CC]

LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products
provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger.

Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018); and Adam
Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit
were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC, Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et
al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC, Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 5:18-cv-03203-EJD, Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03262-VKD, and SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May
29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018,
respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice.

The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was,
and the Karri Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including
proxy statement/prospectus. The Lawsuits further alleged that
Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees. A lead plaintiff and counsel has been
selected, and an amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2019,
which also names Lumentum as a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and
denied in part by the court on October 8, 2020. On December 1,
2020, defendants answered the amended complaint. On December 23,
2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's October 8 order on the motion to
dismiss, which was denied on January 29, 2021.

The Karri Lawsuit remains pending with the parties currently in
discovery. Defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit
vigorously.

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the plaintiff's appeal
on the denial of the Supreme Court of Israel of his motion to amend
his claim, is pending.

Following the public announcement in January 2016 of the election
by Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC to terminate a license and collaboration
agreement between the Company and Sanofi and the subsequent decline
in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the
district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the
certification of a class action against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price
of its common stock.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. In November 2016, the
district court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice.

In the remaining action, the district court ruled in October 2017
that U.S. law will apply to this case.

The plaintiff appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing
before the Supreme Court of Israel, decided to withdraw his appeal.


Subsequently, in November 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the certification motion. In September 2019, the plaintiff
brought a motion to amend his claim, which the court denied in
January 2020.

The plaintiff has appealed this denial to the Supreme Court of
Israel.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced.

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

MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to June 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Morrison, et al., v. Marathon
Petroleum Company, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00480 (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Jason K. Pulliam entered an order that:

   -- within 30 days from the date of this Order, the parties must

      meaningfully confer and file a joint advisory addressing
      whether the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to
      conduct discovery relevant to the issue of class
      certification is still at issue.

   -- the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
      certification is extended to June 14, 2021;

   -- the Defendants' response in opposition is extended to July
      14, 2021;

   -- the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion is extended

      to July 28, 2021; and

   -- all other deadlines set forth in the governing scheduling
      order shall remain in full force and effect.)

The nature of suit states Other Contract.

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is an American petroleum refining,
marketing, and transportation company headquartered in Findlay,
Ohio. The company was a wholly owned subsidiary of Marathon Oil
until a corporate spin-off in 2011.[CC]

MARRIOTT INT'L: Partly Obliged to Reply to Hall's Discovery Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD HALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California:

    (i) grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Hall's motion
        to compel the Defendant's discovery responses; and

   (ii) grants the Defendant's motion to file documents under
        seal.

The case is a putative consumer class action alleging that the
Defendant engages in false and deceptive advertising in the way it
represents the prices for its hotel rooms, services, and amenities.
The Defendant is a multinational hospitality company that owns,
manages, and franchises at least 189 hotels and resorts worldwide.
It advertises its available rooms and daily room rates online
through its own website and the websites of third-party online
travel agencies, such as Priceline and Expedia.

On Sept. 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
alleging unjust enrichment and violations of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.; False
Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq.;
and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200,
et seq.  

On Nov. 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class
Action Complaint, adding causes of action for negligent
misrepresentation, concealment/non-disclosure, and intentional
misrepresentation.  

On Jan. 11, 2021, he filed the operative Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, which retained all causes of action and added
three Plaintiffs: Julie Drassinower, a California resident who
booked her room in New York on the Marriott website; Kevin Branca,
a California resident who booked his room in Hawaii on the Costco
Travel website; and Jesse Heineken, a Kansas resident who booked
his room in California on the Marriott website.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint was also filed on behalf
of both (i) a "Nationwide Class" defined as "all U.S. citizens who
reserved or booked a Marriott owned or franchised hotel room and
stayed in any such room for overnight accommodation and were
charged an amount therefore that was higher than the room rate
quoted or advertised per day plus government imposed taxes and
government imposed fees in their respective state of citizenship on
or after Jan. 1, 2012 and until the Class is certified, for
personal use and not for resale," and (ii) a "California Class"
defined as "all persons who reserved or booked a Marriott owned or
franchised hotel room in California and stayed in any such room for
overnight accommodation and were charged an amount therefore that
was higher than the room rate quoted or advertised per day plus
government imposed taxes and government imposed fees in California
on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and until the Class is certified, for
personal use and not for resale."

The case presents the classic problem of asymmetric discovery --
the Defendant has nearly all the information that both sides need
for the case, as well as the knowledge about where that information
is kept, how it is stored, and how it can be accessed.  The
imbalance of access to information reduces the incentive to
compromise.  Discovery that should be self-executing becomes
protracted and expensive.

The Defendant refused to produce discovery in response by making
prematurity objections that the Court told it -- multiple times --
have no merit. It then tried to bolster those meritless objections
with a declaration that claims burden that: 1) does not exist under
a reasonable reading of the discovery requests, 2) was not asserted
in the Defendant's responses, and 3) was not raised in the parties'
meet and confer discussions leading to the motion.  The "burden" of
dealing with the Defendant's unreasonable approach to discovery has
fallen largely on the Court.

Judge Goddard's Order resolves disputes over 55 separate discovery
requests, most of which the Defendant should have responded to
without Court intervention, given the Court's clear guidance at the
case management and discovery conferences.

The present motions relate to the following 55 discovery requests:

     1. The Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Defendant (RFPs), Nos. 1-9, 28-41, 48, 67-73,
propounded on Nov. 6, 2020.  The Defendant timely returned its
responses and objections on Dec. 7, 2020.

     2. The Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to the
Defendant, Nos. 1-6, propounded on Nov. 6, 2020.  The Defendant
timely returned its responses and objections on Dec. 7, 2020.  

     3. The Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of
Person Most Knowledgeable for Defendant, Topic Nos. 8-14, 20-22,
30-36, 40, served on Nov. 12, 2020.  The Defendant timely2 returned
its responses and objections on Dec. 11, 2020.

Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses

Judge Goddard grants in part as to RFP Nos. 1-9, 28-41, 67-73.  The
Defendant must produce these documents requested, from Jan. 1,
2015, through the present.  The Judge grants as to RFP No. 48.  

RFP No. 48 seeks "all deposition transcripts, interrogatory
responses, responses to requests for admission, responses to
requests for production of documents, and all other written
discovery materials that YOU have produced in connection with the
case titled District of Columbia v. Marriott International, Inc.,
No. 2019 CA 4497 B (D.C. Dec. 31, 2019)."  Judge Goddard holds that
the information sought is not premature.  The information is also
relevant because there is a substantial overlap between the factual
allegations in the case and the D.C. action.  Access to discovery
already provided by the Defendant should streamline discovery in
the case.

Judge Goddard also grants in part the Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories to the Defendant, Nos. 1-6, propounded on Nov. 6,
2020.  The Defendant must produce the information requested, from
Jan. 1, 2015, through the present and should supplement its
response consistent with the Court's ruling on its objections.

With respect to the Deposition Topic Nos. 8-14, 20-22, 30-36, 40,
Judge Goddard denies the motion to compel without prejudice.  She
holds that since the parties have the Court's direction on the
other issues addressed at the hearing and in her Order, the parties
should be able to have a more fruitful discussion during their meet
and confer.  If, after making a concerted and good faith effort to
meet and confer, the parties have further disputes regarding these
deposition topics, they must jointly notify the Court (via email at
efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) by June 1, 2021.

B. Plaintiff's Request for Monetary Sanctions

The Plaintiff seeks $15,125 in attorney fees as a sanction for the
Defendant's failure to produce discovery, comprising Michael T.
Houchin's time preparing the Plaintiff's motion to compel (17.5
hours at his billing rate of $550 per hour) and the reply brief
(estimated 10 hours at $550 per hour).  The Plaintiff relies on one
case in San Diego Superior Court and two cases in the Southern
District, where courts approved his $550 hourly rate.  He also
notes that the amount requested does not include time spent
preparing for or attending the motion hearing, or time spent on
this matter by any other attorney or paralegal at his firm.

The Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to attorney fees because
the Defendant objected that requests were premature since the class
was not yet certified, even though the Court clearly, and
repeatedly, stated that premature objections would not be
sustained.  The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff is not
entitled to fees for bringing the motion because its refusal to
provide the requested discovery was substantially justified.

Judge Goddard rejects the Defendant's argument and finds that the
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable expenses for the cost of
bringing the motion to compel.  She holds the Defendant's conduct
warrants sanctions.  She also finds that the requested fees,
billing rates, and time spent preparing the motion are reasonable,
especially since the Plaintiff voluntarily reduced his fee request
by not including work done in preparation for the hearing or by
other attorneys or paralegals.  Given her rulings, the Judge will
apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.

Accordingly, she grants in part the Plaintiffs' request for
monetary sanctions.  The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff
the amount of $12,375 by June 8, 2021.  The defense counsel is
ordered to file a declaration verifying said payment no later June
15, 2021.  Failure to comply with the Order may result in the
imposition of additional sanctions.

C. Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for an order to file
portions of certain documents related to its Response in Opposition
to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel under seal.  The Plaintiff does
not oppose the motion.  Specifically, it seeks to file under seal
portions of the following documents: (1) Two sentences in
Defendant's Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel, explaining the franchise fee components; and (2) Nine
paragraphs of the Declaration of Jennifer Aronson, explaining the
franchise fee agreements, components, and structure.

Judge Goddard finds that the Defendant articulated specific reasons
why these documents should be sealed.  She agrees that public
disclosure of this information could be detrimental to Defendant
and its franchisees.  Good cause appearing, she grants the
Defendant's motion, insofar as it seeks to seal: (1) portions of
its Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, and
(2) portions of the Declaration of Jennifer Aronson.

The Defendant has already publicly filed on the docket the
necessary redacted version of the papers, and electronically lodged
the unredacted version of the papers under seal.  Thus, the Clerk's
Office is directed to file the lodged documents at ECF No. 62 under
seal.

D. Scheduling Order

When the Court set the briefing schedule for the instant motion, it
vacated certain deadlines set forth in its Nov. 6, 2020 Scheduling
Order.  In light of the procedural history of the case and the
deadlines ordered therein, Judge Goddard issues an amended
scheduling order. Consistent with the Court's Order Granting Motion
to Consolidate Cases, the Plaintiffs will file a Consolidated
Amended Complaint no later than May 27, 2021.

Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery
must be completed by August 16, 2021. "Completed" means that all
discovery requests governed by Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be
propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so
that they may be completed by that date, taking into account the
time permitted in the Rules for service, notice, and responses.  If
any discovery disputes arise, the counsel must meet and confer
promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a).
A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a
party's discovery issue.  Absent an order of the court, no
stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be
recognized by the Court.  The Court expects counsel to make every
effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through
the meet-and-confer process.  If the parties reach an impasse on
any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at
efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the
date of service of the written discovery response that is in
dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss
the discovery dispute.  The email must include: (1) at least three
proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the
telephonic conference; (2) a neutral statement of the dispute; and
(3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties' position.
The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery
motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion
telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of
Court.  All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with
the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which
can be found on the district court website.

The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by
Sept. 16, 2021. Within three days of a ruling on the motion for
class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via
email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further
case management conference. The dates set forth in the Scheduling
Order will not be modified except for good cause shown.

Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Goddard grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant's
discovery responses.  The Defendant will serve supplemental
discovery responses consistent with the Order no later than June 8,
2021.  The Judge grants in part the Plaintiff's request for
monetary sanctions.  The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff
the amount of $12,375 by June 8, 2021.  The Defense counsel is
ordered to file a declaration verifying said payment no later June
15, 2021.  Ly, the Judge grants the Defendant's Motion to File
Documents Under Seal.  The Clerk's Office will file the lodged
documents at ECF No. 62 under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hun4hzzj from Leagle.com.


MCKESSON CORP: Agreement Reached in Suit Against RelayHealth
------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an agreement has been
reached in the consolidated class action suit against the company's
subsidiary NDCHealth Corporation dba RelayHealth.

In October 2019, the Company's subsidiary NDCHealth Corporation dba
RelayHealth was served with three purported class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by
entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not
to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by
conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell
Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No.
1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v.
Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07035.

In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al.,
1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-7448;
BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-7640.

In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.

The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees,
and costs.

Subject to final court approval, plaintiffs and RelayHealth reached
an agreement in June 2020 to resolve the class action lawsuits and
RelayHealth paid into escrow an amount not material in the context
of the Company's overall financial results.

The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and
RelayHealth expressly denies wrongdoing.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal in the purported class action suit entitled, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, et al., No. 18:1059,
is pending.

The Company is a defendant in an amended complaint filed on June
15, 2018 in a case pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the Company's
subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated
the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of safety and
conventional syringes and safety IV catheters.

The action is filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers,
and seeks treble damages and further relief, all in unspecified
amounts. On July 20, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On November 30, 2018, the district court granted the motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On December
27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On March 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's order, and ruled that
dismissal was appropriate on alternative grounds.

The case was remanded to the district court to allow the plaintiffs
an opportunity to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2020.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the district court granted on March 15, 2021.

Plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit on March 23, 2021.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Pension Fund Wins Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that plaintiff's motion for
class certification filed in Evanston Police Pension Fund v.
McKesson Corporation, No. 3:18-06525, has been approved.

On December 12, 2018, the Company received a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that McKesson and two of its former officers,
CEO John Hammergren and CFO James Beer, violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013
until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged
undisclosed conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs.

The complaint seeks relief including damages, attorney fees, and
costs in unspecified amounts.

On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff.

On April 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that added insider trading allegations against defendant
Hammergren.

On April 8, 2021, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Reliable Pharmacy Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Reliable Pharmacy, et al.
v. Actavis Holdco US, et al.

On December 30, 2019, a group of independent pharmacies and a
hospital filed a class action complaint alleging that the Company
and other distributors violated the Sherman Act by colluding with
manufacturers to restrain trade in the sale of generic drugs.

Reliable Pharmacy, et al. v. Actavis Holdco US, et al., No.
2:19-cv-6044; MDL No. 16-MD-2724.

The complaint seeks relief including treble damages, disgorgement,
attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts.

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

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Trial in Health Chiropractic Suit Set for Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that trial in Health
Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No.
CV-13-02219 (HG), has been scheduled for October 18, 2021.

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson
sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG).

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation
plus injunctive relief.

True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff
and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant.

Both plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the TCPA by
sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out
of receiving the faxes. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification.

On August 22, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion. On July
17, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
denial of class certification and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. On August 13, 2019, the court
granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

After class notice and the opt-out period, 9,490 fax numbers remain
in the class, representing 48,769 faxes received.

On March 5, 2020, McKesson moved to decertify the class and moved
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for treble damages.
Plaintiffs' moved for summary judgment on the same day. On December
24, 2020, the court declined to decertify the class but modified
the class definition to distinguish between physical faxes (kept in
the class) versus online or e-fax recipients (removed from the
class).

On March 19, 2021, the court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs
on the issue of liability but found that McKesson's affirmative
defense of prior consent fails as a matter of law and precluded
McKesson from presenting individualized evidence of consent at
trial.

On McKesson's motion for summary judgment, the court demurred and
will let the issue of treble damages go to the jury.

Trial has been scheduled for October 18, 2021.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MDL 2925: Defendants Must Show Docs in Surcharge Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (NO. II). This document relates to: ALL CASES, MDL
Docket No. 2925, Misc. Action No. 20-00008 (BAH) (D.D.C.), Judge
Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia:

    (i) denied the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration; and

   (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
        to Compel.

After nearly 15 years of litigation in the District related to
their central allegations that the Defendants, the four largest
railroads operating in the United States, engaged in a multi-year
price-fixing conspiracy to increase the price of rail-freight
transport, the Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, In re
Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation ("MDL II"), MDL
No. 2952, Misc. A. No. 20-00008 (BAH) (D.D.C.), seek an order
requiring extensive new discovery, including four years, or even
more, of additional transaction data for certain Plaintiffs'
purchases of rail-freight transport from the Defendants.

The Defendants, for their part, oppose the Plaintiffs' request and
move for reconsideration of the Court's unambiguous conclusion in
its decision on their motions to dismiss 10 individual complaints
that "the Plaintiffs' allegations of harm caused by effects of the
July 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2008 conspiracy that extended beyond Dec.
31, 2008 are tolled'" under the exception to the running of the
statute of limitations for former putative class members set forth
in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974),
and may proceed. D

A hearing on the pending motions was held on May 6, 2021.

The more than 300 rail-freight-shipper Plaintiffs in MDL II allege
that the Defendants "engaged in a multi-year price-fixing
conspiracy to increase the price of rail freight transport through
their coordinated efforts to cause an industry trade group to adopt
a new cost index that excluded the cost of fuel and then to
implement, in lockstep, artificially inflated fuel surcharges, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15."  This theory
was originally advanced in another multidistrict litigation created
in 2007 and still pending in the District, In re Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation ("MDL I"), MDL No. 1869, No.
07-mc-00489-PLF-GMH (D.D.C.), "in which a putative class of direct
purchasers of unregulated rail freight services alleged the same
conspiracy, occurring from 2003 to 2008, against the same
Defendants."  The class was defined as direct purchasers of
rail-freight transport who paid "a standalone rail freight fuel
surcharge applied as a percentage of the base rate" at "any time
from July 1, 2003 until Dec. 31, 2008" ("MDL I class period").

On Feb. 6, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") consolidated 26 individual cases brought by former
putative class members in MDL I for pretrial proceedings in the
Court in MDL II.  Since its creation, another eighty-one cases
initiated by former putative class members have been consolidated
in the multidistrict litigation, for a total of 107 individual
cases and over 300 Plaintiffs as of this writing.

The MDL II Plaintiffs, like the putative MDL I class, allege that
the Defendants' conspiracy took place between July 1, 2003 and Dec.
31, 2008, but their individual actions were filed between November
2019 and April 2021.  Their claims would therefore be untimely
under the Clayton Act's four-year statute of limitations, but for
the tolling made generally available to former putative class
members under American Pipe.  The statute of limitations as to most
of the MDL II Plaintiffs' claims, which are substantively identical
to the claims of the MDL I class, thus began to run only after the
2019 denial of class certification in MDL I.

At the time of MDL II's creation in early 2020, the Plaintiffs
represented to the JPML that "all the fact discovery as to the
Defendants had been done" in MDL I, any new fact discovery needed
in MDL II would be "proportionately much, much smaller than what's
been done to date" and would be largely restricted to "things
related to specific new Plaintiffs," in particular, "individualized
damages discovery."  The Panel thus reported that the Plaintiffs
would "have access to the full discovery record developed in MDL I,
and that any remaining discovery in the new cases will be very
limited and case-specific."

The Plaintiffs made similar representations at the initial
scheduling conference in MDL II, indicating that "all of the
Defendants' transaction data including for all shippers that were
alleged to have been in the putative MDL I class" had been produced
and subject to expert analysis in MDL I, and, as a result, the most
burdensome and time-consuming discovery needed in MDL II was
already complete, with the exception of "some particular additional
transaction data" that might be required.  Based on the parties'
discussion of their anticipated discovery needs at the scheduling
conference, an initial Scheduling Order was entered, setting a
deadline of Oct. 1, 2021 for the completion of all fact discovery.

On Feb. 2, 2021, two days before a previously scheduled status
conference was to be held, the Plaintiffs submitted an email to the
Court in accordance with the procedure for discovery disputes
outlined in the Scheduling Order advising that the parties had
reached impasse about the extent to which the Defendants will
produce transaction data from 2009-2012.

Despite having received the extensive body of information for
2000-2008, the Plaintiffs requested, in their February 2 email,
that the Defendants be compelled to "produce all transaction data
for 2009-2012 for the same data fields that Defendants have
produced for 2000-2008" for all rail-freight shippers, claiming
that broad set of data was "necessary to assess and prove damages
for the continuing effects of the Defendants' conspiracy."

The Defendants opposed production of any post-2008 transaction
data, arguing that the MDL I data set "sufficed in MDL I and should
suffice in MDL II," but offered "to produce relevant transaction
data for those Plaintiffs that have actually alleged or could at
least provide a basis to allege that they paid a rate-based fuel
surcharge after 2008 under a pre-2009 contract" by citing an
applicable contract or other relevant price authority.

The Plaintiffs rejected this compromise, contending that the
Defendants' approach "would lead to endless disputes, would cause
delay, would be enormously burdensome, and would create substantial
risk that Defendants' data production would be incomplete."  They
expressed further concern that "many Plaintiffs have incomplete
records due to the passage of time."  This limitation, in
combination with the Defendants' incomplete and slow production of
relevant price authorities to this point, therefore meant that
these Plaintiffs would be unable to demonstrate to the Defendants'
satisfaction that they qualified for production of post-2008
transaction data.  As a result, the parties reached impasse.

The transaction-data dispute was discussed, but not resolved, at
the previously scheduled Feb. 4, 2021 status conference.  The
parties were encouraged "to meet and confer again" on the
transaction data dispute, and to "propose a briefing schedule" if
they were unable to reach a solution.  They accordingly resumed
negotiations.

On March 11, 2021, the parties indicated that they had again
reached impasse and requested entry of a stipulated briefing
schedule on the Plaintiffs' planned motion to compel production of
post-2008 transaction data and an anticipated motion by the
Defendants for reconsideration of the Tolling Decision's holding
that the Plaintiffs' claims for lingering-effects damages are
tolled under American Pipe.  A hearing on both motions was held on
May 6, 2021, as part of a previously scheduled status conference.

Analysis

The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendants (1) to
"produce the same fields of transaction data for 2009 that they
produced in MDL I for all the Plaintiffs"; (2) to "produce
transaction data for 2010 to 2012 for the Plaintiffs who identify a
price authority entered into or in effect on or before Dec. 31,
2008 that they reasonably believe continued beyond 2009 within 30
days of presentment of the price authority"; and (3) to
"substantially complete the production of conspiracy-period price
authorities applicable to the Plaintiffs by" June 1, 2021.  They
contend that this information is necessary "to prove and calculate"
their lingering-effects damages and therefore falls within the
scope of discoverable information under Rule 26.

The Defendants oppose production of the requested materials, and
move instead for the Court to "reconsider its ruling" in the
Tolling Decision that the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the
harm they suffered from post-2008 lingering effects of the alleged
2003-2008 conspiracy are tolled and then, upon granting the
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, deny the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Compel as moot.  Alternatively, they ask that the Plaintiffs'
request for production of 2010-2012 transaction data for certain
Plaintiffs be denied, and that the Defendants be "required only to
produce 2009 transactional data for all the Plaintiffs and
affiliated entities."

Judge Howell opines that whether the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
presents a live dispute depends on resolution of the Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration, which itself turns on a correct
understanding of the scope of the lingering-effects damages tolled
in the Tolling Decision.  Consideration of the pending motions thus
follows review of the Tolling Decision's holding with respect to
lingering-effects damages and evaluation of how the Tolling
Decision's reasoning applies to theories of lingering-effects
damages not presented in the motions to dismiss.

In sum, Judge Howell holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations of
lingering-effects damages resulting from pre-2009 price authorities
extending past 2012 are tolled only for purchases made under price
authorities entered before Jan. 1, 2009 with a fixed-term end date
after Dec. 31, 2012.  To benefit from American Pipe tolling, she
says allegations related to these purchases must not implicate
post-2008 conduct by either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants,
including the issue of whether the Plaintiffs could have ended
their purchases under a challenged conspiracy-period price
authority before Dec. 31, 2012.  

The lingering effects of evergreen contracts are tolled only
through the expiration of the 2008-2009 renewal of such contracts
at some point in 2009.  Lingering effects after the date of the
2009-2010 annual renewal of any evergreen contract are time-barred.
Likewise, the lingering effects from purchases made under open
offers of transportation published before Jan. 1, 2009 are not
tolled for purchases made after that date.  Judgment is reserved as
to whether the Plaintiffs may recover damages under interline
agreements as to which a nondefendant railroad was a party.  Judge
Howell finds that the pending motions are evaluated in light of
this analysis, starting with the Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration.

A. Motion for Reconsideration

The Defendants argue that reconsideration of "whether claims of
lingering effects damages are time-barred" is warranted based
solely on representations made by the Plaintiffs' counsel at the
Feb. 4, 2021 status conference, indicating that the putative class
in MDL I did not pursue claims for lingering-effects damages.  In
the Defendants' view, these statements constitute "new evidence
that compels the Court to revisit its lingering effects ruling,"
because they supply proof that the Defendants "had no fair notice
of the claims for post-2008 damages that the Plaintiffs now seek to
assert," as American Pipe tolling requires

Judge Howell opines that the Defendants have neither uncovered "new
evidence" that makes reconsideration appropriate nor demonstrated
that the Tolling Decision incorrectly tolled the Plaintiffs'
lingering-effects claims.  First, the Defendants' claim that the
remarks made at the February 4 status hearing constitute new
information sufficient to warrant reconsideration fails to carry
their burden, as the moving party, "to show that reconsideration is
appropriate."  Second, the Defendants' renewed opposition to the
Plaintiffs' lingering-effects allegations remains, as it was at the
time of the Tolling Decision, "a barely-concealed attempt to limit
their potential liability for the Plaintiffs' post-2008 damages
claims for the alleged continuing effects of the Defendants'
conspiracy at the outset of this litigation."

B. Motion for Compel

The Plaintiffs, relying on the Tolling Decision's tolling of
limited lingering-effects damages, move for an order compelling
production of information they describe as "evidence to prove those
damages," namely: (1) the same fields of transaction data included
in the MDL I data set for all he Pplaintiffs, including data
located by searching for entity names and spellings provided by the
Plaintiffs, and (2) transaction data for 2010-2012 for the
Plaintiffs who identify a price authority entered into or in effect
on or before Dec. 31, 2008 that they reasonably believe continued
beyond 2009, with production of such data to be made "within 30
days of presentment of the price authority."  They further ask that
the Defendants be required, by June 1, 2021, to complete production
of all price authorities entered into or in effect on or before
Dec. 31, 2008 applicable to any Plaintiff.

In light of the Tolling Decision's substantial limitations on the
availability of lingering-effects damages and the significant
burden of the Plaintiffs' request for 2010-2012 transaction data,
Judge Howell holds that the Defendants will be compelled to produce
only 2009 transaction data for all the Plaintiffs and affiliated
entities.  The application of Rule 26's relevancy and
proportionality requirements to the information of which the
Plaintiffs seek to compel production follows review of the
interaction between the procedural history of the multidistrict
litigation and the Rule 26 factors.

First, as previously described at the March 26, 2021 hearing,
several considerations specific to the procedural posture and
extensive history of the multidistrict litigation guide application
of the Rule 26 factors to requests for discovery raised by any
party.  Second, production of the 2009 transaction data for all the
Plaintiffs and affiliated entities is proportional.  The Defendants
are ordered to promptly produce 2009 transaction data for the same
fields produced in MDL I for all the Plaintiffs and affiliated
entities identified by the Plaintiffs in their responses to the
Defendants' interrogatories, and to search the data for entity
names and spellings provided by the Plaintiffs.

Third, the limited relevance of the requested post-2009 data to
only a tiny subset of a handful of the Plaintiffs' claims, the fact
that these claims are divorced from the central issue of the
Defendants' liability, the burden to the Defendants of collecting
and producing the requested information, and the possibility of
reopening discovery as to 2010-2012 lingering-effects allegations
if the Plaintiffs prove their claims and the multidistrict
litigation advances to the damages stage all the counsel against
compelling the production of 2010-2012 transaction data at this
time.  The requested information, though potentially relevant, is
disproportionate to the needs of the litigation at this stage.  The
Defendants therefore will not be required to produce any 2010-2012
transaction data.

Fourth, Union Pacific Railroad's production of contracts and price
authorities significantly lags behind its codefendants, but the
company still intends to complete its productions by June 30, 2021.
The Defendants will not be compelled to complete production of
price authorities by June 1, 2021.  They are nonetheless expected
to make every good-faith effort to produce all applicable price
authorities to the Plaintiffs promptly, consistent with their
representations to the Court.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Howell denied the Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration and granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel The Defendants are required to
produce the same fields of transaction data for 2009 that they
produced in MDL I for all the Plaintiffs and the affiliated
entities the Plaintiffs identified in their answers to the
Defendants' interrogatories, and to search the data for entity
names and spellings provided by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants will not, however, be compelled to produce any
transaction data for 2010-2012 at this time, nor to complete the
production of price authorities applicable to the Plaintiffs by
June 1, 2021, in light of their representations at the May 6, 2021
hearing that they will complete such production in the coming
weeks.

An order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion will be entered
contemporaneously.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ha93av4 from Leagle.com.


MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Suits in Arizona Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend two putative class action suits related to its
initial public offering ("IPO").

The Company is subject to two putative class action lawsuits
alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the
company's IPO, one in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona
and one in U.S. District Court of Arizona.

These purported class actions were filed in March and April 2020
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's IPO.

The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar
allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements in, or omitting material information from, our IPO
registration statement.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


In addition, the company is subject to certain legal actions which
it considers routine to its business activities.

Mesa Air said, "As of March 31, 2021, our management believed,
after consultation with legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of
the two putative class action lawsuits and such other routine legal
matters are not likely to have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

Mesa Air Group, Inc. operates as an airline company that provides
regional air services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The
Company also operates as an online retailer of apparel and
accessories. Mesa Air Group, Inc. was formerly known as Mesa Air
Shuttle, Inc. The Company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Phoenix, Arizona.


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Partial Lifting of Stay Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties' request
for partial lifting of the stay to the extent required for the
court to rule on the Company's pending motion to strike and motions
to dismiss filed by other defendants, is pending.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.))
against the Company and certain former officers of the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the
court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company
answered the amended complaint.

On December 9, 2019, the court granted leave for the lead plaintiff
to file a second amended complaint under seal and permitted the
defendants to file a motion to strike the second amended complaint.


On December 30, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint motion
to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation. On March 3,
2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. The mediation was
unsuccessful. The Company filed a motion to strike the second
amended complaint on May 1, 2020.

On August 17, 2020, the court granted the parties' joint motion to
again stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation. The
parties agreed to participate in a second mediation session on
November 10, 2020. The mediation was unsuccessful. The Company
believes that the amended complaint and the second amended
complaint are without merit.

On October 16, 2020, the court granted the parties' joint request
to extend the stay until November 16, 2020. On November 16, 2020,
the parties filed a joint status report seeking to extend the stay
for an additional thirty days. On November 17, 2020, the court
ordered the parties to file a supplemental joint status report
clarifying whether they sought a continuance of the stay of all
proceedings or instead, a partial lifting of the stay.

On November 19, 2020, the parties filed a joint status report
seeking to continue a partial stay of the case while the parties
engaged in additional settlement discussions, and a partial lifting
of the stay to the extent required for the court to rule on the
Company's pending motion to strike and motions to dismiss filed by
other defendants.

Those motions remain pending.

Millendo said, "The Company believes that the amended complaint and
the second amended complaint are without merit. A resolution of
this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could
have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations. At present, the Company is
unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the
lawsuit."

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
1:20-cv-12176.

On December 8, 2020 and January 11, 2021, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two putative securities class action complaints
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled McCoy v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc., et
al., No. 1:20-cv-12176 and Ao v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. et
al., No. 1:21-cv-10051, respectively, against the Company and the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege that the Defendants
made material false and/or misleading statements regarding the
development of the Company's drug candidate roluperidone
purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired the Company's
common stock between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020.

The complaints do not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and others who acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

On March 5, 2021, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions into a case captioned In re Minerva Neurosciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-12176 and appointing lead
plaintiffs and their counsel.

On March 19, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated proposed order
with the Court staying the Defendants' response to the complaint
until after plaintiffs file an amended complaint.

Minerva said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this action."

Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of
proprietary product candidates to treat patients suffering from
central nervous system diseases. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lira Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELO LIRA, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC DBA NFI INDUSTRIES,
an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CIVSB2102103 (Filed January 6, 2021) was removed from the
Superior Court of the State California in and for the County of San
Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central
District California on April 15, 2021.

The Central District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. e
5:21-cv-00672 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following claims for relief: unpaid
overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums;
unpaid minimum wage; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely
paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to
keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of a putative class of
"[a]ll current or former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who
worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California
during the time period four years preceding the filing of this
Complaint to final judgment and who reside in California."

National Distribution Centers, L.P., doing business as NFI,
provides transportation and logistic services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq.
          Carina Novell, Esq.
          Britney N. Torres, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: jcliffe@littler.com
                  cnovell@littler.com
                  btorres@littler.com

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Mergner Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Michael Mergner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01223 (M.D. Fla., May 19, 2021).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc. -- https://www.ncirm.com/ -- provides
customer relationship and accounts receivable management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: yosef@cml.legal


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Navient
Corporation (NasdaqGS: NAVI).

Throughout 2017 and 2018, several civil lawsuits were filed against
the Company by Attorneys General from Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Washington, California and Mississippi and the U.S. Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") and for violations of state
and/or federal consumer protection laws, based on allegations of
widespread acts of misconduct detrimental to borrowers of the loans
it services. The Company has also received separate CIDs or
subpoenas from the Attorneys General for the District of Columbia,
Kansas, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Indiana on
similar grounds. In October 2020, the New Jersey Attorney General
also filed suit against the Company for violation of New Jersey
consumer protection laws, alleging that it is "engaged in
unconscionable commercial practices, deceptive conduct, and
misrepresentations when servicing thousands of New Jersey
consumers' student loans."

The Company has also been sued in securities class action lawsuits
for failing to disclose material information, violating federal
securities laws. Recently, a New Jersey federal judge certified the
class in the consolidated case, allowing the case to proceed even
further.

The actions of the Company's executives have exposed it to
potential penalties, fines and other financial losses from the
numerous investigations and lawsuits by public officials, consumers
and shareholders.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Navient's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Navient's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Navient shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navi/ to learn more.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include Former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on
securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger
& acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

Contacts
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]



NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonode Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit with Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA.

On September 2, 2020, a separate putative stockholder of Neonode
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against Neonode, the
Board of Directors of Neonode, and the Chief Executive Officer of
Neonode for alleged violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with
disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 in
the Proxy Statement, and generally containing the same substantive
allegations as in the above previously-filed Delaware Court of
Chancery action.

On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit in the United States District Court.

However, on February 11, 2021, the plaintiff's counsel informed
Neonode that they would file a fee petition as a result of Neonode
filing the definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement
on September 18, 2020.  

Neonode intends to vigorously defend against any attempt by the
plaintiff’s counsel to obtain any fee award.  

Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical
multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused
on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and
and Original Design Manufacturers who embed their technology into
electronic devices.


NEW YORK GLOBAL: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Scott Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Final Order and Judgment in the case,
ALLAN SCOTT, DERIVATIVELY AND ON BEHALF OF 6D GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Plaintiff v. BENJAMIN TIANBING WEI A/K/A BENJAMIN WEY; NEW
YORK GLOBAL GROUP, INC.; NYGG (ASIA) LTD., TEJUNE KANG; MARK
SZYNKOWSKI; ADAM HARTUNG; DAVID S. KAUFMAN; TERRY McEWEN; ANUBHAV
SAXENA; PIOTR A. CHRZASZCZ, AND MICHAEL BANNOUT, Defendants, AND 6D
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
15-cv-9691-AJN (S.D.N.Y.).

The matter came before the Court for hearing, pursuant to the Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative
Action Settlement dated Oct. 1, 2020, on the application of
Derivative Plaintiff Allan Scott for approval of the Settlement set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Oct. 7,
2019, and the Exhibits thereto.  Due and adequate notice have been
given to the shareholders of 6D Global as required in the
Preliminary Approval Order.

Judge Nathan, having considered all arguments made and papers filed
and proceedings had therein, and otherwise being fully informed and
good cause appearing therefore, finds that the Settlement is in all
respects fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to, and in the best
interests of 6D Global, Current 6D Global Shareholders, and the
Derivative Plaintiff.  She approves the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation.

The Federal Derivative Action is dismissed as to all of the
Settling Defendants with prejudice and without prejudice as to 6D
Global and the remaining Defendants.  The Settling Parties are to
bear their own costs, except as set forth in the Final Order.

The Judge approves the agreed-upon Fee and Expense Award of $80,000
to the Derivative Plaintiff's Counsel, finding such Fee and Expense
Award is fair and reasonable.

She finds that the Derivative Plaintiff will be awarded $1,500 for
his participation and efforts in the Derivative Actions.  Such
payments will be deducted from the agreed-upon Fee and Expense
Award set forth in paragraph 6 herein.  The Judge finds that the
Award to Derivative Plaintiff is fair and reasonable, in accordance
with the Stipulation.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation.

Judge Nathan states that there is no just reason for delay in the
entry of the Final Judgment dismissing the Federal Derivative
Action as to all of the Settling Defendants with prejudice and
without prejudice as to 6D Global and the remaining Defendants and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Final Order & Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5h8tttbb from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK GLOBAL: Scott Suit Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Allan Scott, Plaintiff v. Benjamin Wei, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-9691 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the
Derivative Settlement.

On Oct. 1, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement agreement between Derivative Plaintiff Allan
Scott, the Nominal Defendant 6D Global Technologies, and Defendants
Tejune Kang, Mark Szynkowski, Terry McEwen, Adam Hartung, David S.
Kaufman, Anubhav Saxena, Piotr A. Chrzaszcz, and Michael Bannout.
A hearing was held on Feb. 23, 2021, during which time Judge Nathan
heard the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Derivative
Settlement.

Having considered the written submissions of the parties, having
held a final fairness hearing, and having considered the arguments
offered at that hearing, Judge Nathan ordered that the Derivative
Settlement is finally approved, concluding that the settlement is
procedurally fair.

In negotiating the settlement, the Derivative Plaintiff's counsel
has secured a "substantial benefit" for 6D and its shareholders.
The settlement includes a $240,000 payment from 6D's insurer that
will allow 6D to resolve the related class action settlement, Case
No. 15-cv-8061, without depleting the company's existing
resources.

The Judge also concludes that the amount of work that the counsel
expended on the action, and the risk that they took on by
prosecuting this action, favor the stipulated-to award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Finally, in light of the efforts they expended for the benefit of
the class, an incentive award of $1,500 for the Derivative
Plaintiff is appropriate.  Although the Derivative Plaintiff may
not have undertaken significant risk in agreeing to serve as the
class representatives, the award he seeks is correspondingly
minimal.  The award is correspondingly adequate.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Nathan determined the Settlement
to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly, she granted the
Derivative Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Derivative
Settlement.  She will enter the proposed Final Order and Judgment.
The Order resolves Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, 133, and 134.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfjazwm5 from
Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Marijuana Discriminatory Arrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVERTON WELCH, JIMMY ALAMO, and SHADY BOLTON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 153648/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., April 15,
2021) contends that the New York City Police Department has failed
to change their practices, and officers continuously arrest people
for small amounts of marijuana, handcuff them, take them back to a
precinct to be processed, interrogated, and eventually issue them a
criminal court summons Despite the clear legislative directive,
effective since August of 2019.

According to the complaint, to reduce the number and frequency of
these pretextual or otherwise discriminatory stops and arrests, the
State of New York has diverged significantly from constitutional
floor set by the Supreme Court. One part of this criminal reform
included expansive marijuana decriminalization, which began in the
1970s, and culminated in the complete legalization of small amounts
of marijuana, effective March 31, 2021.

These reforms, the new wave of which began in 2019, were enacted
with the express goal of reducing biased-based policing and the
disproportionate effect these arrests have on people of color
across New York City. Nonetheless, the NYPD continuously
circumvented decriminalization for decades, frequently claiming
that the marijuana was in public view, which until 2019, remained a
minor crime subject to arrest, the suit says.

This practice was banned, effective August 28, 2019, as part of a
set of important reforms enacted by the New York State Legislature,
which removed this loophole and made clear that possession of a
small amount of marijuana is not a crime, and is therefore not an
arrestable offense, or an offense for which a criminal summons can
be issued.

For decades, the NYPD and its officers have allegedly used
low-level crimes and noncriminal violations as pretext to
unlawfully arrest, search, and detain New Yorkers -- typically low
income people of color -- as rough justice punishment, and to
otherwise exert authority, surveillance, and control over those
communities.

Rulings from the United States Supreme Court have historically
protected this pattern of discriminatory arrests, made for ulterior
motives, for acts that would not typically result in any
imprisonment whatsoever. The Court held that such pretextual
arrests and detentions do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, regardless of the officers' actual
motives, as long as officers could articulate some probable cause
to believe a crime was committed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
          David B. Rankin, Esq.
          Regina Powers, Esq.
          BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 490-0400
          E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com
                  drankin@blhny.com
                  rpowers@blhny.com

               - and -

          Rob Rickner, Esq.
          Stephanie Panousieris, Esq.
          RICKNER PLLC
          14 Wall Street, Suite 1603
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-6506
          E-mail: rob@ricknerpllc.com

NEW YORK: Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Richardson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNETTE RICHARDSON, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-9447 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order:

     (i) granting in part and denying in part the City's motion
         for partial summary judgment;

    (ii) denying the City's motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
         disparate impact claims; and

   (iii) denying the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify two
         classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Plaintiffs Annette Richardson, Deborah Bowman, Debra Poe, Dino
Riojas, Stephanie Thomas, Jon Watson, Brenda McKiver, and Erica
Richardson, former and current employees of the Fire Department of
New York ("FDNY"), bring the putative class action against
Defendant City of New York, claiming that FDNY's hiring, promotion,
and compensation practices for civilian employment violate 42
U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and the New York City Human Rights
Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section 8-101 et seq.  The
Plaintiffs seek class-wide monetary and injunctive relief for
FDNY's disparate treatment of, and policies having a disparate
impact on, African Americans.

The Plaintiffs propose the following two classes to challenge
FDNY's hiring, promotion, and compensation practices:

      a. Rejected Applicant Class: "All African Americans who
passed any applicable Department of Citywide Administrative Service
(DCAS) tests, possessed all other posted requirements for any
posted Fire Department of New York (FDNY) civilian vacancy, and
applied and were rejected by FDNY for any such position at any time
between December 1, 2014 and the date a class is certified unless
they applied for a position (a) in a job title classified by the
City of New York (the City) as an administrator or manager, or (b)
would have [received] a salary of at least $150,000 per year during
at least one year during the period."

      b. Employee Class: "All African Americans who have been
employed in a civilian full-time position in FDNY at any time
between December 1, 2014 and the date a class is certified, unless
throughout this period they (a) were in a job title classified by
the City as an administrator or manager, or (b) had a salary of at
least $150,000 per year during at least one year during the
period."

The Plaintiffs do not advance their pay discrimination claims on
behalf of the full Employee Class but instead on behalf of a
subclass ("Compensation Subclass") encompassing "all Employee Class
members who have been employed in a civilian full-time position
classified as Science] Professional or Management Specialist at any
time between December 1, 2014 and the date a class is certified."
They estimate that the Rejected Applicant Class would have 1,000
class members, the Employee Class 400, and the Compensation
Subclass 100.

The Plaintiffs propose that Annette Richardson, Deborah Bowman,
Debra Poe, Dino Riojas, Stephanie Thomas serve as the
representatives of the Employee Class and Compensation Subclass.
They propose that Brenda McKiver and Joe Watson serve as additional
representatives of the Employee Class.  Finally, they offer Erica
Richardson as the sole representative of the Rejected Applicant
Class.

On Feb. 5, 2018, the City filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
original complaint.  Based on the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding
African Americans' underutilization in FDNY's civilian workforce,
in combination with the Plaintiffs' allegations about their
experiences with FDNY's hiring and promotion processes, the Court
denied the City's motion with respect to the Plaintiffs'
discriminatory hiring and promotion claims.  The Court, however,
dismissed the Plaintiffs' discriminatory compensation claims based
on the original pleadings.

On Nov. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended
complaint, in which they attempted to replead their compensation
claims.  The Court granted leave to file in light of the
Plaintiffs' added allegations regarding African Americans'
relatively low compensation rates in four job titles.  The City
then answered the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Since Nov. 27, 2018, the parties have engaged in discovery for the
purpose of filing and contesting the present motion for class
certification.  On May 26, 2020, the day on which the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was due, the City filed two
unexpected motions, one for partial summary judgment and another to
strike the disparate impact claims in the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.

Discussion

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

In its self-styled motion for summary judgment and motion to
strike, the City argues that (1) Annette Richardson, Debra Poe, and
Stephanie Thomas may not seek injunctive or declaratory relief
because their claims were mooted when they retired from FDNY; (2)
Erica Richardson and Dino Riojas lack class standing; and (3) the
Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, as pleaded in the amended
complaint, are legally deficient. In their motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs argue, as they must, that they
satisfy the demands of Rule 23(a), including its requirement that
the proposed classes share common questions of law and fact.

First, Judge Oetken agrees with the City that the retirements
render moot the claims of Annette Richardson, Debra Poe, and
Stephanie Thomas for equitable relief and preclude them from
serving as representatives of the Employee Class and Compensation
Subclass.  Hence, Annette Richardson's, Debra Poe's, and Stephanie
Thomas's claims are dismissed.

Second, the Judge opines that there is no doubt that the pleadings
describe injuries felt and conduct faced by the members of the
Plaintiffs' envisioned classes.  Therefore, Erica Richardson and
Dino Riojas have class standing.  To the extent the City challenges
the factual underpinnings of the Plaintiffs' allegations or
otherwise attempts to use evidence from discovery to distinguish
Erica Richardson and Dino Riojas from the Plaintiffs' putative
class members, such issues "are best resolved on a motion for class
certification," not on a separate motion.

B. Motion to Strike

The City returns to the amended complaint in moving to strike the
Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims.  After a year and a half of
wide-ranging discovery, and more than two years after its motion to
dismiss, the City argues, for the first time, that the Plaintiffs'
disparate impact claims are insufficiently pleaded or are
foreclosed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).
The City contends that, contrary to the demands of the case law,
the amended complaint fails to allege that "FDNY relies upon a
'common mode of exercising discretion'" over its hiring, promotion,
and compensation processes.  The City faults the amended
complaint's inability to "pinpoint facially neutral policies that
are applicable to the putative class."

Irrespective of the merits of these arguments, Judge Oetken
declines to consider them in the context of this motion to strike.
He opines that the sufficiency of class allegations should be
determined in the context of a motion for class certification and
this process may not be circumvented by utilizing a motion to
strike.  The analysis the City presents in its motion to strike
overlaps substantially with the commonality analysis the Court must
perform to resolve the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' disparate impact theory under
Dukes cannot be construed as "separate and apart from the issues
that will be decided on the class certification motion."  Had the
City wanted to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings with
respect to Dukes, the Judge holds that it should have done so in
its motion to dismiss or in opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.  The motion to strike is
denied.

C. Motion for Class Certification

The Plaintiffs' proposed classes and subclass bring disparate
treatment and disparate impact claims under Sections 1981 and 1983,
as well as the NYCHRL.  In debating the appropriateness of class
certification, the parties chiefly dispute whether these claims
present questions of law and fact that are common to the classes
and subclass.  This is time well spent because, "as is true in many
employment discrimination class actions, the crux of the case is
commonality."

In assessing the Plaintiffs' disparate impact and disparate
treatment claims, Judge Oetken considers whether the Plaintiffs
have shown that African Americans at FDNY are subjected to "a
common mode" or "general policy" of discrimination or whether,
instead, the Plaintiffs have done no more than show that FDNY has a
"policy against having uniform employment practices."

First, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not identified any
practice that would have disparately impacted all members of their
proposed classes.  The proposed classes "cover a myriad of job
titles," subject to the oversight of a myriad of supervisors.  The
record shows that these supervisors exercise substantial control
over FDNY's employment decisions.  The Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is denied with respect to their disparate impact
claims.

Second, the Plaintiffs' statistical evidence cannot buoy the
disparate treatment claims.  Their statistical evidence with
respect to promotions is similarly flawed.  The Plaintiffs fall
short of showing that common questions and answers would arise with
respect to the Employee Class.  The Compensation Subclass, though
narrower than the Employee Class, fares no better.  It bears
mention that the Plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence cannot salvage
their claims.

Having reviewed the parties' competing statistical analyses and the
pertinent anecdotal evidence, the Judget concludes that the
Plaintiffs have not offered significant proof of a general policy
of discrimination that would have affected the whole of the
Rejected Applicant Class, Employee Class, or Compensation Subclass.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 23(a)
commonality, and their proposed classes cannot be certified.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken granted in part and denied
in part the City's motion for summary judgment, and denied the
City's motion to strike.  He also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close the
motions at Docket Number 75 and 79.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2zfps933 from Leagle.com.


NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Files Suit in District of South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New-Indy Catawba LLC.
The case is styled as Kenny N. White, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. New-Indy Catawba LLC doing business
as: New Indy Containerboard, Case No. 0:21-cv-01480-SAL (D.S.C.,
May 18, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

New-Indy -- https://newindycontainerboard.com/ -- is an
independent, privately-owned manufacturer and supplier of
corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin linerboard in
the industrial packaging industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
          Phillip Donald Barber, Esq.
          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 252-4848
          Fax: (803) 252-4810
          Email: cpk@harpootlianlaw.com
                 pdb@harpootlianlaw.com
                 rah@harpootlianlaw.com


NEWSMAX MEDIA: Cohen Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newsmax Media, Inc.
The case is styled as Bernard Cohen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Newsmax Media, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-80894-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2021).

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

Newsmax Media, Inc., or Newsmax -- http://www.newsmax.com/-- is a
multi-media broadcasting and digital publishing company founded in
1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 524-2820
          Fax: (954) 524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


NEXTERA ENERGY: Renne Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
James Renne, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
persons v. NEXTERA ENERGY INC., a Florida corporation, NEXTERA
ENERGY RESOURCES LLC, a Delaware corporation, SOLDIER CREEK WIND
LLC, a Delaware corporation, NEXTERA ENERGY CAPITOL HOLDINGS INC.,
a Florida corporation, and the following subsidiaries and affiliate
Delaware corporations: NEXTERA ENERGY CONSTRUCTORS LLC, NEXTERA
ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC, NEXTERA ENERGY OPERATING SERVICES
LLC, and JANE DOE NEXTERA subsidiaries 1-5, Case No.
5:21-cv-04032-HLT-ADM (D. Kan., May 18, 2021), seeks damages for
the nuisance created when NextEra Defendants erected a colossal 495
foot electric wind turbine tower with over 200 foot rotating arms
only a few hundred feet from the Plaintiff's property line rather
than the 600 foot set back NextEra publicly promised to observe
between their towers and non-participating landowners when
developing their huge 130 tower Soldier Creek Wind project in
Nemaha County, Kansas.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was sought out by NextEra
to participate in the project in 2018. He had several discussions
with a NextEra representative about participating until he
witnessed what he came to realize were deceptive business practices
by NextEra Defendants related to a pattern of misleading
inducements and material concealment that was clearly intended to
deceptively induce and interfere with landowners' ability to
understand and enforce their rights. Plaintiff expressly rejected
and repudiated any further discussions with NextEra Defendants
concerning any land use contract or agreement in a letter dated
December 30, 2019 – five months prior to the erection of the
colossal wind towers.

The Plaintiff is the owner of a Kansas property.

The Defendant is engaged in power generating activities on a
worldwide basis, to include other locations within the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair Drazic, Esq.
          Grand Junction, Colorado

               - and -

          James Renne, Esq.
          4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 110521
          Arlington, VA 22203


NFP RETIREMENT: Lauderdale Has Until Nov. 29 to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Lauderdale, et al v
NFP Retirement, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-00301-JVS-KES (C.D. Calif.),
the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order regarding
scheduling dates:

   1. Jury Trial                            Oct 4, 2022

      -- File Findings of Fact and          Sept. 26, 2022
         Conclusions of Law

   2. Final PreTrial Conference             Sept. 19, 2022

      -- File PreTrial Documents            not later than
                                            Sept. 12, 2022

      -- File motions in limine             not later than August
                                            22, 2022

   3. Discovery Cut-off                     Feb. 14, 2022

   4. Expert Discovery Cut-off              May 9, 2022

      -- Initial disclosure of Experts      not later than March
                                            28, 2022

      -- Rebuttal disclosure of Experts     not later than April
                                            11, 2022

   5. Law and Motion Cut-off                August 15, 2022

      -- Motions to be filed and served     not later than June 3,
                                            2022

   6. Last Day for Filing Motion for        November 29, 2021
      Class Certification

A copy of the Civil Minutes order dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hFrIBH at no extra
charge.[CC]

NICOM LIVING: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nicom Living LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Nicom Living LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04519
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Nicom Living is a United States Buyer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVATION COMPANIES: Approval of Settlement in NJCHF Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the objector's appeal
on the court's order approving the settlement of the class action
lawsuit initiated by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, is
still pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's
individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May
16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March
29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint
with prejudice and without leave to replead.

Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed
the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case.

Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court
which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded
the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  

One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class.  

After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  

Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum
and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.  

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019, and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019. The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the
objector replied on October 18, 2019. Oral argument was held on
February 19, 2020.

Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company
believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

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

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: $3.15MM Settlement in IBT Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the settlement in the
class action suit headed by Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT has
been approved by the court and the case has been dismissed.

On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

On July 24, 2018, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5,
2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering.


The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have
also been named as defendants in this case and the company had
certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify
them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
litigation.

On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section
11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly
dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The
Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims.


On August 17, 2020, the parties submitted a final settlement
agreement of the securities class action for court approval.  

The settlement provided for a payment of $3.15 million to the
plaintiffs, which was paid by the Company's insurance carriers, and
provided that the defendants continue to deny the allegations and
claims asserted by the plaintiffs, and are entering into the
settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.

On April 22, 2021, the court approved the settlement and dismissed
the case.

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers
the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese
patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


OI SA: Still Defends Class Suit Related to Customer Service Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit related to TNL's alleged non-compliance with customer
service regulations.

The company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor's Office seeking recovery for
alleged collective moral damages caused by Tele Norte Leste
Participaçoes S.A.'s (TNL's) alleged non-compliance with the
Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor – SAC)
regulations established by the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da
Justica).

TNL recently filed a petition presenting the new factual and
jurisprudential scenario, since its last defense was made in 2009.


Other defendants have been named and await service of process.

The amount involved in this action is R$300 million.

Oi S.A. said, "As a result of a corporate reorganization in 2012,
we have succeeded to TNL’s position as a defendant in this
action. As of December 31, 2020, we deemed the risk of loss as
possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any
provisions with respect to this action since it was awaiting the
court’s initial decision."

Oi S.A. is one of the principal integrated telecommunications
service providers in Brazil with approximately 57.1 million revenue
generating units, or RGUs, as of December 31, 2018. The company
operates throughout Brazil and offer a range of integrated
telecommunications services that include Residential Services,
Personal Mobility Services and B2B Services.


OI SA: Suits Related to Re-Opening of Service Centers Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend 47
class action suits related to the demand of the re-opening of
customer service centers.

The company is a defendant in 47 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers.

The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the company.

As of the date of this annual report, all of these proceedings are
under appeal.

Oi said, "As of December 31, 2020, we had recorded provisions in
the amount of R$16.6 million for those claims in respect of which
we deemed the risk of loss as probable."

Oi S.A. is one of the principal integrated telecommunications
service providers in Brazil with approximately 57.1 million revenue
generating units, or RGUs, as of December 31, 2018. The company
operates throughout Brazil and offer a range of integrated
telecommunications services that include Residential Services,
Personal Mobility Services and B2B Services.

OMAZE INC: Faces Knuttel Suit Over Alleged Illegal Lotteries
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS KNUTTEL, MATTHEW JURANEK, AND ADRIANA CARLIN as
individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those
similarly situated v. OMAZE, INC., a Delaware Corporation. Case No.
5:21-cv-02726 (N.D. Calif., April 15, 2021) is a class action
against Omaze seeking redress for its deceptive and unlawful
practices and to stop from continuing to operate illegal lotteries
and mislead the general public into believing that most, if not
all, of their "donations" are going to charity when, in fact, the
overwhelming majority of their "donations" are pocketed by Omaze.

The complaint asserts that Omaze solicits donations through the
Internet, selling chance to win prizes as part of various alleged
charitable fundraising "campaigns." Omaze prominently identifies a
charitable cause for each supposed fundraising campaign. But the
payments Omaze solicits from the public are not really "donations"
to the marketed charity. They are payments to Omaze, only a small
portion of which is used to benefit the highlighted cause, the
Plaintiffs contend.

In truth, Omaze's charitable fundraising is just a front for
illegal lotteries. Under California law, a "lottery" includes any
scheme to distribute property by chance among persons who have paid
any valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such
property. That describes Omaze's business perfectly, the Plaintiffs
add.

The Plaintiffs seek an order against Defendant awarding injunctive
relief and requiring Defendant to require Defendant to offer
refunds to any Class member who purchased entries in any Omaze 20
campaign; and pay damages and restitution to Plaintiffs and Class
member.

Omaze is registered as a commercial fundraiser for charitable
purposes under California Government Code seconds 12586 and 12599.
By law, a commercial fundraiser for charitable purposes cannot
solicit funds for charity in its capacity as a commercial
fundraiser for charity until and unless it has been hired by a
charity to do so.

Omaze operates omaze.com, an online platform offering a chance to
win a prize in exchange for a "donation" to one or more charitable
causes. Omaze runs two general types of fundraising campaigns:
celebrity campaigns and "Omaze-owned" campaigns. Celebrity
campaigns generally involve an experience with a celebrity while
Omaze-owned campaigns generally involve an expensive item such as a
luxury car or vacation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Anthony Patek, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469

ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Continues to Defend EasyPark Card Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Track Innovations Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit related to EasyPark card.

In July 2019, the Company received a request, to allow a petitioner
to submit a class action, which concerns the petitioner's claims
that, inter alia, through the EasyPark card, drivers are permitted
to exceed the quota of permitted hours in accordance with the
instructions of various local authorities in Israel.

The Request was submitted against a company incorporated by the
buyer of the assets (including the parking activity) of the Israeli
subsidiaries of the Company and against two other companies that
operate technological means for payment for public parking spaces
scattered throughout the cities.

Since the majority of potential claims against the Company's
Subsidiaries relate to the period following the sale of the
Company's Subsidiaries' assets, including the parking activity, it
appears that the Company's exposure through this channel is
limited.

Furthermore, even if payment will be required, the buyer would be
liable for the majority of such payment.

Therefore, the Company will not participate in such procedure at
this stage. Based on the assessment of the Company's external legal
counsel, the exposure of the Company is low.

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

On Track Innovations Ltd. designs, develops, and markets secure
contactless microprocessor-based smart card technology to address
the needs of a variety of markets. The Company has developed
product solutions for micropayments, mass transit ticketing,
parking, loyalty programs, and other applications.


ONESHARE HEALTH: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ONESHARE HEALTH LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON,
JUSTINE LUND; and JAIME and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC.,
formerly known as ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ONESHARE
HEALTH, LLC, formerly known as UNITY HEALTHSHARE, LLC and as
KINGDOM HEALTHSHARE MINISTRIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
corporation, Case No. 1:20-CV-02130-RBJ, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants over alleged breach
of fiduciary duties.

The Defendant seeks a review of the order dated April 16, 2021
entered by Judge R. Brooke Jackson, denying a motion to compel
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Smith, et al. v. OneShare
Health, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-1186, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement is due on June 1, 2021 for Oneshare
Health LLC;

   -- Transcript order form is due on June 1, 2021 for Oneshare
Health LLC; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on June 1, 2021 for Jaime Beard,
Jared Beard, Ellen Larson, Justine Lund, Oneshare Health LLC, and
Rebecca Smith.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant ONESHARE HEALTH LLC, a Virginia limited
liability corporation, is represented by:

          Marilyn Sue Chappell, Esq.
          SWEETBAUM SANDS ANDERSON
          1125 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2100
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 296-3377
          E-mail: mchappell@sweetbaumsands.com  

               - and -

          Jon F. Sands, Esq.
          BOSTROM, SANDS & SANDER
          1625 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Denver, CO 80202-4721
          Telephone: (303) 592-5300  

Plaintiffs-Appellees REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON, JUSTINE LUND,
JAIME BEARD, and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH
          8300 Arista Place, Suite 300
          Broomfield, CO 80020
          Telephone: (303) 800-1580
          E-mail: pjbernal@michaelbest.com

               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: ele@sylaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael David Myers, Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY PLLC
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 398-1188
          E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com

               - and -

          Victoria Edna Lovato, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH
          1776 Lincoln Street, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 240-9515
          E-mail: velovato@michaelbest.com

PAYSIGN INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paysign, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Paysign, Inc.
Securities Litigation, is pending.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three complaints filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada:
Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on March 19, 2020, Lorna
Chase v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on March 25, 2020, and Smith
& Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on April 2, 2020. Smith &
Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et al. was voluntarily dismissed on May 21,
2020.

On May 18, 2020, the Shi plaintiffs and another entity called the
Paysign Investor Group each filed a motion to consolidate the
remaining Shi and Chase actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff.


The Complaints are putative class actions filed on behalf of a
class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock from March
19, 2019 through March 31, 2020, inclusive.

The Complaints generally allege that the Company, Mark R. Newcomer,
and Mark Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
that Newcomer and Attinger violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making materially false or misleading statements, or
failing to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and its financial
statements.

The Complaints seek class action certification, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On December 2, 2020, the Court consolidated Shi and Chase as In re
Paysign, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Paysign
Investor Group as lead plaintiff. On January 12, 2021, Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated action.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on March
15, 2021, which is expected to be fully briefed by June 1, 2021. As
of the date of this filing, Paysign cannot give any meaningful
estimate of likely outcome or damages.

Paysign, Inc. a vertically integrated provider of prepaid card
programs and processing services for corporate, consumer and
government applications. The company's payment solutions are
utilized by its corporate customers as a means to increase customer
loyalty, increase patient adherence rates, reduce administration
costs and streamline operations. The company is based in Henderson,
Nevada.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Advertising--Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PTON) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Peloton securities between
September 11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/pton.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child,
Peloton's Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety
was not a priority to Peloton as defendants were aware of serious
injuries and death resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or
suggest a halt of the use of the Tread+; (3) as a result of the
safety concerns, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC") declared the Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health
and safety resulting in its urgent recommendation for consumers
with small children to cease using the Tread+; (4) the CPSC also
found a safety threat to Tread+ users if they lost their balance;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
Peloton's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pton or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Peloton
you have until June 28, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contacts

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A
securities fraud class action is pending and certain investors may
have valuable claims.

Class Period: Sept. 11, 2020 – Apr. 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PTON
Contact An Attorney Now: PTON@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
The complaint alleges Peloton misled investors by misrepresenting
and concealing that (1) Peloton was focused on safety, (2)
Peloton's Tread+ caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both, including
death, and (3) despite knowledge of the dangers posed by Tread+,
defendants did not recall or suggest halting its use.

Investors began to learn the truth on Apr. 17, 2021, when the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission urgently warned consumers to
stop using the Tread+ after finding one death and dozens of
incidents of children being sucked under the Tread+. The next day,
CEO John Foley announced Peloton had no intention of recalling or
to stop selling the Tread+, calling the CPSC's warning "inaccurate
and misleading."

These events sent the price of Peloton shares crashing lower.

Most recently, on May 5, 2021, Peloton issued a recall of its
Tread+ and admitted it was wrong to call the CPSC's warning
"inaccurate and misleading."

This news sent the price of Peloton shares crashing lower again.

"We're focused on investors' losses proving Peloton deceived
investors about the dangers posed by Tread+," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Peloton investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Peloton should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email PTON@hbsslaw.com.

                   About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 28, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Peloton Interactive,
Inc. (NasdaqGS: PTON), if they purchased the Company's securities
between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Peloton and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pton/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 28, 2021.

                        About the Lawsuit

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

On May 5, 2021, the Company disclosed two separate recalls of its
Tread+ and Tread treadmills following numerous reports of injury,
advising that it had stopped sales and distribution and that
"[c]onsumers who have purchased either treadmill should immediately
stop using it and contact Peloton for a full refund or other
qualified remedy."

On this news, shares of Peloton plummeted 14%, or $14.08 per share,
to close at $82.62 per share on May 5, 2021.

The case is Wilson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al.,
21-cv-03299.

                 About Kahn Swick

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


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a national shareholder rights litigation
firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Peloton
Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:PTON) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 28, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact David J. Schwartz of Labaton
Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, New York, at (800) 321-0476,
to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us
through the firm's website at www.labaton.com, or by email at
david@labaton.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Peloton's Tread+ product was a serious
safety risk to small children and pets, resulting in multiple
incidents of injury to both including the tragic death of one
child. The Company knew about the safety risk but did not treat
safety as a priority, failing to recall or suggest a usage halt of
the Tread+. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC")
announced that the Tread+ represented a serious risk to public
safety and urged consumers with small children to stop using the
product. The CPSC also found that the Tread+ represented a safety
risk to consumers that lost their balance. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Peloton, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Labaton Sucharow LLP represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Dept. of Health Faces COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
local21news.com reports that the Department of Health is now the
target of a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit filed surrounds the
information of thousands of Pennsylvanians that has been
compromised.

In the lawsuit, the Department of Health and Insight Global, the
company responsible for the contact tracing, are being accused of
negligence.

Attorney Scott Cooper from the firm Schmidt Kramer is pointing the
finger at Insight Global and the Department of Health for exposing
more than 72,000 Pennsylvanians' personal information through a
contact tracing data breach.

"When people signed up to be contact traced and to be notified if
they were exposed to COVID, they were given assurances by the
company that it was going to be kept confidential," said Cooper.

The information leaked included names, phone numbers, gender
identity, and other information which was accessible through a
simple Google search.

"Even from the initial reports, the company knew this was happening
back in November and didn't even report it to the commonwealth
until February," said Cooper.

Cooper says the class action lawsuit demands including paying for
seven years of credit monitoring, requiring more data gathering,
and other rewards needed.

"You're dealing with thousands and thousands of people, some might
not even care, but others are going to be up in arms," said
Cooper.

The Department of Health says they will not comment on litigation.
They tell CBS 21 News the issue with Insight Global was addressed
in January, but claim the company's attempted remedy didn't fix the
issue.

"The thing that's hard about the data breach is it's really hard to
nail down after a breach has occurred, or you had a cybersecurity
incident if the hackers are really gone," Keath said.

And though Keath would not be surprised if this was the first of
many breaches stemming from contact tracing – he does point out a
silver lining.

"I think in the future as we do contact tracing or government
contracts in general, there is going to be a lot more stipulations,
'do you have these security parameters in place are you going to
put them in place? Okay, prove to me you have them in place. You
have to prove it now,'" Keath said.

Cooper says while only one Plaintiff has joined the class action
suit, he expects many more to sign on in the days ahead. [GN]

PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Breach of Confidential Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
wtae.com reports that a federal class-action lawsuit alleges
negligence by Pennsylvania's Health Department and a COVID-19
contact-tracing contractor, "Insight Global," in the leaking of
personal health information gathered for the state.

"What has been reported to date has just been dumbfounding, that
folks would have their private health information breached," Phil
Dilucente, one of the attorneys filing the lawsuit said. "I think
we would all agree that there's nothing more personal than a
person's private health information."

The suit says private health information of thousands of people
leaked onto the Internet in a data breach traced to security
failures by the contractor's contact tracing employees who did not
follow correct safety practices.

"Instead they were using totally unsecured Google spreadsheets that
we understand were available with a crafty Google search to anybody
who decided to make that search. That means anyone with a nefarious
purpose could have Googled this information and come across it on
the Internet fairly easily," said Lauren Nichols, another attorney
filing lawsuit.

Jack Goodrich, another attorney filing the lawsuit said, "This is
people's personal information. It should not be out there. The
representations that were made to people was that this was going to
be protected, this was going to be private, nobody was going to
know about it."

The lawsuit alleges Insight Global employees maintained unsecured
spreadsheets, databases and documents for tens of thousands of
people that were available to the public through a Google search
and with no login or password needed for access.

The suit claims both Insight Global and the Health Department knew
about the problem long before the people affected did. It claims
the contractor knew as early as November its employees weren't
using secure data storage or communications and that the state was
notified by February 2021.

The Health Department says it has not been served with the lawsuit
and generally doesn't comment on litigation.

The contractor emailed this statement to Pittsburgh's Action News
4:

"Insight Global has not been served with the lawsuit and will need
time to analyze any allegations, but can say that we are working
closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Health to identify any
individuals whose information may have been affected and have taken
steps to secure and prevent any further access to, or disclosure
of, information. Although neither Insight Global nor the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are aware at this time of the misuse
of the information involved, we understand the concern that this
potential access to such information may raise and we will be
offering credit monitoring and identity protection services at no
cost to those affected by this incident. We have established a call
center (toll-free 1-855-535-1787) to help address questions about
this incident."

The Pennsylvania State Senate communications and technology
committee will hold a public hearing on the allegations. [GN]


PHH MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Reopen Law & Motion in Munoz RESPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the motion to reopen law and motion
filed on behalf of Defendants PHH Corp., PHH Mortgage Corp., PHH
Home Loans, LLC, and Atrium Insurance Corp. on Feb. 6, 2021.

The Plaintiffs allege in the certified class action that the
Defendants violated the anti-kickback provisions of Section 8 of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by requiring
mortgage insurers to which PHH had referred private mortgage
insurance ("PMI") business to enter into captive reinsurance
agreements with Atrium, a reinsurer owned by PHH.  According to the
Plaintiffs, this requirement allowed the Defendants to extract
kickbacks from those mortgage insurers for the PMI business that
PHH had referred to them.

The Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who "obtained
residential mortgage loans originated and/or acquired by PHH and/or
its affiliates on or after June 2, 2007 through December 31, 2009,
and, in connection therewith, purchased private mortgage insurance
and whose loans were included within PHH's captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements."

The case has been pending since 2008, and the question of Article
III standing has been addressed twice by the Court.  First, on
Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings, rejecting their argument that the
Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege that they
were overcharged for PMI premiums and concluding instead that
overcharging is not required for standing under Section 8 of RESPA.
Second, on Aug. 18, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, concluding
again that overcharging is not required for standing under Section
8 of RESPA and also that the Plaintiffs have adequately
demonstrated their standing to proceed with their RESPA claim
because their allegation "that they were not provided a meaningful
choice as to whether they wished to participate in a captive
reinsurance program constitutes an allegation that they suffered a
concrete, particularized harm -- one explicitly identified by
Congress."

Following the Court's ruling on summary judgment, the Court held a
status conference on Sept. 2, 2020 to discuss scheduling a date for
trial and to explain the difficulties in doing so given the
judicial emergency in the district and the Court's closure during
the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.  Several of the Defendants'
attorneys appeared at that conference and expressed the Defendants'
position with regard to trial scheduling, anticipated length of
trial, and possible consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
Neither party raised any concerns regarding the Court's order on
summary judgment at that status conference.

Following the status conference, on Sept. 17, 2020, the Court
scheduled a pretrial conference for Nov. 30, 2020.  However, on
Oct. 16, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue
the pretrial conference for 60 days because the Defendants had
retained new counsel and the Plaintiffs had agreed to accommodate
the Defendants' request for additional time for their new counsel
to become more familiar with the matter.

On Jan. 15, 2021, the parties submitted their joint pretrial
statement as required in advance of the pretrial conference, which
the Court held on Feb. 1, 2021.  In that pretrial statement and at
the pretrial conference, the Defendants stated their belief that
there is a threshold issue in the case regarding whether the
Plaintiffs have standing to bring their Section 8 RESPA claim, and
as a result, the Defendants expressed their intention to file a
renewed motion for summary judgment solely on that issue.

At the pretrial conference and in the tentative pretrial order
issued by the court thereafter, the Court explained that because
the Defendants had not yet filed a motion to reopen law and motion
in the case, it would not consider the merits of any standing
arguments or motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing
unless and until such a motion to reopen were granted.  In
response, the Defendants stated their intention to file a motion to
reopen law and motion, supported by the requisite showing of good
cause.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Defendants filed the pending motion to reopen
law and motion for the sole purpose of filing a renewed motion for
summary judgment on the issue of Article III standing.  The
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the pending motion on March 2,
2021.  The Defendants filed their reply thereto on March 9, 2021.

Analysis

In their pending motion, the Defendants contend that there is good
cause to reopen law and motion in the case to allow them to file a
renewed motion for summary judgment on the sole issue of Article
III standing because they have been diligent, their motion would
promote judicial economy, and to allow the filing of their motion
at this time would not prejudice the Plaintiffs.

A. Defendants' Diligence

The Defendants assert that the Court's August 12, 2020 order
"prompted the need to evaluate the factual support for the
allegations on which the Court based its standing ruling," and
since then, they have been diligent in raising the standing issue.
They emphasize that the parties did not brief the issue of standing
based on an alleged lack of meaningful disclosure or choice, the
parties did not present evidence on this point in connection with
the prior summary judgment motions, and standing on that basis was
not discussed during oral argument on the motions for summary
judgment.

In their opposition to the pending motion to amend the scheduling
order, the Plaintiffs counter that the Defendants cannot establish
their diligence because they could have challenged the Plaintiffs'
allegations of inadequate disclosure well before the Court's Aug.
12, 2020 summary judgment order.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants could have raised this issue before the dispositive
motion filing deadline of Sept. 9, 2016 because at that time, the
years-long discovery period in the case had already closed and all
of the facts or evidence that the Defendants needed to bring such a
motion were in the record.

Judge Drozd finds that the Defendants have not been diligent in
raising the standing issue so as to justify modifying the
scheduling order in the case.  First, the Defendants' retention of
new counsel, alone, is clearly insufficient to support a finding of
diligence.  Second, the Judge is not persuaded that merely because
the Court's Aug. 12, 2020 order supposedly introduced the concept
that the Plaintiffs have standing based on inadequate disclosures
-- an issue that the parties had not briefed or presented evidence
on -- it necessarily follows that the Defendants could not have
raised that issue themselves in their original motion for summary
judgment.

Third, the Judge is not persuaded that there had been any
intervening authority that would justify the Defendants' delay in
raising their challenge to the Plaintiffs' Article III standing
based on inadequate disclosure.  To the extent the Defendants
believed otherwise, he says they could have filed a notice of
supplemental authority during the four years that the parties'
cross motions for summary judgment were under submission.  They did
not do so.

Although it is reason enough to deny the Defendants' motion to
reopen law and motion, he nevertheless briefly addresses their
other arguments.

B. Promote Judicial Economy and Lack of Prejudice to Plaintiffs

The Defendants assert that resolving the threshold Article III
standing issue before trial would promote judicial economy and
would not prejudice the Plaintiffs.  They emphasize the judicial
economy in requiring the Plaintiffs to satisfy their burden on this
jurisdictional issue "to show -- not just allege -- that they have
Article III standing" before expending resources on a trial.  In
addition, the Defendants argue that allowing them to file their
anticipated renewed motion for summary judgment would promote
judicial economy because that motion is potentially case
dispositive.

In their opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that reopening law and
motion at this late date would not promote judicial economy because
"the proposed successive summary judgment motion would directly
implicate disputed facts that the Court, in ruling on the parties'
previous summary judgment motions, determined cannot be resolved
prior to trial."  They counter the Defendants' assertion that this
standing issue is well-suited for resolution via summary judgment
by arguing that the Court cannot adjudicate the adequacy of the
disclosures at issue "simply by looking at their content."

Judge Drozd is not persuaded that judicial economy would be
promoted by allowing the Defendants to file a renewed motion for
summary judgment on the issue of standing.  Although he recognizes
that such a motion has the potential to be case dispositive, the
Jduge shares the Plaintiffs' view that a dispositive outcome is
unlikely in the case given that the parties dispute the accuracy of
the contents of the disclosures that the Defendants provided to the
Plaintiffs.

The Judge is also not convinced that the Plaintiffs would not be
prejudiced by any delay in proceeding to trial if the Court were to
grant the Defendants' motion to reopen law and motion.  He
recognizes that the Court continues to face difficulties in
scheduling a realistic trial date in the case given the crisis
caused by the ongoing lack of judicial resources in the district
and the coronavirus pandemic.  But, even factoring in the soonest
realistic trial date, the Judge finds that the Defendants' argument
that the Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced is premised on an
incorrect assumption about the demands placed on the Court by that
judicial emergency.

Conclusion

In sum, Judge Drozd finds that the Defendants have failed to
establish that they were diligent in raising the issue of the
Plaintiffs' Article III standing, and the Defendants have failed to
otherwise show good cause to modify the scheduling order for
purposes of reopening law and motion in the case.  For these
reasons, he denied the Defendants' motion to reopen law and
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hxybzrk2 from Leagle.com.


PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE: Filing of Consent Notice in Teblum Ordered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARYL TEBLUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE CARE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-403-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Fort Myers Division, orders the parties to file a
notice of consent form, if applicable.

The matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the
file.

The case is a class-action lawsuit for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The parties have settled the case and are
awaiting the final approval and fairness hearing on June 14, 2021,
before Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy.

Now that all the substantive issues have been decided, Judge
Chappell reminds the parties they are free to consent to the
assigned United States Magistrate Judge (Judge McCoy) for the final
approval of the settlement agreement.  Judge McCoy will be able to
finalize the settlement soon after the hearing if the parties
consent.  If the parties choose to consent, Judge Chappell directs
them to file a notice of consent form (available on the Court's
website).  Of course, either party is free to withhold consent
without any adverse consequences.  If applicable, the parties must
file a notice of consent form.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5afmk9nx from Leagle.com.


PINTEREST INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) ("Pinterest") that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Pinterest securities
between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Pinterest securities during the Class Period may, no later than
June 28, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/pinterest-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pinterest.

Pinterest operates a platform that provides inspiration for its
users' lives. Monthly active users ("MAUs") are the number of
Pinterest users who interact with Pinterest at least once during
the 30-day period ending on the date of measurement.

The Class Period commences on February 4, 2021, when Pinterest
announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results
in a press release. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants
touted its user engagement and growth.

However, the truth was revealed on April 27, 2021 when, after the
market closed, Pinterest announced its first quarter 2021 financial
results and reported that global monthly active users grew only 30%
year-over-year to 478 million, a decline from the prior quarter's
37% year-over-year growth. Pinterest further announced that, "[i]n
Q2, we expect global MAUs to grow in the mid-teens and US MAUs to
be around flat on a year-over-year percentage basis."

Following this news, Pinterest's share price fell $11.25, or 14.5%,
to close at $66.33 per share on April 28, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) user growth
was already slowing; (2) as a result, Pinterest expected user
engagement to slow in the second quarter of 2021; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
Pinterest's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Pinterest investors may, no later than June 28, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

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

PITTSBURGH, PA: Attorneys Criticize Health Department Over Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Schiller at cbslocal.com reports that information about
private health conditions should remain private and not wind up on
the other end of a Google search.

That's why Pittsburgh-area attorneys say they filed a federal
class-action lawsuit, the first of its kind related to COVID-19
contact tracing.

KDKA's Meghan Schiller talked with the lead attorneys about why
they claim the Pennsylvania Department of Health failed to notify
the public.

KDKA's Meghan Schiller confirmed the state Senate will hold a
hearing to discuss the breach and the Pennsylvania acting health
secretary will testify.

"The representations that were made to people that this was going
to be protected, this was going to be private, nobody was going to
know about it. To the contrary, that was not what happened," said
Attorney Jack Goodrich.

Goodrich - along with attorneys Phil DiLucente, Lauren Nichols and
Ken Nolan - spoke out for the first time regarding the alleged
statewide data breach that sparked a class-action lawsuit.

The attorneys filed the suit against the Pennsylvania Department of
Health and Insight Global, Inc., the company contracted for
COVID-19 contact tracing across the commonwealth.

"We would all agree that there is nothing more personal than a
person's private health information," said DiLucente.

"We're not just talking about someone's name, gender, or their
phone number or their sexual orientation or gender presentation or
family size or members of their family. but health data, the place
that they work," said DiLucente.

Internal emails obtained by these attorneys allegedly show
employees at Insight Global knew about the lack of passwords or
encryptions used to safeguard this information.

"How does getting paid $29 million lead to using a Google document
and private personal Gmail accounts, rather than some sort of
secured internal server, secured network?" said Nichols.

The Atlanta-based company's website addresses the breach of data,
saying the breach only affected some people, adding anyone affected
will be "notified by mail."

Nolan said that the ramifications could include identity theft or
COVID-discrimination.

"You look at persons who are applying for a job and there is
information that should not be available on Google that was
available for Google for these potential employers," said Nolan.
[GN]

POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the class
action suit initiated by Jerome Treadwell remains stayed.

In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff has since voluntarily
dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit without prejudice and filed an
amended complaint in April 2019.

The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss.

In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be
potentially dispositive in this matter.

In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay. In April 2020, the court
granted the Company's motion to stay and stayed the case pending
the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony
Healthcare.

In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the court granted the
parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60
days.

The court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement
conference with the Magistrate Judge which has been scheduled for
late May 2021.

The stay remains in place through the scheduled settlement
conference. The parties have engaged in preliminary settlement
discussions in advance of the settlement conference.

As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company recorded an
estimated liability of $0.3 million related to the potential
settlement of this matter.

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.


PRIME NOW: Adami Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SIMA ADAMI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRIME NOW LLC, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21CV379387, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on May 19,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-03764-VKD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to timely pay minimum, regular and/or overtime
wages; failure to timely pay all wages due and owing upon
separation of employment; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to maintain accurate employment records; and
unfair business practices.

Prime Now LLC is a provider of internet retail and mailing order
services located in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Heather L. Richardson, Esq.
         Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
         Lily Bu, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
                 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                 lbu@gibsondunn.com

QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Lawsuit on Behalf of Ex Coach Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec Superior Court justice has
authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of victims of a former
Montreal police officer and minor hockey coach who died awaiting
trial on sex-related charges.

Justice Pierre Gagnon authorized the $11-million lawsuit against
the estate of François Lamarre and the City of Longueuil, Que., on
Montreal's south shore.

The court filing alleges Lamarre sexually abused dozens or possibly
hundreds of children over a 30-year span, including when he worked
as a minor hockey coach in the former city of Greenfield Park,
Que., which has since been absorbed by Longueuil.

Pierre Boivin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, says hundreds of
victims suffered at the hands of Lamarre, who was arrested and
charged with gross indecency, indecent exposure, sexual assault,
sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching, involving four
alleged male victims between the ages of nine and 16.

Already ill at the time of his arrest, Lamarre died in July 2020.
He had retired from the Montreal police force in 1994. None of his
alleged crimes were alleged to have occurred while he was on duty.

Boivin says the city has argued the only people who can sue are
members of hockey teams coached by Lamarre, but the lawsuit
includes alleged victims that lived in Lamarre's neighbourhood and
never encountered him at the hockey rink.

The lead plaintiff in the case is a man who was allegedly abused by
Lamarre in the 1970s, starting when he was a 10-year-old hockey
player.

Boivin said in an interview he's happy the victims will be able to
seek justice.

A trial date has not been set.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 7, 2021.
[GN]


RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, INC. (dba
Kroger Company); and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2021-00022018-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May
18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to
authorize and permit paid rest periods, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to pay all wages owed upon separation, failure to
pay timely wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to pay the
correct vacation, paid time off (PTO), bonus, meal and rest break
premiums, overtime, and sick leave rates.

The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt all-purpose clerk in
California from January 2017 to June 13, 2020.

Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc., doing business as Kroger Company, is
an American supermarket chain in Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Sean Sasan Vahdat, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676

RCI HOSPITALITY: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into RCI
Hospitality Holdings Inc. (NasdaqGS: RICK).  

On December 11, 2018, the Company disclosed that it was unable to
timely file its annual report for the FYE September 30, 2018 due to
"delays in completing the audit of its financial statements for the
year ended September 30, 2018." Then, on May 10, 2019, the Company
disclosed an informal inquiry by the SEC into its financial
statements after a "series of negative articles" alleged that the
company had omitted certain related party transactions, and that it
had established a special committee to conduct an internal,
independent review of those matters.

On July 18, 2019, the Company disclosed that its independent
auditor, BDO USA, LLP, had resigned based on what BDO found to be
an insufficient review process and failure to take appropriate
remedial action. On July 22, 2019, the Company disclosed that the
special committee had concluded that its FY 2018 10-K needed be
supplemented to include previously undisclosed information. On
September 24, 2019, the Company disclosed that the SEC's informal
inquiry had transitioned into a formal investigation. Finally, on
September 22, 2020, the Company disclosed it had reached a
settlement of a civil administrative proceeding with the SEC that
included a civil penalty in the amount of $400,000.

The Company has been sued in a securities class action lawsuit for
failing to disclose material information, violating federal
securities laws.  Recently, the court presiding over the case
denied the Company's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move
forward.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether RCI's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders or
otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of RCI shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-rick/ to learn more.

                        About Kahn Swick

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

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]



REPRO-MED SYSTEMS: Portnoy Law Reminds of May 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRMD)
investors that acquired shares between August 4, 2020 and January
25, 2021. Investors have until May 25, 2021 to seek an active role
in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged within this complaint that Repro-Med made materially
misleading and/or false statements and failed to disclose that: (1)
beginning in January 2020, Repro-Med ramped up the use of
allowances, including growth rebates, in order retain key customers
and incentivize growth; (2) as these rebates accrued, Repro-Med's
net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Repro-Med's positive statements about their
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 25,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]


ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Seeks to Extend Response Time on Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BYRON INGRAM and STEVEN
DUNLAP, individually, and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees, v. ROCORE
KNOXVILLE, LLC, ROCORE THERMAL SYSTEMS, LLC, and KELVION, INC.
A/K/A KELVION COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00423-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.),
the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order extending the time
to submit their response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification.

Pursuant to the proposed schedule in the parties' Rule 26(f)
Report, the Plaintiffs were to file their Motion for Conditional
Certification on or before May 3, 2021, which triggers a 90-day
period for Defendants to conduct Phase I Pre-Conditional
Certification Discovery. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification would then be due within 30
days after the conclusion of the Pre-Conditional Certification
Discovery Period (i.e., 120 days after Plaintiffs file their Motion
for Conditional Certification).

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for FLSA Conditional
Certification on May 3, 2021. Thus, pursuant to the parties'
proposed schedule in the Rule 26(f) Report, the Phase I
Pre-Conditional Certification Discovery Period began on May 3, 2021
and ends on Friday, July 30, 2021, and the Defendants' Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is due on Tuesday,
August 31, 2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/344iuae at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Regina W. Calabro, Esq.
          Luci L. Nelson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
          STEWART, P.C.
          Forum IV
          8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 787-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
          E-mail: gina.calabro@ogletree.com
                  luci.nelson@ogletree.com

ROLF C. HAGEN: Kramer Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rolf C. Hagen (USA)
Corp. The case is styled as Elizabeth Kramer, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Rolf C. Hagen (USA) Corp.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10748-WGY (D. Mass., May 6, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Hagen -- http://www.hagen.com/-- makes smart pet care products
based on animal instincts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca G. Pontikes, Esq.
          PONTIKES LAW, LLC
          10 Tremont Street, 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: (617) 357-1888
          Fax: (857) 488-4020
          Email: rpontikes@pontikeslawllc.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces Hiller Suit Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE HILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC. and RUBY TUESDAY
OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01045-PAB (N.D. Ohio,
May 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated restaurant staff appropriate minimum
wages.

Plaintiff Hiller worked for Defendants as a waitress at the Ruby
Tuesday location in North Olmstead, Ohio from February 2015 to
March 2020.

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. is an owner and operator of a chain of
restaurants in the U.S.

Ruby Tuesday Operations, LLC is an owner and operator of a chain of
restaurants in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Building, Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Thomson Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Thomson, as representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation
Savings & Retirement Plan v. Russell Investment Management LLC and
Caesars Holdings Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961 (D. Nev., May 19,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

According to the complaint, Russell's Retirement Plan holds the
retirement savings of more than 40,000 employees of Caesars
affiliates nationwide. The Defendants obtained control of the
Plan's investment menu in 2017 and promptly filled the Plan with
its own poorly performing proprietary funds. The Defendants' gambit
was a life preserver for its struggling funds and brought $1.4
billion in new investment at a critical time when other plan
sponsors were leaving the Defendants' funds. The deal did not
promote the interest of Plan participants, however, as the Plan
already had in place a menu of leading funds that consistently
outperformed the Defendants' funds at similar or lower levels of
risk. Not surprisingly, the Defendants' self-serving swap has been
disastrous for the Plan and cost participants more than $100
million in lost investment earnings to date. The Plaintiff brings
this action to recover these losses and obtain equitable relief and
other appropriate relief as provided by ERISA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan, and has been a
participant since 2014.

Russell offers investment services to institutional investors,
including retirement plans, healthcare organizations, endowments,
and foundations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul S. Padda, Esq.
          PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
          4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Phone: (702) 366- 1888
          Email: psp@paulpaddalaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          Email: lukas@nka.com
                 krichter@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com
                 bbauer@nka.com


S.MA'AT: Denial of Rast Bid to Certify Class Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned STEVEN Z. RAST v. S.MA'AT,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00547-TAD-KK (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Katleen
Kay recommends that the motion to certify class and motion to add
Plaintiffs to Case be denied.

The Plaintiff filed the pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), presently
before this Court, on March 1, 2021. He alleges that the defendant
failed to provide adequate water, electricity, sewage or laundry to
prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale,
Louisiana (FCIO), during severe winter weather in February 2021.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of himself and other
prisoners at FCIO.

A copy of the Judge Recommendation dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wpXPJR at no extra
charge.[CC]

SAN ANTONIO: Faces Orozco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS OROZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAN ANTONIO BAKERY INC. D/B/A SAN ANTONIO
RESTAURANT AND BAKERY, RUBEN GUZMAN and ELIZABETH SANTANA,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-02792 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid
overtime and spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide a wage notice
at the time of hiring, and failure to provide wage statements.

Mr. Orozco worked for the Defendants as a master baker at San
Antonio Restaurant and Bakery in New York until March 4, 2021.

San Antonio Bakery Inc., doing business as San Antonio Restaurant
and Bakery, is an owner and operator of a restaurant and bakery in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 832-1000
         E-mail: ls@Stillmanlegalpc.com

SBF FINANCE: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SBF Finance and
Technology LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mario Benitez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SBF
Finance and Technology LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00960-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2021).

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

SBF Finance and Technology LLC doing business as Small Business
Funding --http://www.smallbusinessfunding.com/-- is located in
King OF Prussia, Pennsylvania and is part of the Lending
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Duban Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrey M. Duban, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Scandinavian Airlines System,
Inc., Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc., Case No.
153608-21 was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, County of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on May 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04524 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Scandinavian Airlines, usually known as SAS --
https://www.flysas.com/ -- is the flag carrier of Denmark, Norway
and Sweden.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bartholomew James Banino, Esq.
          CONDON AND FORSYTH LLP (NYC)
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 894-6818
          Fax: (212) 370-4453
          Email: bbanino@condonlaw.com


SCI TENNESSEE: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Smith and Mark Rogers, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. SCI TENNESSEE FUNERAL
HOME SERVICES, LLC and SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
3:21-cv-00185 (E.D. Tenn., May 18, 2021), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages owed to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs worked 40 hours or more per week within weekly pay
periods during all times material to this action. The Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated hourly-paid associates performed work
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay
periods without being compensated for such time at the applicable
FLSA overtime rates of pay. By its failure to accurately record all
their compensable times and pay the Plaintiffs for all such
compensable "on-call" duty time, the Defendants willfully failed to
compensate them for all such time at the applicable overtime rates
of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material as
required by the FLSA, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed in the Defendants' funeral home in
Knoxville, Tennessee.

The Defendants owns and operates funeral homes and crematories
throughout the United States, including a funeral home in
Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant , Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


SKILLZ INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of July 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
To join the Skillz class action, go to https://lowey.com/cases/ or
call our attorneys at 914-733-7256 or email
investigations@lowey.com for more information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's
revenues had declined substantially; (ii) Skillz's revenue
recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the
company; (iii) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the
Android market; and (iv) as a result, defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to https://lowey.com/cases/ or call
914-733-7256 or email investigations@lowey.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Lowey has represented both individual and institutional investors,
including pension funds, hedge funds, and mutual funds in cases
involving misconduct in some of the world's largest financial
markets. For example, Lowey has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors in LIBOR and Euribor based derivatives and
currently leads the prosecution of seven benchmark rate
manipulation cases.

Contact Information:
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, New York 10601
Tel: 914-733-7256
investigations@lowey.com
www.lowey.com [GN]

SNAP FINANCE: Wesley Reply in Support of Class Cert. Bid Due May 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI WESLEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. SNAP FINANCE, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00148-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the parties have agreed
to ask the Court to extend the response and reply deadlines by a
week, respectively.

-- May 14, 2021: Deadline for Defendant to file its response in
                  opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
                  certification and appointment of class counsel.

-- May 28, 2021: Deadline for Plaintiff to file her reply in
                  support of her motion for class certification.

On March 25, 2021, Brandi Wesley and Snap Finance, LLC filed a
joint stipulation regarding a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification. On April 1, 2021, the Court entered
the following briefing schedule:

   Deadline for Plaintiff to file her           April 16, 2021
   motion for class certification and
   appointment of class counsel:

   Deadline for Defendant to file its           May 7, 2021:
   response in opposition to Plaintiff's
   motion for class certification
   and appointment of class counsel:

   Deadline for Plaintiff to file her reply     May 21, 2021:
   in support of her motion for
   class certification and
   appointment of class counsel:

A copy of the Parties stipulation dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f30zH8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Greene, Esq.
          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: jgreene@aklawfirm.com
                  jscott@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Road No. 288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 401-4882
          E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          One Utah Center
          201 South Main Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221
          Telephone: 801.531.3000
          Facsimile: 801.531.3001
          E-mail: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Jenny N. Perkins, Esq.
          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          B ALLARD S PAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 665-8500
          Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
          E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com
                  bryce@ballardspahr.com

SO-YOUNG INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of So-Young International Inc. (NASDAQ: SY) resulting
from allegations that So-Young may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2090.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 6, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca
Capital released a report regarding So-Young stating "Lips can be
fake. Financials shouldn't be." The report also stated that Blue
Orca's "Data Scrape Shows Widespread Booking Fabrication on SY's
Platform[,]" and that Blue Orca "estimate[s] that SY exaggerates
the bookings from these clinics by at least 4-5x during the period
we monitored. We think this indicates, persuasively, that SY is
inflating both the popularity of its platform and its reported
revenues." The report further stated that "[l]ike SY's booking
revenues, we think the evidence shows that SY's advertising
revenues are largely inflated[,]" due in part to Blue Orca's "data
scrapping reveal[ing] that 24% of the clinics sold zero procedures
on SY's platform in 2020[,]" and "that over 50% of the clinics
listed on the platform had 50 or fewer bookings."

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

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

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


SONY COMPUTER: Facing Class-Action Over Digital Game Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
comicbook.com reports that in 2019, PlayStation made the decision
to no longer offer codes for digital games for sale at retail
locations. While consumers can still purchase gift cards for the
PlayStation Store at retailers, Sony's digital store is the only
place PlayStation fans can purchase games for the platform.
According to Bloomberg, consumers unhappy with this decision have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging that
Sony's practice is monopolistic. Caccuri v. Sony Interactive
Entertainment LLC was filed in U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California. The filing claims that consumers can end up
paying up to "175%" more for digital games over their physical
counterparts.

"Sony's monopoly allows it to charge supracompetitive prices for
digital PlayStation games, which are significantly higher than
their physical counterparts sold in a competitive retail market,
and significantly higher than they would be in a competitive retail
market for digital games," the filing reads.

It will be interesting to see where the case goes from here! For
gamers that prefer digital games over physical, it's easy to see
how this could be problematic. With Sony now offering a PlayStation
5 Digital Edition, buyers of that particular version of the console
are forced to purchase games directly from PlayStation. When
retailers like Best Buy or Walmart offer sale prices for digital
and physical games, those prices are often better or more
competitive than those on the PlayStation Store. Sony frequently
offers sales on the Store, but the "175%" figure is not totally
unbelievable.

For now, gamers interested in the outcome will just have to wait
and see what happens! In previous console generations, the case
might have been a bit harder to make, as any PlayStation user would
have the option of buying a physical copy for the system. But in
the next-gen era, anyone that buys a digital-only PS5 is now
handcuffed to making purchases through the PlayStation Store.
Whether or not that constitutes a monopolistic practice remains to
be seen, but it certainly seems like the consumers involved in the
lawsuit have a strong case!

Did you purchase an all-digital version of the PlayStation 5? Do
you think Sony's digital store policies are monopolistic? Let us
know in the comments or share your thoughts directly on Twitter at
@Marcdachamp to talk all things gaming![GN]


SOS LIMITED: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) investors that
acquired shares between July 22, 2020 and February 25, 2021.
Investors have until June 1, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that SOS made materially misleading
and/or false statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the true
nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal
executive offices listed in its SEC filings was misrepresented by
SOS; (2) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or
entities fabricated by SOS; (3) SOS had misrepresented the
existence and/or type of mining rigs that it claimed to have
purchased; and (4) SOS's public statements were materially
misleading and false at all relevant times, as a result.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


SPANDEX HOUSE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spandex House, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Spandex House, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02835
(E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Spandex House Inc. -- https://www.spandexhouse.com/ -- is one of
the largest spandex suppliers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPANDEX WORLD: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spandex World, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Spandex World, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02836
(E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

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

Spandex World -- https://spandexworld.com/ -- offers one of the
largest collections of high quality stretch fabrics such as Nylon,
Prints, Hologram, Cotton, Velvet, Laces and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ST. JOHN KNITS: Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as IRINA OSTROVSKAYA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. ST. JOHN KNITS,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
56-2021-00551943-CU-BT-VTA (Filed March 15, 2021), was removed from
the Superior Court of California for Ventura County to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
April 15, 2021.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-03243 to the proceeding.

The claims against SJK arise out of its use of various pricing
statements in a transaction with Plaintiff at its outlet store in
Camarillo, California. The Plaintiff purports to act on behalf of a
putative class of "a]ll persons who, while in the State of
California, during the four year period preceding the filing of the
original Complaint through the date of final judgment in this
action (the Class Period), purchased one or more St. John Outlet
Products at a purported discount off of the stated Reference Prices
on the price tags at any St. John Outlet Stores in the State of
California, and who have not received a refund or credit for their
purchases."

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: violation of
the unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

St. John Knits is a luxury American fashion brand that specializes
in women's knitwear founded in 1962 by Robert and Marie Gray.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  jramsey@sheppardmullin.com

STRAIGHT ARROW: Ryan Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straight Arrow
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Brenda Ryan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Straight Arrow
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04485 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Straight Arrow Products, Inc. -- https://straightarrowinc.com/ --
since 1970, continues to create and provide exclusive hair and skin
care products renowned for quality and performance in both the
Equestrian and Personal Care markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East
          Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com



SUN INDUSTRIES: Underpays Foremen, Hales FLSA Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUN INDUSTRIES, LLC and TOBY BERTHELOT,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-61048 (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a foreman at various
locations in the state of Florida from February of 2021 through
April 23, 2021.

Sun Industries, LLC is a subcontractor of electrical lines and
equipment, with its principal place of business located in Brusly,
Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:   
                                                                   
                 
         Donald R. McCoy, Esq.                 
         DONALD R. McCOY, P.A.
         111 S.E. 12th Street
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 618-6575
         Facsimile: (954) 618-6577
         E-mail: mccoyesquire@me.com

SUNPATH LTD: Fratilla Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPath LTD. The case
is styled as Lorraine Fratilla, Kesha Reid, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SunPath LTD, Case No.
0:21-cv-61055-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2021).

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

SunPath -- https://mysunpath.com/ -- is the administrator of
Vehicle Service Contracts nationwid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mia Alexandria Williams, Esq.
          Terence Michael Mullen, Esq.
          Scott W. Atherton, Esq.
          ATHERTON McAULIFFE REEDERPA
          224 Datura Street, Suite 815
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 475-0665
          Email: mia@athertonlg.com
                 terence@athertonlg.com
                 scott@athertonlg.com


SYLVIA BEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
MODESTA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYLVIA O. BEEMAN and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV18814 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Public Policy, and the California Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
furnish wage and hour statements, failure to provide meal and rest
period compensation, failure to pay wages in a timely manner,
failure to pay overtime compensation, waiting time penalties,
unfair competition, failure to maintain payroll records, and
wrongful termination.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dental hygienist on or
about January 1, 2007 until her termination on February 1, 2021.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
         Lisa Noveck, Esq.
         EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
         65 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 260
         Pasadena, CA 91103
         Telephone: (310) 853-3461
         Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
         E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
                 lisan@pierrelacour.com

TARGET CORPORATION: Chen Files Suit in District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Shukai Chen, Christina Lira-Porcho, Rita
Manning, Keppie Moore, Yike Xue, John Turek, Jack Garthwaite, Robin
Prebe, Jewel Mitchell, Beverly Sikora, Darrell Sandifer, Thelma
Brown, Patricia Logsdon, Lisa Dannolfo, Scott Dunham, Laurie
Williams, Sabrina Jackson, Tammy Gower, Shirley Wiley, Kim
McCullough, Robert Diehl, Stephanie Baker, Jiyoung Kim, Curtis
McMaster, Raymond Lewis, Caleb Rogers, Lindsey Arotin, Angela
Wilczynski, Shanequa Morris, Katrina Bailey, Tori Gouge, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-01247-DWF-DTS (D. Minn., May 19,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud.

Target Corporation -- http://corporate.target.com/-- is an
American retail corporation. The eighth-largest retailer in the
United States, it is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M Cialkowski, Esq.
          Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Fax: (612) 341-0844
          Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                 ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Keuch Must File Class Status Bid by Sept. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDOLPH W. KEUCH, v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., et al., Case No. 19-5488 (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Timothy R. Rice entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. By July 30, 2021, all class discovery shall be completed.

   2. By September 17, 2021, Plaintiff shall file a Motion for
      Class Certification.

   3. By September 17, 2021, all written discovering regarding
      Plaintiff Keuch shall be completed.

   4. By October 15, 2021, Defendants shall file a Response to the

      Motion for Class Certification.

   5. By October 29, 2021, Plaintiff may file a Reply in Further
      Support of Motion for Class Certification.

   6. By November 15, 2021, all deposition discovery regarding
      Plaintiff Keuch shall be completed.

   7. Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed by January 3,
      2022.

   8. Responses in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment shall

      be filed by February 4, 2022. Reply Briefs in Further
      Support of Motions for Summary Judgment may be filed by
      February 18, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wC3xsf at no extra charge.[CC]

TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TRINITY HEALTHSHARE INC. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON,
JUSTINE LUND; and JAIME and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC.,
formerly known as ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ONESHARE
HEALTH, LLC, formerly known as UNITY HEALTHSHARE, LLC and as
KINGDOM HEALTHSHARE MINISTRIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
corporation, Case No. 1:20-CV-02130-RBJ, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants over alleged breach
of fiduciary duties.

The Defendant seeks a review of the order dated April 16, 2021
entered by Judge R. Brooke Jackson, denying a motion to compel
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Smith, et al. v. Trinity
Healthshare, et al., Case No. 21-1187, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance are due on June 1, 2021 for Trinity Healthshare Inc.;
and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on June 1, 2021 for Jaime Beard,
Jared Beard, Ellen Larson, Justine Lund and Rebecca Smith.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant TRINITY HEALTHSHARE INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew C. Baisley, Esq.
          Laurin D. Quiat, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600  

Plaintiffs-Appellees REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON, JUSTINE LUND,
JAIME BEARD, and JARED BEARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH
          8300 Arista Place, Suite 300
          Broomfield, CO 80020
          Telephone: (303) 800-1580
          E-mail: pjbernal@michaelbest.com

               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: ele@sylaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael David Myers, Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY PLLC
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 398-1188
          E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com

               - and -

          Victoria Edna Lovato, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH
          1776 Lincoln Street, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 240-9515
          E-mail: velovato@michaelbest.com

TRINITY INTERNATIONAL: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trinity International
Industries, L.L.C. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf
Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Trinity
International Industries, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-04479 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 18, 2021).

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

TRINITY -- https://www.trinityii.com/ -- offers products for
environmentally friendly storage and organization solutions:
Shelving racks, Garage Cabinets, Kitchens Carts and more.[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


TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: MacMann's Form & Plan of Class Notice OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACI L. MacMANN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., and TROPICANA ST. LOUIS, LLC, D/B/A LUMIERE PLACE CASINO &
HOTELS, Defendants, Case No. 4:19 CV 404 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiff's motion for approval of the form and plan of
notice for both the conditional Fair Labor Standards Act collective
and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class.

Plaintiff MacMann is a former employee of Tropicana St. Louis.  She
worked as a table games dealer and is bringing the action alleging
violations of the FLSA and Missouri Minimum Wage Law on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated.

On March 23, 2021, Judge Sippel issued an order certifying several
FLSA collectives and Rule 23 classes.  Pursuant to that order, the
Plaintiff's moved for approval of their form and plan of notice on
April 20, 2021.  The Defendants object to two portions of the form
and plan of notice.  First, they object to the use of text messages
to notify potential class members and second, they object to the
90-day opt-in period, instead requesting a 60-day opt-in period.

The Plaintiffs propose sending notice to the potential opt-in
plaintiffs using three methods -- U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text
message.  With their Motion, the Plaintiffs included proposed
notice and consent forms in PDF format.   The Defendants object to
the Plaintiff's proposed methods of notice.  They argue that the
use of text messages is not warranted and that notice by U.S. Mail
and email is sufficient.

While he appreciates the Defendant's concern about their employees
and former employees' privacy, Judge Sippel does not find their
argument persuasive.  Although some federal courts in Missouri have
denied requests for notice by text message, others have granted it.
Since the focus at this stage is to ensure class members receive
accurately and time notification, the Judge believes it is best to
provide for multiple methods of notification.  Text messages are
one of the methods of notification most likely to reach the
potential class members and the potential class members will
receive at most four text messages, two for the FLSA collective
action and two for the Rule 23 class.  Therefore, the Judge
approves the proposed methods of notification, which include
notification by U.S. mail, email, and text message.

The Defendants argue that the proposed notice should be modified to
shorten the notice period from 90 days to 60 days.

Judge Sippel agrees with the Defendants that a 90-day notice period
is excessive.  The Plaintiff's concern about their inability to
reach the potential class members by mail is mitigated by the use
multiple notification methods.  Additionally, the class definitions
and sizes are limited.  Therefore, the opt-in period will be
shortened to 60 days.

Accordingly, Judge Sippel grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of form and plan of notice.  The
Plaintiff's Notice of Conditionally Certified Collective Action
Lawsuit, Consent to Join, and Notice of Certified Class Action
Lawsuit, will be amended to provide for an opt-in or opt-out period
of 60 days.  The parties will provide a status report to the Court
within 90 days of the date of the Order and every 90 days
thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jdcjdp from Leagle.com.


ULTA SALON: Bailey Suit Removed from Com. Pleas Court to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA BAILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON,
COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., (Filed April 1, 2021), was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on April 15, 2021.

The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00503-MJH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that "protective face masks" were
"non-taxable" "at or after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic."
The Plaintiff alleges that Ulta Salon "knew or should have known
that the sale of protective face masks was not subject to sales
tax," but "charged sales tax on non-taxable face masks and required
payment of sales tax to obtain non-taxable face masks." The
Plaintiff further alleges that Ulta Salon violated the
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Ulta is an American chain of beauty stores headquartered in
Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta carries cosmetics and skincare brands,
men's and women's fragrances, nail products, bath and body
products, beauty tools and haircare products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          690 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth M. Argentieri, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          600 Grant Street, Suite 5010
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 497-1005
          E-mail: kmargentieri@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1143
          E-mail: dklinges@duanemorris.com

UMASS AMHERST: Parents Sues Over Students' Suspension From School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wcvb.com reports that the family of at least two UMass Amherst
students are fighting back after they say the school kicked the
students out of school this spring, after a photo of them without a
face covering off-campus surfaced.

The family says three female UMass Amherst freshmen, all honors
students, attended an off-campus party in March. A photo of the
three not wearing masks was posted on Instagram.

"They took a picture off-campus and got thrown out of school," one
of the parents of the students removed from the school said.

The families declined using their last names for the story, fearing
it will hurt their daughter's chances when applying to other
schools.

According to family, all three of the students were immediately
moved out of on-campus housing and had to move home and attend
class remotely while they appealed their case.

According to the parents, once word came down that they lost the
appeals, all three girls were immediately kicked out of school
entirely, forfeiting the entire semester and $16,000 tuition paid,
which they say the school will not refund.

"These beautiful young ladies who are honors students have had a
full academic year stripped away and their paths broken of their
higher education for alleged COVID violations," the parent says.

The university did not comment specifically about these cases but
shared a lengthy statement with WCVB documenting the school's
communications with students, faculty and staff.

"Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health and safety of
the UMass Amherst community has been the university's foremost
priority," the university said. "Expectations regarding students'
responsibility to follow public health protocols, and the
consequences for failing to do so, were clearly communicated to
students before and throughout the spring semester, and students
were updated regularly as conditions changed."

"When positive COVID-19 cases surged within the UMass community in
February 2021, the university, in consultation with the state
Department of Public Health, promptly imposed severe restrictions
on campus activities, including the suspension of in-person classes
and a prohibition on student social gatherings," the university
said. "It was made clear to students that those who failed to
comply would be subject to discipline, including suspension.

"The university said a February 7 campus-wide message directed all
students, whether residing in campus residence halls or in
off-campus housing in the surrounding area, were directed to stay
home, except to get meals, undergo twice-weekly COVID testing, or
to attend medical appointments."

A message on March 8 from Brandi Hephner LaBanc, the vice
chancellor for student affairs and campus life, spoke about
"egregious violations of policy" involving hundreds of students in
off-campus gatherings. "All students involved will have their
appropriate due process, but under no circumstances will they
continue as a university student in the interim," LaBanc wrote in
the message.

One of the parents of the girls points to the university's
violation of rules in place.

On April 11, the school welcomes back to campus the men's ice
hockey team, winners of the 2021 National Championship.

"The university hosted a parade/event to celebrate the UMass hockey
team's national championship win, violating every single one of
violations they accuse these girls of," the parent says. "It also
violated a standing executive order by Gov. Charlie Baker that
says, 'no parades, no festivals.'"

With no recourse, the families say they are putting together a
class-action lawsuit against the university, with support from
their state senator.

"University of Massachusetts Amherst, by suspending them, that is a
cost to these families of $16,000," Barry Finegold says. "That is a
huge, hefty penalty for not wearing a mask."

As for UMass, the parent, an alum of the school, has this message
for prospective students and parents. "Really rethink sending your
students to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, not Lowell,
at Amherst, because why not your kid." [GN]


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Smith Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO. and
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 4:18-cv-06336, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on May 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02791-PKC-PK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by imposing
reimbursement penalties on claims for coverage for psychotherapy
services rendered by psychologists and master's level counselors.

United Healthcare Insurance Co. is a health insurance company,
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

United Behavioral Health is a behavioral health services firm based
in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Meiram Bendat, Esq.
         PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
         8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
         West Hollywood, CA 90069
         Telephone: (310) 598-3690
         Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
         E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

                 - and –

         D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
         Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
         Shawn P. Naunton, Esq.
         Anant Kumar, Esq.
         Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
         ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
         485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 704-9600
         Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
         E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                 jcowart@zuckerman.com
                 snaunton@zuckerman.com
                 akumar@zuckerman.com
                 npeyser@zuckerman.com

                 - and –

         John W. Leardi, Esq.
         Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq.
         Paul D. Werner, Esq.
         BUTTACI LEARDI&WERNER LLC
         103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (609) 799-5150
         Facsimile: (609) 799-5180
         E-mail: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com
                 vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com
                 pdwerner@buttacilaw.com

UNITED PARCEL: Failed to Pay Proper OT Compensation, Santiago Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00428-JM
(E.D. Ark., May 18, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and applicable
administrative rules and regulations for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff a proper overtime
compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff estimates he regularly worked approximately 55 to 60
hours per week. The Defendant knew or should have known that the
Plaintiff and other Hub Operations Supervisors were working hours
in excess of forty each week. The Plaintiff and other Hub
Operations Supervisors were not paid overtime wages for hours
worked over forty per week. The Defendant has deprived the
Plaintiff and other salaried Hub Operations Supervisors of overtime
compensation for all of the hours worked over forty per week. The
Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions
violated the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from June of 2013 until
the present as a Hub Operations Supervisor.

The Defendant provides packaging and shipping services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al. v.
Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

Chad F. Wolf was the former Secretary of Homeland Security and
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and
Plans. He was replaced by Alejandro Mayorkas, the seventh United
States Secretary of Homeland Security since February 2, 2021.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
preliminary injunction order in part, vacated it in part, and
remanded so that the district court may immediately address current
circumstances at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Processing Center.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of noncitizens
detained at Adelanto. These noncitizens are being held in civil
detention in connection with various immigration proceedings, and
many of them have no criminal record. The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as habeas relief. Their
Complaint alleges that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
Adelanto's failure to implement necessary protective measures
violates detainees' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. Mayorkas now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated March
10, 2021 granting a Motion for Clarification of the Population
Reduction Order Priority Category One filed by
Petitioners-Plaintiffs Miguel Aguilar Estrada, Beatriz Andrea
Forero Chavez, Kelvin Hernandez Roman. That order further held that
since the time the Government began implementing the Adelanto
Population Reduction Order to now, Juan Carlos Flores and Jose
Gutierrez-Penaloza were not subject to the mandatory detention
orders.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 21-55510, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 18,
2021.[BN]

Respondents-Appellants ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TAE JOHNSON, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ERNEST M. SANTACRUZ, Jr.,
Acting Director of the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and
Removal Operations; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; JAMES
JANECKA, Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are represented
by:

          Hans Harris Chen, Esq.
          Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ ANDREA FORERO
CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (909) 380-7501
          E-mail: jbansal@aclusocal.org
                  mkaufman@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com  

               - and -

          William M. Friedman, Esq.
          Margaret Allison Upshaw, Esq.   
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2159
          E-mail: william.friedman@lw.com

UNITED STATES: Another Round Looms for GFC Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Jemima Whyte at afr.com reports that investment banks and agencies
that rated or sold opaque structured investments during the global
financial crisis (GFC) could face another round of class actions,
after a United States Department of Justice settlement opened the
way for further claims around different financial products.

Banton Group, a law firm running a class action against credit
ratings agency Standard & Poor's for negligence, is widening the
list of financial products it will include in a class action. These
will now include cash flow collateralised debt obligations (CDOs)
of asset-backed securities, residential mortgage-backed securities,
collateralised loan obligations and other forms of structured
financial products.

Lawyer Amanda Banton is working on further class actions linked to
opaque products sold during the GFC.  Tamara Voninski

"It's pretty difficult litigation and it's only because of our
background of having done it since 2007 that we are able to pursue
this," said Amanda Banton, adding that the firm had one claim on
one product already but declined to name the fund.

Ms Banton said the law firm was also exploring claims against
investment banks "in relation to the conduct in the issuance of
flawed financial products".

She said the Department of Justice settlements from 2014 with banks
including Citigroup, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley,
Goldman Sachs and more had paved the way for more litigation of
investment banks.

Of the major investment banks, only UBS is still fighting an
ongoing Department of Justice claim, after turning down a
settlement offer.

The opaque financial products were blamed for spreading market
turmoil around the world during the GFC.

The global credit crisis and its aftermath led to many defaults of
companies referenced by CDOs held by councils and other investors,
with Australian councils and charity foundations losing hundreds of
millions of dollars.

Synthetic CDOs typically take exposure to the debt of about 100
companies - or residential mortgage-backed securities - by
purchasing insurance through the credit default swaps market. The
premiums are then passed on to investors.

But if a set number of companies default on their debt, the entire
investment is declared worthless.

Banton Group ran class actions against S&P alleging negligence,
misleading and deceptive conduct and fraud, resulting in a
groundbreaking $215 million settlement. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss Nakka Suit Against USCIS & DOS Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAGENDRA KUMAR NAKKA, NITHEESHA NAKKA, SRINIVAS
THODUPUNURI, RAVI VATHSAL THODUPUNURI, GIRIJESH THODUPUNURI,
RAJESHWAR ADDAGATLA, VISHAL ADDAGATLA, SATYA VENU BATTULA, SANDEEP
BATTULA, SIVA PEDDADA, PAVANI PEDDADA, VENKATA PEDDADA, MIRIAM
EDWARDS-BUDZADZIJA, ABIGAIL EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-2099-YY (Case No. 3:19-cv-2099-YY) (D. Or.), Judge
Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon issues an Order:

    (i) denying without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to
        Dismiss; and

   (ii) denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' pending motion
        to amend and allowing them leave to file a new Second
        Amended Complaint without the necessity of a motion.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are a group of Indian
nationals who have enjoyed long-term residency in the United States
as beneficiaries of temporary work visas and who have been seeking
permanent residency in the United States through employment-based
immigration visas, and their children who are derivative visa
beneficiaries.

In 2017, Defendants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) implemented a new
national origin-based visa bulletin chart for the distribution of
visas, which Plaintiffs allege threaten to "age out" the children
of high-volume immigrant countries such as India, in violation of
the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  The Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges a Fifth Amendment equal protection
claim (First Claim) and an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim
(Second Claim), primarily relating to the Defendants'
interpretation or implementation of the CSPA.

The Defendants move to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing,
respectively, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.

United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and
Recommendation.  First, Judge You recommended that the Court finds
that the Plaintiffs have Article III standing and that the case is
ripe for adjudication; accordingly, Judge You recommended that the
Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).
Second, Judge You recommended that the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a Fifth Amendment claim and that they lack
statutory (or "zone of interest") standing to bring an APA claim;
accordingly, Judge You recommended that the Court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed timely objections and
timely responded to each other's objections.

Shortly after Judge You issued her Findings and Recommendation, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint, based on new facts that occurred after the filing of the
First Amended Complaint, including facts relating to the alleged
derivative visa beneficiaries.  In light of the Plaintiffs' motion,
the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice and declines to adopt Judge You's Findings and
Recommendation as moot.  It denies the Plaintiffs' current motion
for leave to amend, and grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a new
Second Amended Complaint without the necessity of a motion and with
the benefit of both Judge You's Findings and Recommendation and
this ruling.

For judicial efficiency, and the benefit of the parties going
forward, Judge Simon notes that the Plaintiffs should clarify --
and be explicit -- in their Second Amended Complaint whether they
are challenging the CSPA or the Defendants' interpretation or
implementation of the CSPA as shown through a rule, regulation,
policy, or simply the use of the national origin-based visa
bulletin chart.  Also, he notes that to challenge a law under the
APA, a plaintiff must be within the "zone of interests" that the
law was designed to benefit.  When a plaintiff brings an APA claim
against a federal agency, the zone of interests is defined by "the
statute that the plaintiff says was violated," rather than the APA
itself.

Judge Simon explains that the zone-of-interests test for actions
under the APA is "not especially demanding," giving "the benefit of
any doubt" to the plaintiff and foreclosing suit "only when a
plaintiff's interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent
with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably
be assumed that Congress authorized the plaintiff to sue."  This
requirement, however, "is not toothless" and requires that a
plaintiff "show less than an intent to benefit but more than a
marginal relationship to the statutory purposes."  The Ninth
Circuit has not yet defined the zone of interests for APA claims
under the CSPA.

In addition, it is not material whether one or multiple plaintiffs
bring an APA challenge.

Further, it is well-established that the CSPA was created to
protect "derivative children who might 'age out' of their
beneficiary status" due to administrative processing delays.  As
the Supreme Court has stated, the zone of interests for an APA
challenge should be construed broadly and include all who possess
anything more than a marginal relationship with the statutory
purpose.  It logically follows, therefore, that derivative
beneficiaries who have filed their application pursuant to the
Dates for Filing Chart but have aged out or will likely age out
before they become eligible under the Final Action Dates chart are
within the CSPA's zone of interests.  They are among the group
whose interests are being addressed by the statute.  In addition,
the zone of interests test cannot depend on the substantive outcome
of the APA claim for that particular plaintiff -- to do so would
beg the question.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Simon denies the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.  He declines to adopt Judge
You's Findings and Recommendation as moot.  The Judge denies
without prejudice Plaintiffs' pending motion to amend and allows
the Plaintiffs leave to file a new Second Amended Complaint without
the necessity of a motion.  The Plaintiffs may file their Second
Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of the Order.  The
Defendants will then answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint within 14 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r7kna943 from Leagle.com.

Brent W. Renison -- brent@entrylaw.com -- PARILLI RENISON LLC, at
610 SW Broadway, Suite 505, in Portland, Oregon 97205, Of Attorneys
for Plaintiffs.

Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division; William C. Peachey, Director of the Office of Immigration
Litigation; Samuel P. Go, Assistant Director; Victor M.
Mercado-Santana, Trial Attorney; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, P.O. Box
868, Ben Franklin Station, in Washington, D.C. 20044, Of Attorneys
for Defendants.


UNITED STATES: FAA's Bid to Dismiss in Part Brigida Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW J. BRIGIDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PETE
BUTTIGIEG, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Defendant, Case
No. 16-cv-2227 (DLF) (D.D.C.), Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the
U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia denies
the Federal Aviation Administration's Motion to Dismiss in Part the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Andrew Brigida and Matthew Douglas-Cook, on behalf of
themselves and a putative class, assert employment discrimination
claims against the FAA under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq.

The FAA's mission is to provide the safest, most efficient
aerospace system in the world.  To help execute this mission, the
FAA employs Air Traffic Controller Specialists (ATCS).  ATCSs carry
out thousands of air traffic control actions daily and require
significant training to prepare" for a job with zero margin for
error.

The FAA hires air traffic controllers from multiple sources,
including military veterans and members of the general public.
Because of the number of controllers needed, the difficulty of the
training, and the demands of the role, in 1991, the FAA also
established the Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI
or CTI) program, entering into "partnership agreements with
colleges, universities, and other schools to administer" the AT-CTI
program.  According to the plaintiffs, CTI institutions provide
students with an air traffic curriculum that includes approximately
200 hours of classroom instruction.

In the years following the program's creation, AT-CTI candidates
proved successful, and the FAA "actively encouraged potential
applicants to pursue CTI training as the primary means of obtaining
employment as an air traffic controller."  By 2008, the FAA used a
separate hiring process for qualified CTI candidates.  Graduates of
CTI institutions who were U.S. citizens, received their
institution's recommendation, were below a maximum age, and who
"passed a validated air traffic aptitude test, known as the Air
Traffic Control Selection and Training examination" (AT-SAT) were
"eligible to apply for CTI-only job postings."  Those who scored 85
and above on the AT-SAT were classified as "well-qualified," while
candidates who scored between 70 and 84.9 were classified as
"qualified."

From these three recruitment pipelines -- the general public,
veterans, and AT-CTI candidates -- the FAA "built a substantial
inventory of eligible air traffic controller applicants with
varying degrees of experience and education."  The Plaintiffs
allege, however, that "CTI Qualified Applicants received hiring
preference or were more likely to be hired for ATCS positions," and
that CTI students were significantly more likely to succeed once
hired as a trainee and to ultimately obtain "Certified Professional
Controller" status than those hired from the general public.

Allegedly in response to outside pressure, over the course of 2012
and 2013, the FAA conducted a "barrier analysis for the ATCS
positions," to determine whether the existing hiring processes
served to discourage hiring minority applicants.  Though the
Plaintiffs characterize it as "deeply flawed and outcome-driven,"
the report determined that "African American applicants comprise
only 5% of the CTI pool compared to an average of 34% African
American representation across the non-CTI applicant sources."

In response to this analysis, in 2014, the FAA implemented several
changes to its hiring process for air traffic controllers,
eliminating CTI-only vacancy announcements, creating a new testing
and evaluation process, and ending its consideration of prior
applicants in the FAA's inventory of eligible applicants.  These
changes form the basis of the case.

According to the Plaintiffs, they "had legitimate expectations for
their hiring after they invested thousands of dollars and years of
time to graduate from FAA-partnered academic programs, and pass
FAA-designed, peer-validated, and proctored aptitude tests in order
to be prequalified for hiring as FAA ATCS."

The Plaintiffs allege that the FAA violated Title VII when it
"purged" its "merit-based hiring preference for Qualified
Applicants for Air Traffic Controllers with the intent and purpose
of benefitting African American Air Traffic Controller applicants
and hindering the Class members."  The FAA then violated Title VII
again when it "implemented" a "Biographical Questionnaire into the
2014 Air Traffic Controller hiring process with the intent and
purpose of benefitting African American Air Traffic Controller
applicants and hindering the Class members."  They claim that in so
doing "the FAA refused to accept the outcome of a race-neutral
hiring process solely because of the racial makeup of the
successful applicants," and in its place, created a new
"race-motivated hiring scheme."

The Plaintiffs further allege that to accomplish its objective of
limiting the hiring of qualified non-African American CTI
candidates, "the FAA intentionally slowed its hiring in 2012 and
2013 in anticipation of abandoning the CTI Qualified Applicant
hiring preference." Indeed, according to the plaintiffs, the FAA
"issued a CTI-only ATCS job posting in August of 2012" but "no
hires were made as a result of that posting."  These actions were
taken even though the FAA's "hiring plan required the FAA to hire
over 1,000 controllers per year in calendar years 2012, 2013, and
2014."  When the FAA opened the "new general public announcement
for the ATCS positions" on Feb. 10, 2014, "approximately 4,000 CTI
graduates took the Biographical Questionnaire" but "less than 14%
of them passed."

Plaintiff Andrew Brigida is a Caucasian male, a resident of
Arizona, and an August 2013 graduate of Arizona State University, a
CTI institution.   Brigida passed the AT-SAT on April 3, 2013 "with
the top numerical score possible of 100%."  Following the FAA's
changes in the air traffic controller hiring process, he took and
failed the newly implemented Biographical Questionnaire in 2014.

Plaintiff Matthew Douglas-Cook, a Native American male, resident of
the State of Washington, and December 2013 graduate of another CTI
institution, also took and passed the AT-SAT, recording the top
numerical score possible.  He too subsequently failed the
Biographical Questionnaire.

Neither Brigida nor Douglas-Cook was hired by the FAA as an air
traffic controller.

Before the Court is the FAA's Motion to Dismiss in Part the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.  The FAA contends that the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that they were either
employees or applicants for employment at the time the FAA changed
its process for appointing air traffic controllers.  As a result,
the FAA argues that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under Title
VII because the FAA cannot be said to have taken any employment
action, let alone one that was adverse.

Judge Friedrich disagrees.  She holds that the Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged both that they were applicants and that they
suffered an adverse employment action.

First, reading the complaint as a whole and crediting all
inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, as the Court must at this
stage, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
they were "applicants for employment."  The Plaintiffs were U.S.
citizens who had graduated from CTI schools and passed the AT-SAT.
They had been tracked by the FAA, and were part of the FAA's
preapproved inventory of applicants.  Neither, however, was able to
complete the application process because the FAA declined to open a
vacancy and then purged its preapproved list of candidates,
allegedly for discriminatory reasons.

Thus, "unlike the typical employment situation where an individual
applies for a particular opening," the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs were "applicants for Controller positions that could
have become vacant at any time."  Consistent with decisions in the
Circuit, and based on the facts alleged in the complaint, the Judge
must reject the FAA's bright-line vacancy response position.

Second, the Judge opines that the Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged, at least at this stage, that they "experienced materially
adverse consequences affecting future employment opportunities."
The complaint alleges more than the mere withdrawal of a
preference.  Instead, the allegations describe the FAA's decision
to abolish, for allegedly discriminatory purposes, a purportedly
race-neutral application process that the FAA designed and
implemented and in which the Plaintiffs had invested substantial
time, energy, and resources at the encouragement of the FAA
itself.

These allegations, according to Judge Friedrich, mirror those in
cases that have found Title VII violations where an application
process was redesigned solely to change the racial composition of
the successful applicant pool.  In Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.
557, 579-80 (2009), the Supreme Court has stressed that disparate
treatment "occurs where an employer has treated a particular person
less favorably than others because of a protected trait."

Because the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they were
applicants who were subjected to an adverse employment action,
Judge Friedrich denies the FAA's partial motion to dismiss.  A
separate order consistent with this decision accompanies the
Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8vn8dda from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Doe FERSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN
DOE 3, and JANE DOE 1, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-01947, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 4, 2021, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a
Memorandum:

   -- denying the Government's Motion to Dismiss; and

   -- ruling that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously
      is granted without prejudice to the right of the parties to
      seek modification of the accompanying order at a later
      stage of the proceedings.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1, claim, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, that their employer, the United
States, violated the Federal Employees' Retirement Systems Act of
1986 ("FERSA"), 5 U.S.C. Sections 8351 and 8401, et seq., by
failing to adequately compensate them for lost earnings during the
federal government shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 25,
2019. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that when they received
backpay on January 31, 2019, they were not compensated for the
Government's failure to make timely contributions to the Thrift
Savings Plan ("TSP") -- a defined contribution plan created by
FERSA, which appreciated in value during the Shutdown.

Congress passed FERSA in an effort to offer federal employees a
savings and tax benefit similar to what many private sector
employers offered their employees under 401(k) plans. Specifically,
FERSA created the Thrift Savings Plan ('TSP'), a defined
contribution plan for federal employees. Since its creation over
thirty years ago, the TSP has become the largest retirement plan in
the country, managing more than $500 billion in retirement assets.
The assets of the TSP are held in trust in individual employee
accounts within the Thrift Savings Fund.

Eligible federal employees are automatically entitled to receive a
contribution to their TSP accounts by their employing federal
agency equal to 1% of their salary. Federal employees may also make
elective contributions to their TSP accounts which are deducted
from their paychecks. For all elective deductions up to 5% of the
employee's salary, the United States "matches" 50% to 100% of the
contribution ("matching contributions"). Under the FERSA, Congress
required that employing agencies (i.e., the United States) make all
TSP contributions for the benefit of its employees no later than 12
days after the end of each pay period. "Pay period" refers to the
bi-weekly compensation schedule for federal employees.

The Plaintiffs are Investigative Specialists for the Federal Bureau
of Investigations ("FBI") who worked without paychecks or TSP
contributions during the Shutdown from December 22, 2018, to
January 25, 2019. During the 34-day Shutdown the value of TSP
investment funds increased considerably, across the board. In
particular, the most popular TSP investment funds increased over
10% in the short period of time. Upon funding of the federal
agencies, the Plaintiffs and all TSP participants were entitled to
receive their backpay and be made whole.

The Plaintiffs allege that this backpay should have included their
salary plus lost TSP earnings as a result of not receiving their
contributions in accordance with Section 8432(c) of FERSA. However,
when they received their backpay on January 31, 2019, the
Plaintiffs and other Class members were not compensated for the
United States' failure to make timely TSP contributions. They
estimate that the Class suffered millions in lost earnings as a
result of the United States' untimely TSP contributions in
violation of Section 8432(c) of the FERSA.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Mar. 4 Memorandum entered
by the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as John Doe 1, et al. v. USA, Case
No. 21-8025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on May 7, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:

          Eric D. Gill, Esq.
          Mark J. Sherer, Esq.
          OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 861-8250

               - and -

          Bradley Hinshelwood, Esq.
          Mark B. Stern, Esq.  
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-7823
          E-mail: bradley.a.hinshelwood@usdoj.gov

Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and JANE
DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Douglas J. Bench, Jr., Esq.
          MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES
          860 First Avenue
          Metropolitan Business Center, Suite 5B
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 337-2087

               - and -

          Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
          John B. Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE
          5015 Grand Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567  

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT
          150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019
          E-mail: beth@feganscott.com   

               - and -

          Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 208-1489
          E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com

URBAN HEALTH: Tueros Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tueros and Hermel Lopez, on behalf of themselves the FLSA
Collective and the Class v. URBAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-04525 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021), is brought pursuant to the
Federal Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover from
the Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime wages,
compensation for unpaid off-the-clock work, including unpaid
overtime premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were not compensated for
all hours worked. The Plaintiffs were instructed to clock-out for
meal breaks. On more than half of their work days the Plaintiffs
were unable to take a meal break due to their workload. On days
that the Plaintiffs did not take a break and they did not punch
out; the Defendant would still automatically deduct one hour from
their pay. As a result, the Plaintiffs worked at least three hours
each week, all of which were overtime hours, which were entirely
uncompensated.

The Defendant provides a variety of medical, dental, and health
services, and has several locations throughout New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


URBAN NATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roman Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN NATION APPAREL INC.; SHAHRAM BIJAN;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV18810 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code,
California Public Policy, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal
breaks, discrimination on the basis of physical disability, and
failure to prevent discrimination.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from June 2004 until April 2, 2020.

Urban Nation Apparel Inc. is an apparel firm located in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 956-1111
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

US BANK: Continues to Face Student Loan Suits in Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacities as indenture
trustee and successor special servicer, and three other
institutions in their respective transaction capacities, remain a
defendant in lawsuits with respect to 15 Delaware statutory trusts
and certain student loans, according to a Form 10-D report by COMM
2013-CCRE12 Mortgage Trust filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 13, 2021,
to April 12, 2021.

On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent 15 Delaware
statutory trusts (the DSTs) that issued securities backed by
student loans filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against U.S. Bank National Association in its capacities as
indenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other
institutions in their respective transaction capacities, with
respect to the DSTs and the Student Loans. This lawsuit is
captioned The National Collegiate Student Loan Master Trust I, et
al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., C.A. No.
2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.).

The complaint, as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged the DSTs have
been harmed as a result of purported misconduct or omissions by the
defendants concerning the administration of the trusts and special
servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT
Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have made assertions against
U.S. Bank concerning special servicing that appear to be based on
certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT
Action.

U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative
complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the
case while other prior-filed disputes involving the DSTs and the
Student Loans are being litigated.
  
On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should have
stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed
cases.

U.S. Bank intends to continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


VALVE CORP: Facing Antitrust Lawsuit Over Steam Digital Dominance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Wiseman at za.ign.com reports that Agame developer and two
other people are challenging Valve with a lawsuit over the
company's dominance in PC digital games distribution.

On a blog run by Wolfire Games, CEO David Rosen revealed that he is
leading a class-action antitrust lawsuit representing game
developers against Valve Corporation. He asserted that the near
dominance of Steam on the PC games market increases the prices of
games due to Valve's service taking a 30% commission from the sale
of each game. He also stated that any attempts to diverge from that
system would result in a game being "removed from Steam".

Rosen said that his motivation for the lawsuit, which was filed on
April 28, is that "gamers and game developers are being harmed by
Valve's conduct".

"While I am taking on significant personal risk, I am not doing
this for personal gain," said Rosen. "If there's any monetary
recovery, it will be distributed to all developers and gamers in
the class".

Rosen added that he is not the only developer that has run into
issues when publishing on Steam: "I believe that other developers
who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by
Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if
they did not raise their prices on competing stores." Rosen claims
that this approach breaches antitrust laws, which has led to him
filing the lawsuit.

Rosen is seeking a resolution where Valve stops "interfering with
pricing on other stores, and allow gamers and developers to make
their own decisions".

Wolfire Games developed the game Overgrowth, and originally
launched it on Steam, only to see new PC store platforms emerging
that charged a lower commission. When he asked Valve about putting
the game onto one of these other storefronts, the company responded
by saying "that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I
allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own
website without Steam keys and without Steam's DRM".

According to Law360, two gamers have also joined and are supporting
the lawsuit: William Herbert of Florida and Daniel Escobar of New
York.

Valve is not the only company facing a lawsuit over store practices
lately; Sony is also being sued over an monopoly created by making
digital games only purchasable from the PlayStation Store. [GN]


VIATRIS INC: Dismissal of Ranitidine-Related Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the end-payor plaintiffs in the
ranitidine matter have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers,
and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace
amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including
valsartan and ranitidine.

The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are
pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan
and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine.

The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative class
actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic
and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end
payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the
medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been
filed in Canada and other countries.

The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these
products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the
Company's active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and/ or finished
dose forms of these products. The original master complaints
concerning ranitidine were dismissed on December 31, 2020.

The Company has not been named as a defendant in the amended master
complaints, though it is still named in certain short form personal
injury complaints.

The end-payor plaintiffs in the ranitidine matter have filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


VIRGINIA: Cox Sues Over Unlawful Unemployment Benefits System
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY COX, EMILY DIMOND, PENNY WILLIAMS, AMBER DIMMERLING, and
LENITA GIBSON, behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ELLEN MARIE HESS, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Virginia Employment Commission, Case No.
3:21-cv-00253 (E.D. Va., April 15, 2021) is a class action brought
to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the
Commonwealth of Virginia to correct its gross failures to provide
Virginians necessary unemployment benefits within the timing
otherwise mandated by Federal and State law.

According to the complaint, data collected by the U.S. Department
of Labor show that Virginia ranks 53rd of 53 jurisdictions in
determining certain basic eligibility issues -- with only 2% of
cases decided in a timely manner.

Ellen Marie Hess is the Commissioner of the Virginia Employment
Commission (VEC, and this action is brought against her in that
official capacity for violations of federal and state law,
including: (1) violations of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2)
violations of the Social Security Act and its regulations; and (3)
violations of state law governing unemployment benefits.

Unemployment benefits are intended to provide emergency cash
assistance to workers who lose their jobs, to tide them over until
they can find another job. Benefits are supposed to be available
immediately: "as close to the nearest payday following termination"
as possible. But for tens of thousands of Virginians, the
unemployment benefits system has failed completely: either their
claims for benefits have languished for months without any
decisions made on their claims, or if they were lucky enough to
begin receiving benefits, their benefits have been suddenly cut off
without notice or explanation, the suit contends.

Defendant Ellen Marie Hess is the Commissioner of VEC, the state
agency responsible for administering the unemployment insurance
program in Virginia, pursuant to the federal Social Security Act
and the Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act. She is sued in her
official capacity. Commissioner Hess and VEC act under color of
state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 19.

Virginia's unemployment compensation system is part of a
cooperative federal-state program established during the Great
Depression. The purpose of the program is to provide cash
assistance to workers as quickly as possible after they lose
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Amy Austin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  amyaustin@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Steven Fischbach, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street, Suite 610
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 351-5266
          E-mail: steve@vplc.org

               - and -

          Brenda Castaneda, Esq.
          Patrick Levy-Lavelle, Esq.
          Granville Warner, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22903
          Telephone: (434) 977-0553
          E-mail: brenda@justice4all.org
                  pat@justice4all.org
                  cwarner@justice4all.org

               - and -

          Daniel Turczan, Esq.
          LEGAL AID WORKS
          500 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100
          Fredericksburg, VA 22401
          Telephone: (540) 371-1105
          E-mail: dturczan@legalaidworks.org

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

VIVINT INC: Class Discovery Deadline in Cunningham Suit Due June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, and
ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. VIVINT, INC. and DSI DISTRIBUTING, INC. d.b.a DSI
SYSTEMS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00568-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
Cecilia M. Romero entered an order granting the defendants' motion
and amending the scheduling order as follows:

   1. Class Discovery Deadline:                  June 23, 2021

   2. Class Expert Disclosure and Report:

      (a) Party Bearing Burden of Proof:         April 23, 2021

      (b) Counter Disclosure and Report:         May 23, 2021

      (c) Deadline for Motion to Exclude         July 23, 2021
         Expert Testimony:

   3. Last day to Serve Class Discovery:         May 31, 2021

   4. Merits Expert Disclosure and Reports

      (a) Party Bearing Burden of Proof:         Sept. 21, 2021

      (b) Counter Disclosure and Report:         Oct. 23, 2021

      (c) Deadline for Motion to                 30 days after
          Exclude Expert Testimony:              merits discovery
                                                 closes or 60 days
                                                 after a ruling on
                                                 Plaintiff's
Motion
                                                 for Class
                                                 Certification,
                                                 whichever is
                                                 later.

   5. Last Day to Serve Merits Discovery:        Nov. 24, 2021

   6. Close of Merits Discovery:                 Dec. 24, 2021

   7. Dispositive Motion Deadline:               Feb. 21, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hKGw1U at no extra charge.[CC]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Volkswagen AG ("Volkswagen" or the "Company") (OTC: VWAGY)
securities between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Volkswagen investors have until June 29, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen published a draft press release
announcing its American subsidiaries' supposed name change to
"Voltswagen." Media outlets reported that they confirmed with the
Company that the name change was real. As reported by CNBC,
"Volkswagen accidentally posted a press release on its website a
month early announcing a new name for its U.S. operations,
Voltswagen of America, emphasizing the German automaker's electric
vehicle efforts." On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price sharply
rose.

On March 30, 2021, however, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled "No, Volkswagen Isn't Rebranding Itself Voltswagen:
German car maker says announcement by its U.S. operation was
supposed to be an April Fools' gag." The article noted that
"[i]nvestors have been clamoring for shares of companies involved
in electric vehicles and have recently been pouring money into the
stocks of established car makers with solid EV plans." Other
outlets reported that the Associated Press was repeatedly assured
by Volkswagen that its U.S. subsidiary planned a name change, which
was false.

On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price fell more than 5% over
the next two trading days, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) "Voltswagen"
was never going to be used by the Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. ("VWoA"), or on any relevant vehicle; (2) Volkswagen,
VWoA, and their spokespeople purposefully misled reporters
regarding the now-purported "joke" and/or "promotion"; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 29,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

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


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Volkswagen AG ("Volkswagen" or the "Company") (OTC: VWAGY)
securities between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Volkswagen investors have until June 29, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Volkswagen investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen published a draft press release
announcing its American subsidiaries' supposed name change to
"Voltswagen." Media outlets reported that they confirmed with the
Company that the name change was real. As reported by CNBC,
"Volkswagen accidentally posted a press release on its website a
month early announcing a new name for its U.S. operations,
Voltswagen of America, emphasizing the German automaker's electric
vehicle efforts." On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price sharply
rose.

On March 30, 2021, however, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled "No, Volkswagen Isn't Rebranding Itself Voltswagen:
German car maker says announcement by its U.S. operation was
supposed to be an April Fools' gag." The article noted that
"[i]nvestors have been clamoring for shares of companies involved
in electric vehicles and have recently been pouring money into the
stocks of established car makers with solid EV plans." Other
outlets reported that the Associated Press was repeatedly assured
by Volkswagen that its U.S. subsidiary planned a name change, which
was false.

On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price fell more than 5% over
the next two trading days, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) "Voltswagen"
was never going to be used by the Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. ("VWoA"), or on any relevant vehicle; (2) Volkswagen,
VWoA, and their spokespeople purposefully misled reporters
regarding the now-purported "joke" and/or "promotion"; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


VROOM INC: Faces Hudda Securities Suit Over Market Value Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARIF HUDDA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VROOM, INC., PAUL J. HENNESSY, and DAVID K. JONES, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03296 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Vroom securities between June 9, 2020 and March
3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Vroom became a public company through an initial public offering on
June 9, 2020 (the IPO). Prior to the IPO, Vroom significantly
reduced its inventory to account for an expected drop in demand as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that a lack of inventory had
materially constrained Vroom's ability to increase revenues in the
second quarter of 2020 and meet a surge in customer demand for
online used vehicles.

During the earnings call to discuss the results held that same day,
Defendant Hennessy revealed that Vroom was suffering from severe
sales backlogs because of inadequate sales and support staff, which
had materially impaired the Company's ability to sell existing
inventory. Following these disclosures, Vroom's stock price fell
$12.29 per share, or 28%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume of 19.6 million shares
traded, the suit says.

As a result of 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.

The Plaintiff acquired Vroom securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Vroom was founded in 2013 and is based in New York, New York. The
Company is an ecommerce platform that buys and sells used vehicles.
Through the Company's online platform, consumers can research and
select from thousands of fully reconditioned vehicles. After a
vehicle is purchased, the Company provides contact-free delivery to
the buyer's driveway. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

VROOM INC: Faces Three Putative Class Actions in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Vroom, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces three putative class
action suits entitled, Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al.,
Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al. and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al.

Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
certain of the Company's stockholders against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

The lawsuits are captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296.

All three of the lawsuits assert similar claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaints seek damages purportedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or omissions by the Company
and the named individual officers.

In each case, the named plaintiff(s) seek to represent a proposed
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3,
2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to
March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky).

These cases are in preliminary stages, and the Company has not yet
responded to the complaints.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously contest these claims.

Vroom said, "While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is
inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties,
based upon information presently known to management, the Company
believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, cash
flows, or results of operations."

Vroom, Inc. is an innovative, end-to-end ecommerce platform that is
transforming the used vehicle industry by offering a better way to
buy and a better way to sell used vehicles. The company is deeply
committed to creating an exceptional experience for its customers.
The company is based in New York, New York.


W. DOUGLAS COLLINS: Torres Revised Bid for Class Certification OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE TORRES, et al.,
v. W. DOUGLAS COLLINS, et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-00026-DCLC (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Revised Motion for Class
      Certification;

   2. certifying a class of:

      "All individuals arrested on an arrest warrant out of Hamblen

      County General Sessions Court (save for capital offenses) (1)

      who are, or will be, in the custody of the Hamblen County
      Sheriff, Esco Jarnagin; (2) whose bail amount was set in an
      ex parte fashion by the Defendants authorized by law to set
      bail for cases pending in Hamblen County general sessions
      court; (3) who have not waived and have not received an
      individualized bail hearing within a reasonable period of
      time; and (4) who remain in custody for any amount of time";

   2. designating the Named Plaintiffs Michelle Torres, Robbie
      Johnson-Loveday, Amanda Cameron, and Bethany Edmond as class

      representatives; and

   3. designating Attorneys Ellora Thadaney Israni, Jonathan
      Backer, Mary McCord, Matthew G. White, Seth Daniel Tychsen
      Wayne, Tara Mikkilineni, and George T. Lewis, III as class
      counsel.

In this case, the Plaintiffs challenge Defendants practice and
procedure of setting bail and seeks only declaratory and injunctive
relief in finding the Defendants' practices unconstitutional and
enjoining Defendants from continuing such practices.

The relief is the same for all proposed class members: the
Defendants would not be allowed to detain individuals on a money
bond without an individualized hearing which considers, among other
things, the arrestee's ability to pay. "Relief in the form of
reformed procedures is relief for every class member." The Court
finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(b)(2) standard.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QD9upn at no extra charge.[CC]


WAL-MART STORES: Griego Seeks June 7 Deadline to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDAN GRIEGO, individual
and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WALMART, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SAM'S WEST,
INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, Case No.
3:20-cv-00401-BAS-AHG (S.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to file his
Reply in support of his Motion for June 7, 2021, and changing the
hearing date to June 28, 2021.

This is Plaintiff's first request for a continuance pertaining to
its deadline to reply to Walmart's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. Walmart does not oppose this request. The
continuance will not affect other case management dates in this
case.

On April 1, 2021, the parties filed a Second Joint Motion to
Continue Deadlines and Hearing regarding Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification. On April 2, 2021, the Court granted the
parties' Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines and Hearing, setting a
May 3, 2021 deadline for Walmart to oppose Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and a May 10, 2021 deadline for Plaintiff to
file a reply. The Court set the hearing on the motion for May 24,
2021. On May 3, 2021, Walmart filed its opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fBrskl at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          236 West Portal Avenue, #185
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (619) 488-6400
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
          Natalie F. Bare, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: 619-744-2222
          E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
                  nfbare@duanemorris.com

WALMART INC: Brito Sues Over Body Care Products' Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDA BRITO-MUNOZ and TAMIKA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00903-SHR (M.D. Pa., May 18, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts
and practices, and violations of the California's False Advertising
Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and the Consumer Protection Law and similar
statutes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its body care products. Walmart prominently labels many of its
products as hypoallergenic and tear-free. However, Walmart's
products contain a substantial amount of known skin sensitizers
(allergens), agents that cause serious skin damage, chemicals that
cause serious eye damage lasting longer than 21 days, skin
irritants, and eye irritants. As a result of its false and
misleading labeling, Walmart was able to sell these products to
hundreds of thousands of consumers throughout the United States and
to profit handsomely from these transactions, the suit contends.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         James A. Francis, Esq.
         Lauren Brennan, Esq.
         FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
         1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 735-8600
         Facsimile: (215) 950-8000
         E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Yvette Golan, Esq.
         THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
         529 14th St. NW Suite 914
         Washington, DC 20045
         Telephone: (866) 298-4150
         Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
         E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com

WAWA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Data Security Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 19-6019 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in
part and denies in part Wawa's motion to dismiss.

Wawa operates a chain of convenience stores and gas stations
throughout the eastern United States.  Hackers accessed Wawa's
point-of-sale systems and installed malware in March 2019 that
targeted Wawa's in-store payment terminals and gas station fuel
dispensers.  The hackers obtained customer payment card information
over the next several months, making it available for purchase on
the "dark web." Wawa disclosed the data breach in December 2019.

Lawsuits followed.  The Court's case management plan delineated
three distinct tracks for the litigation: The Consumer Track, the
Employee Track, and the Financial Institution Track.  The
Memorandum addresses the Employee Track Plaintiffs.

The named Plaintiffs for the Employee Track are Shawn McGlade, a
former Wawa assistant general manager and general manager, and his
wife, Karen McGlade.  They bring seven counts against Wawa in their
amended class action complaint.  The first five counts relate to
the data breach, asserting that Wawa negligently allowed payment
card information and personally identifiable information, such as
social security numbers, of Wawa employees to be exposed.  The
Employee Plaintiffs' remaining two counts allege overtime
violations for all Wawa assistant general managers from January
2017 through January 2020.

Count I alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.  This claim is that Wawa
required its employees to provide their personally identifiable
information, including social security numbers, and that Wawa
maintained this information in an insecure manner that allowed
hackers to access it.  Employee Plaintiffs also claim that Wawa
collected and maintained employee payment card information, failed
to secure it, and allowed it to be compromised by hackers.

Count II alleges Wawa was negligent for failing to properly
safeguard employee personally identifiable information.  Count III
alleges negligence per se related to Wawa's breach of various
statutes, laws, and regulations.  Count IV alleges negligent
misrepresentation and/or fraud related to Wawa's disclosure, or
rather non-disclosure, of the data breach to its employees.  Count
V alleges unjust enrichment, because, the Employee Plaintiffs
claim, Wawa has been enriched by not paying for the necessary level
of security to protect employee information.

Count VI alleges that Wawa violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), by failing to pay Mr. McGlade and other
Wawa assistant general managers overtime wages.  Count VII alleges
that Wawa violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S.
Section 333.104(c), by failing to pay overtime wages.

Wawa urges the Court to dismiss, or stay, all seven counts in the
Employee Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

As to the first five counts, Judge Pratter finds that the Employee
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their allegations related to the
data breach of employee personal information, including payment
card information and confidential employee information, such as
social security numbers.  Thus, at this stage, these claims will be
allowed to proceed.

The Employee Plaintiffs also seek to recover unpaid overtime wages
for all Wawa assistant general managers for the three years between
January 2017 until January 2020.  The Judge concludes that these
claims are time-barred pursuant to the applicable statutes of
limitations and, as a result, he dismisses these two counts.

For these reasons, Judge Pratter grants in part and denies in part
Wawa's motion to dismiss.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/shk5n7yf from Leagle.com.


WELLPET LLC: Zeiger Renewed Class Certification Bid Due July 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO
(N.D. Calif.), the Hon Judge William H. Orrick entered an order
that:

   1. The Plaintiff's amended damages reports and renewed class
      certification motion shall be due on or before July 6, 2021.

   2. The Defendant's rebuttal reports and opposition to
      Plaintiff's amended damages reports and renewed class
      certification motion shall be due on or before August 31,
      2021.

   3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his renewed class
      certification motion shall be due on September 27, 2021.

A copy of the Parties' stipulation dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fv4SKi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P..
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0291
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com

WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Becker's ERISA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Yvonne Becker, Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo & Co.;
Employee Benefit Review Committee; Wells Fargo Bank, National; and
Galliard Capital Management, Defendants, Civil No. 20-2016
(DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota denies the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

The matter is before the Court on Defendants Wells Fargo, Employee
Benefit Review Committee and members ("Fiduciary Defendants"),
Wells Fargo Bank, and Galliard Capital Management's Motion to
Dismiss.  Becker opposes the Motion.

The putative class action arises from Becker's participation in
Wells Fargo's 401(k) retirement plan, which she claims the
Defendants mismanaged.  The Plan is a defined contribution pension
plan subject to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq.  

After deferring their compensation to the Plan, employees may
decide how to invest their savings by choosing among investment
options selected by the Fiduciary Defendants.  The value of each
participant's individual account in the Plan depends on the amount
of contributions made by the participant, plus the investment gains
earned on those contributions, minus all fees and expenses.

Ms. Becker claims that during the class period, the Fiduciary
Defendants selected and retained for the Plan 17 Wells Fargo
proprietary funds, many of which underperformed the benchmark that
the Defendants selected as an appropriate broad-based market index
for each Wells Fargo Fund.  She further alleges that the Wells
Fargo Funds included newly launched funds that lacked a performance
history necessary to evaluate them, and that the Wells Fargo Funds
charged greater fees than similar non-proprietary funds.

Ms. Becker contends that because of the enormous size of the Plan,
the Fiduciary Defendants should have been able to obtain superior
investment products at very low cost but instead chose proprietary
products to bolster their own salaries by increasing fee revenue
and providing seed money to newly created Wells Fargo Funds.

On March 13, 2020, Becker filed the class action lawsuit under
ERISA alleging: (1) breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 ("Count I")); and (2) violations of
prohibited transactions rules under 29 U.S.C. Sections
1106(a)(1)(A) and (D) ("Count II"); 226-239 ("Count V")) and
sections 1106(b)(1) and (3) ("Count III")).

The Defendants contend that Becker has failed to plead allegations
necessary to support a viable claim under ERISA and ask the Court
to dismiss her Complaint with prejudice.

Discussion

I. Standing

The Defendants argue that Becker lacks standing with respect to all
claims other than those directed at the TD Collective Trusts
because she did not invest in the other challenged funds and
therefore could not have suffered harm from their inclusion in the
plan.  Becker contends that she has Article III standing to seek
relief on behalf of the Plan as a whole because in addition to
plausibly alleging her own Article III standing, she plausibly
alleges that the Defendants' fiduciary violations are
broad-sweeping in nature and caused losses to other Plan
investments in which she did not invest.

Judge Frank declines to dismiss any of Becker's claims for lack of
standing.  He holds that Becker is authorized to obtain relief
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and Section 1109.  He finds that
in addition to satisfying the requirements of her own Article III
standing, Becker has plausibly alleged that the Defendants'
fiduciary violations caused broad-sweeping losses to other Plan
investments in which she did not invest that stemmed from the
Defendants' imprudent or disloyal conduct.  Accordingly, Becker has
Article III standing to seek relief on behalf of the Plan as a
whole.

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Judge Frank finds that Becker's allegations can be understood to
assert that the Plan includes a variety of proprietary funds which
were selected by the Fiduciary Defendants despite better performing
and cheaper options.  The Complaint further alleges that these
options were chosen to benefit the Defendants at the expense of
Plan participants.  The Juduge finds that these allegations are
sufficient to infer that the decision-making process by which the
Fiduciary Defendants selected and managed the Wells Fargo Funds was
tainted by breach of their fiduciary duties.  Accordingly, he finds
that Becker has pleaded sufficient facts, when taken as true, to
support her fiduciary breach claims.

B. Prohibited Transactions

At this stage in the proceedings, Judge Frank holds that Becker
need not trace the specific path of the fees; it is sufficient to
allege that the path is traceable.  Becker alleges that the fees
remain in the Wells Fargo account that originally received the
fees, or if the fees were deposited in a comingled account, that
account has at all times maintained a balance over the value of the
alleged illegal transfers.  She also alleges that Wells Fargo
maintains detailed financial recording records that will allow her
to trace the transfer of the fees from the Plan to Wells Fargo.  In
short, the Judge finds that these allegations are sufficient to
support Becker's allegations that Wells Fargo knowingly
participated in prohibited transactions.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge Frank denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He finds that Becker has Article III standing
to seek relief on behalf of the Plan as a whole, declines to rely
on extrinsic documents at this stage in the proceedings, and finds
that Becker has adequately pled ERISA fiduciary breach and
prohibited transactions claims against the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/n8p6wuju from
Leagle.com.

Michelle C. Yau, Esq. -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Jamie L. Bowers,
Esq. -- jbowers@cohenmilstein.com -- Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq. --
mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- and Scott Michael Lempert, Esq.
-- slempert@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC; Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq., Charles Richard Toomajian, III.,
Esq., Ian F. McFarland, Esq., and June Pineda Hoidal, Esq.,
Zimmerman Reed LLP; counsel for Plaintiff.

Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq. -- rhirschhorn@proskauer.com --
Joseph Emanuel Clark, Esq. -- jclark@proskauer.com -- Kyle Hansen,
Esq. -- khansen@proskauer.com -- Myron D. Rumeld, Esq. --
mrumeld@proskauer.com -- and Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. --
tchirinos@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP; Andrew J. Holly,
Esq., Kirsten E. Schubert, Esq., Nicholas J. Bullard, Esq., and
Stephen P. Lucke, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, counsel for
Defendants.


WESTERN REFINING: Dilworth Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMIA DILWORTH, ALEJANDRO CABALLERO, ALEX CABALLERO,
and NOURA MAJOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV07031, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04194 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 provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to provide and maintain
accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, and failure to timely pay wages upon termination.

Western Refining Retail, LLC is a company that refines crude oil
and markets petroleum products, headquartered in Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Matt Light, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 285-8330
         Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
         E-mail: mlight@shb.com

WESTPAC BANKING: $1M in Attorney Fees Awarded in Byrne Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BYRNE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, BRIAN
CHARLES HARTZER, and PETER FRANCIS KING, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00171-AC (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division,
entered order awarding attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and award to the Lead Plaintiff.

The Court has granted final approval of the Settlement of the class
action.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., appointed by the Court as the Lead
Counsel for purposes of the Settlement, has petitioned the Court
for an award of attorneys' fees in compensation for services
provided to Lead Plaintiff Edward and Named Plaintiff John Byrne,
and the Settlement Class along with reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with prosecuting the action, and award to
the Lead Plaintiff, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund
established pursuant to the Settlement.

Judge Acosta has reviewed the fee application and the supporting
materials filed therewith and has heard the presentation made by
the Lead Counsel during the final approval hearing on April 20,
2021.

Judge Acosta awarded the Lead Counsel one-third of the Settlement
Fund or $1,033,333.33 as attorneys' fees in the action, together
with a proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at
the same rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date
of the establishment of the fund to the date of payment.  The Lead
Counsel will have the ability to allocate the attorneys' fees to
other counsel based on their contribution to the case.

The Lead Counsel is also awarded unreimbursed expenses in the
amount of $24,776.41 with interest, as described.

Lead Plaintiff Edward Davies is awarded $1,500, as reimbursement
for his lost time and for his efforts in connection with his
prosecution of the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3srb932f from Leagle.com.


WHOLE FOODS: Delivery Worker Arrested During 2020 Curfew Sues NYPD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Crane-Newman at nydailynews.com reports that a food delivery
worker charged with violating the COVID curfew in June 2020 is
suing the city and four NYPD officers for wrongful arrest, saying
he was hauled in even though he was an essential worker permitted
to be out after hours.

Victor Campbell left his job at Whole Foods in Union Square at 8
p.m. on June 3 after a long day delivering food to New Yorkers in
quarantine, according to his lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal
court.

The 25-year-old worker finished his shift just as Mayor de Blasio's
curfew took effect, it said.

Less than an hour later, near Columbus Circle, a cop "forcibly
yanked" him off his e-bike and arrested him, even though Campbell
showed written confirmation from Whole Foods that he was an
essential worker permitted to be outside past the curfew.

"You're getting arrested because you broke curfew," the cop said,
according to Campbell's lawyer Mohammed Gangat.

Campbell was jailed for several hours by officers without face
masks at the 17th Precinct before being released with a summons for
a curfew violation that was later dropped, said the lawsuit, which
claims wrongful arrest and that Campbell's constitutional rights
were violated.

The incident also put Campbell out of work for several days because
police confiscated his e-bike, his lawyer said.

In another lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, six people
accused four dozen NYPD officers of brutalizing them during a
protest in Union Square on May 30.

Among those filing the suit, Guy Barfield, 24, was obeying police
orders to move to a sidewalk from the street when he was tackled to
the ground and placed in plastic cuffs "so tightly that his wrists
began bleeding," the lawsuit said.

The mask he was wearing to protect against COVID-19 fell off, and
unmasked NYPD officers ignored his pleas for a replacement mask for
the 21 hours he was kept in a crowded 25-by-35-foot holding cell at
One Police Plaza, the lawsuit said.

"He was crammed back-to-back with 75 other mostly unmasked
protestors, some of them screaming in pain," it said.

Authorities ultimately released Barfield without pressing charges
and, according to the suit, the officer who arrested him never
showed up to put in a report.

The five others filing the suit claim NYPD officers similarly
injured them during their arrests.

Richard Vergara, a 26-year-old U.S. Army vet who lives in Queens,
wasn't even attending the protest but was meeting friends at Bar
None at 13th St. and First Ave., according to the lawsuit.

Cops arrested Vergara as he emerged from a subway station, put him
on a crowded police bus where other detainees were not wearing
masks and kept him overnight in a holding cell without food or
water, the suit said.

As with Barfield's case, the cop who arrested Vergara never filed
an arrest report at the precinct, and Vergara was not charged, it
said.

"I'll never trust a police officer again from this situation," he
said in a statement. "I walk around every day and I make sure I
don't walk close to police officers, because even whether-however
you want to perceive the situation, it's not fun to go through this
type of thing." [GN]


WILHELMINA INT'L: Mediation in Shanklin and Pressley Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court in the
putative class action suits initiated by Alex Shanklin and Shawn
Pressley has directed the parties to non-binding mediation and that
process is ongoing.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New
York State Supreme Court by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske
(the "Raske Litigation").  

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.  

Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation
include other model management companies, advertising firms, and
certain advertisers.  

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.  

Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."


The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.  

The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.  

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017.  

The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.  

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.  

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  

Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.  

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim
against Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition
to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and
Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.

By Order Dated May 8, 2020, the Court denied class certification in
the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the
breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class
certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action
asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on
Wilhelmina's motions for summary judgment, denying them without
prejudice to be re-filed at a later date. The Court has directed
the parties to non-binding mediation and that process is underway.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously defend the actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WINCO FOODS: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alfred Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
his lawsuit styled ALFRED JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WINCO
HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative class
action arises from Alfred Johnson's employment with Winco. The
Plaintiff alleges injury as a result of Defendants' illegal
policies and practices that violate California labor law by failing
to compensate employees for the time spent and costs incurred
undergoing Defendants' mandatory drug-testing.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the order dated April 14,
2021, entered by Judge David O. Carter approving a Joint
Stipulation which provides that (1) Defendants shall have judgment
in their favor and against Plaintiff and the class on the certified
claims; (2) Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
prejudice except for Plaintiff's class minimum wage claim, class
overtime claim, class expense reimbursement claim, and derivative
wage statement, waiting time, and unfair competition claims
therefrom, that were predicated on a Drug Testing theory and
adjudicated in the Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and Granting in part Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment; and (3) Plaintiff take nothing and the parties
shall bear their own respective costs of suit.

The appellate case is captioned as Alfred Johnson v. Winco Foods,
LLC, et al., Case No. 21-55501, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Alfred Johnson Mediation Questionnaire was due on
May 24, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 14, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on July 13, 2021;

   -- Appellant Alfred Johnson opening brief is due on August 23,
2021;

   -- Appellees Winco Foods, LLC and Winco Holdings, Inc. answering
brief is due on September 21, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ALFRED JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          John Ely Stobart, Esq.  
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4177
          E-mail: Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com  
                  Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  John.Stobart@capstonelawyers.com  

Defendants-Appellees WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limted liability
company, and WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, are
represented by:

          Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
          Michael Warner Kopp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com  
                  mkopp@seyfarth.com

WISCONSIN: Residents Combat Water Contamination Aftereffects
------------------------------------------------------------
John Mccracken at madison.com reports that Craig Koller grew up
splashing through backyard creeks and biking gravel trails,
sometimes through the Johnson Control International Fire Technology
Center. Black smoke wafted overhead as it conducted controlled
burns to test firefighting foam, producing a dangerous "forever
chemical" known as PFAS.

As a kid growing up in the northern Wisconsin port city of
Marinette, Koller didn't think much of being around the facility or
drinking the city's water.

"How would you have known? There's no signs (at that time) saying,
'Stay out: contamination,'" Koller, 32, said.

But Koller's formative years in Marinette likely altered his life
forever: Right after graduating from high school in 2007, he was
diagnosed with testicular cancer.

The chemicals from the JCI facility contaminated the area's
drinking water. Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a group of
man-made chemicals found in products such as household cleaners,
paint and firefighting foam that are linked to infertility in
women, stunted developmental growth, and kidney and testicular
cancers. While the problem has garnered legal and state attention,
residents are forced to reckon with the contamination's impact on
their community - from using bottled water to cook to suffering
from cancer.

"We've got woods and waterfront and an amazing community," said
Kayla Furton, a current Peshtigo supervisor who bought her
childhood home from her parents five years ago. "What we came to
know is we were moving our family into the middle of a massive
contamination."

People in the area - including the town of Peshtigo, the subject of
a lawsuit over the contaminated drinking water - are familiar with
cancer.

Koller said he knows of three other men out of the about 75 in his
high school's graduating class who have had testicular cancer.
Compared to the national average, he and his classmates were
roughly 10 times more likely to have the disease.

"I always made jokes back then about, you know, there's something
in the water in Marinette," he said.

At the end of February, JCI submitted a 2,400-page proposal to
build a groundwater extraction and treatment system to remove
groundwater contamination from affected wells in the area while
also removing tainted soil along its outdoor testing facility.

"Since identifying a municipal water line as the safest and most
permanent solution, (JCI) has done everything we can to move the
proposal forward," the company said in a statement.

JCI's statement said it has submitted plans to the state, started
construction design, solicited public input, committed to funding
technical expertise for Peshtigo and Marinette, and plans to
alleviate any economic burden on the parties involved to provide
affected residents with a permanent and sustainable drinking water
solution as quickly as possible.

A lawsuit involving about a thousand Peshtigo residents aims to
provide some restitution. The suit asserts class-action property
damage and health claims alongside individual disease claims
totaling $17.5 million.

Yards from eligibility
But not everyone affected is eligible for payouts.

To qualify, residents must have lived in a roughly 3-square-mile
area in Peshtigo and lived in or owned a residence with a private
well between Jan. 1, 1965, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Despite known contamination in Marinette ditches and wells, Koller,
who now lives in Milwaukee, does not qualify. His father's current
Peshtigo home is roughly a hundred yards from eligibility.

"They somehow managed to cut me out of that," Koller said.

Marinette is home to one of the oldest fire suppressor production
companies, Ansul Co. It was founded in 1915 when the company
produced cattle feed and specialty chemicals initially, and then
began making fire suppressors in 1934.

Ansul became a leader in the fire suppressor industry and their
sprinkler systems can be found in ceilings across the world. The
company merged with the publicly traded international conglomerate
Johnson Control International in 2016.

The Ansul name and brand now exists as an arm of Tyco Fire
Protection. A statement from the company said it employs about 800
employees in the Marinette region, making them one of the area's
largest employers. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, foam from firefighting training courses - the kind of foam
made at JCI's Marinette facility - held at airports and military
bases across the country is a major contributor to groundwater
contamination. The U.S. military has been one of JCI's largest
customers for decades.

Delayed response
JCI delayed for years its response to the PFAS contamination,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In 2013, the company
found elevated levels of the chemicals surrounding its facility and
then only acknowledged their spread beyond the Marinette facility
in 2017.

How long the company waited to inform the public surprised Koller,
but the confirmed contamination did not.

"As soon as somebody said it," he said, "I was like, 'Well, that
makes sense.'"

After his cancer diagnosis the summer after high school, Koller's
life involved rounds of chemo and the removal of his left testicle.
The cancer was always in the back of his mind.

During his last year of undergrad, which he spent abroad, he found
another lump eight months into the program. He returned to the
states to have 20% of his remaining testicle removed at the
Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin.

"I graduated college cum laude in a hospital bed," he said.

Koller's bouts with cancer weren't over as he had to have his
remaining testicle removed while pursuing a master's degree.

'Lucky to still be here'
Being outside of the class-action settlement takes a toll on
Koller, who is now cancer-free. He said he has had tens of
thousands of dollars in medical bills, has to inject testosterone
weekly, and had to pay for in-vitro fertilization, necessary
because of his banked sperm, when his wife and him decided to grow
their family. He said it's hard to determine fair compensation.

Lawsuit aside, Koller said he doesn't know if reconciliation will
actually occur as the class-action suit is not an admission of
fault on JCI's behalf.

"It's just illogical because we know where it came from," he said,
"but they'll never admit it."

Despite his two separate strains of testicular cancer, multiple
orchiectomies and weekly hormone therapy, Koller said he considers
himself fortunate.

"I'm just lucky to still be here," he said. "I have a daughter and
a wife. I could just as easily be six feet under taking a long dirt
nap."

On bottled water
Since 2017, Jeff and Cheryl Lamont have used bottled water to cook,
drink and clean. After its announcement about the contamination,
JCI continues to provide bottled water and filtration systems to
residents with elevated PFAS levels.

But the Lamonts, like many other residents, want a permanent
solution to the contaminated wells, so they formed Save Our H20 to
advocate for safe drinking water.

Lamont said, in his estimation, the federal response to PFAS
contamination has lagged for years, which has caused smaller
municipalities and communities to take matters into their own
hands.

"The states got sick of waiting so a lot of states implemented
their own standards because there was no guarantee of when a
federal standard would come in place," he said.

Wisconsin is one of about 30 states that does not regulate PFAS
contamination in drinking water, according to a 2019 tabulation
from the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Pasner, so the group helped
draft the Chemical Level Enforcement and Remediation (CLEAR) Act
introduced in the state legislature in 2019.

It would have required the state to establish standards for PFAS
levels in drinking water and soil as well as require a person who
possesses PFAS to provide proof of financial responsibility for
remediation.

The bill stalled in early 2020 but was reintroduced by Gov. Tony
Evers and other legislators in late April, citing PFAS
contamination in 50 Wisconsin communities, according to WKBT.

Agencies step in
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is currently
developing PFAS standards and the state's Department of Health
Services released recommendations for groundwater of 20 parts per
trillion for PFAS chemicals. Currently the EPA has no legal limit
for PFAS in drinking water, according to Consumer Reports.

The Madison Water Utility said last year PFAS has been detected in
each of its 22 wells, though none tested above the state's proposed
drinking water standards for the two most studied such compounds.
Well 15 on East Washington Avenue was shut down in 2019 after tests
showed elevated levels of PFAS, likely the result of groundwater
contamination from the nearby Dane County Regional Airport, where
several contaminated sites have been linked to training areas used
for decades by the Wisconsin Air National Guard and local fire
departments.

A retired hydrologist who spent more than 30 years in the
environmental cleanup industry, Lamont was shocked to come home to
face contamination in his backyard.

"I never really thought it would happen to me," he said.

Another resident surprised by the 2017 contamination announcement
was Furton, the Peshtigo supervisor. Several years ago, she moved
her family into the home her parents purchased in the mid-1980s.

Like many residents in the area, her parents' love of natural
beauty, land and desire for outdoor recreation guided their
decision to live in Peshtigo. Those are the same reasons Furton and
her family came back home.

Furton said her father, a former soil scientist, studied the
groundwater when they purchased their home and continued this
practice for years. Unfortunately, the family, like many in the
region, did not know to test for PFAS contamination until JCI
disclosed the contamination in 2017.

"Now, sadly, he's heartsick about it," she said, "which is just
wrong because he did nothing wrong."

The nonprofit news outlet Midwest Center for Investigative
Reporting provided this article to The Associated Press through a
collaboration with Institute for Nonprofit News.[GN]


YOH SERVICES: Stewart Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PRECIOUS MARIE STEWART, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. YOH SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-590857, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on May 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03767 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
timely pay all final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair competition.

Yoh Services, LLC is an American talent and outsourcing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1400 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Telephone: (650) 843-4000
         Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
         E-mail: melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com

                - and –

         Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
         Jason P. Brown, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
                 jason.brown@morganlewis.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 ***