---

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

              Monday, June 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 107

                            Headlines

3D SYSTEMS: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
4 PILLARS CONSULTING: Class Action Waiver Clause Unconscionable
48 ROCKEFELLER: Conditional Collective Cert. of FLSA Class Sought
5 STAR NUTRITION: Fifth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Cranor TCPA Suit

A. PEARLSTEIN: 28 Days Extension to File Reconsideration Bid Sought
A. PEARLSTEIN: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial Tossed
A2 MILK CO: May Face Shareholder Class Action Over Revenue Reports
A2 MILK: Slater & Gordon Investigating Shareholder Class Action
ABBVIE INC: Chubchai Sues Over Injury Sustained From CoolSculpting

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ALL ACCESS TELECOM: Must Face TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
AMDOCS LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
AMERICAN HONDA: Cruz Sues Over Vehicles' Battery Drain Defects

AMERICAN HONDA: Jones Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
AMERICAN WEB: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 9
ARCIMOTO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY: Sheehan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASA DEVELOPMENT: Graybar Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ATERIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline

ATERIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Considers Capping Class Action Funders' Fees
AUSTRALIA: Court Issues Ruling in Climate Change Class Action

AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over Coal Mine Expansion in New South Wales
AUSTRALIA: Opens Consultation on Litigation Funding, Class Suits
AUSTRALIA: To Finalize Response on Class Action Reform Proposals
AUSTRALIA: Victoria Wants Lockdown Class Action Claims Tossed
AUSTRALIA: Victoria's Bid to Toss COVID-19 Class Suits Challenged

BASILICO RISTORANTE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez Suit Says
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BLOOMBERG L.P.: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Adam Suit Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Salmons BELO Suit
BRAND ENERGY: Class Settlement in McClure Suit Has Prelim. Approval

BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 9 Deadline
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: Former Salesperson Files Labor Class Action
BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Conditional Certification Bid Nixed
C.A. BURGHARDT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Fitzgerald Suit v. RJD

CANAAN INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CANADA: Bodies of Boarding School Students Discovered
CANADA: Manitoba Gov't Faces Solitary Confinement Class Action
CAPITOL COMPLIANCE: Long Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CARSOUP OF MINNESOTA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CATTLEMENS: Elroy Files Suit in California Superior Court
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 6 Deadline

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
CHETHAM'S SCHOOL OF MUSIC: Court Orders to Pay Sexual Abuse Victim
CIGNA HEALTH: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due June 7
CIRCLE K: James' Claims Dismissed for Lack of Standing
CLUB FITNESS: Grace TCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri

COIGNFRA CO: Fails to Pay Warehouse Staff's OT, Mucenieks Claims
CONCEPT HEALTH: Infante Balks at Therapists' Unpaid OT, Retaliation
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Files Petition for Permission to Appeal
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 26 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Thornton Law Reminds of July 16 Deadline

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Rodgers Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CREDIT SUISSE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline

CRICKET WIRELESS: Asks Court to Continue Hearing on Class Cert. Bid
CVS HEALTH: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Firefighters Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Refusing to Fill Opioid Prescription
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 13 Deadline

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DAPPER LABS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over NBA Top Shot
DCM SERVICES: Route Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California

DEBT RECOVERY: Wells Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letters
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Class Action Takes Aim at Prothonotary Offices
DESEDA LLC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Dinkevich Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
DIGITAL RISK: June 14 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought

EASTMAN KODAK: Tang Securities Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D.N.Y.
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Portnoy Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline

ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Collective Cert. Partly Granted
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EXXON MOBIL: N.Y. City Environmental Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
FACEBOOK INC: Euroconsumers Reaches Deal to End Class Action
FACTUAL DATA: Argueta-Cantizzano Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia

FCA US: Seeks to Stay Case Pending Briefing on Summary Judgment
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
FIBROGEN INC: Gross Law Reminds of June 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 11 Deadline

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Suit Seeks to Certify Cash Buyers Class
FORD MOTOR: 9th Circuit Reverses Sunroof Class Action Ruling
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: August 10 Extension to Class Cert. Bid Sought
GACHINA LANDSCAPE: Bernal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: AP-Fonden Suit Seeks to Certify Class

GOALS PLASTIC SURGERY: Faces Labor Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
GOOGLE INC: Ex-Female Employees File Pay Discrimination Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Over Gender Equity Granted Certification
GOYA FOODS: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Mejias Class Suit
GUARDIAN PORTFOLIO: Schwartzenberger Suit Alleges Wage Violations

HIREWIRE INC: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
HISTORIC IMAGES: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok, et al. Seek Class Certification
HOUSE OF BEAUTY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HRB TAX: Supreme Court Set to Decide on FAA, McGill Rule Issue

IDS PROPERTY: Class Settlement in Zuern Suit Wins Final Approval
INDUSTRIAL APPLE: Clark Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
INVESTINET LLC: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ISS FACILITY: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Jan. 11, 2022
JOBCO INC: Pineda Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement

KANTZAVELOS G-1: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Discharge
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Enters Injunctive Relief Order in Gaston
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Attys.' Fees & Awards in AVGC Suit Denied
LTD FINANCIAL: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
LVNV FUNDING: Salomon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

M&M BEDDING: Martie Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MAACO AND ROYAL: Faces Chabaan Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
MANCHESTER, NH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Suit Over Sexual Abuse
MCDONALD'S CORP: Carpenter Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2741: Prelim. Approval of Deal in Monsanto Roundup Suit Denied

MICHAEL BOUCHARD: Cameron Suit Seeks Final Class & Subclasses Cert.
MIDEA AMERICA: Sporn Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Church FDCPA Suit
MIKE THOMPSON: Hamlin Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations

MILLS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Reyes FLSA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
MOHAMMAD AL MOJIL: Ordered to Pay $10.7 Billion to Shareholders
MPOWER ENERGY: Misclassifies Sales & Marketing Staff, Martinez Says
MULTIPLAN CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 7 Deadline
NATIONAL COUNSELING: Angione Seeks Unpaid OT for TDT Counselors

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Tosses Youth Center Sex Abuse Class-Action
NEW PENN: Manatt Attorneys Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
NEW YORK SPINE: Sawabini Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
NEXTDECADE: Mellor Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
NIKE INC: Boothe Sues Over Improper Payment of Associates' Wages

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS: Marijuana Card Holder Files Class Action
NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT: McLeer Files Suit in E.D. New York
OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Continued to June 18
OAXACA WILLIAMSBURG: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Carrera Suit Says
OKLAHOMA: Metrc Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action

P&B INTERMODAL: Agreed Motion for FLSA Class Certification Filed
PEACEHEALTH: Benelli Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Oregon
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Floyd Sues Over Golden Butter Crackers' Labels
PINTEREST INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 28 Deadline

PIONEER INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wanjohi Claims
PLUG POWER: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PRO GENITOR: Velez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Hernandez Wage Suit Removed to C.D. California

PROHEALTH CARE: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Kiselicka Says
PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Ventura Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Ill.
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: June 25 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
R&B CORP: Cox Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Prerecorded Messages
RESTAURANT VENTURES: Sidoti Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Pinchasov Bid for Class Status Due July 30
ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline

ROMEO POWER: Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Seeks to Extend Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
ROWE RESEARCH: Faces Hammonds Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Summers Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Federal Judge Slams Proposed Roundup Settlement

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Lee Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages
SKILLZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
SKILLZ INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of July 7 Deadline

SKILLZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SORIN GROUP: B.C. Hospitals Named in Class Suit Over Negligence
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Calhoun Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
SPECIALIZED TOWING: Barrios Seeks Unpaid OT for Tow-Truck Drivers

SUBARU OF AMERICA: WRX PCV System Class Action Ongoing
SUNSTAR AMERICAS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SYMBIOME INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Zamora Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
TEAM PIZZA: Grant of Summary Judgment in Bradford Suit Recommended

TEXAS MARKET: Barry Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Ticket Price Inflation
TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Class Action
TRUECAR INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Says Remediation Offer Inadequate

TYRO PAYMENTS: Lackluster Compensation Prompts Class Action Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Shainfield Rooter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UBIQUITI INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UBIQUITI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UBIQUITI INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline

UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Farhat Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 21, 2022
UPS GROUND: Mish Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
VENEZUELA: Regime Reportedly Negotiating Oil Tax with China
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Response to Class Cert. Extended to June 8

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for Jan. 31
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 29 Deadline
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Noriega Sues Over Unlawful Termination
WESLEY HOWELL: Payton Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

WINNFIELD, LA: Class Certification Order in Sanders Suit Reversed
[*] 47% of Consumers Likely to Join Data Breach Class Action
[*] Illinois College Athletes Can Profit From Likeness Under Bill

                            *********

3D SYSTEMS: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE: DDD) ("3D Systems") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired 3D Systems securities
between May 6, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021

Website:

https://www.ktmc.com/3d-systems-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=3d

Contact:

James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500

3D Systems provides comprehensive 3D printing and digital
manufacturing solutions, including 3D printers for plastics and
metals, materials, software, on-demand manufacturing services, and
digital design tools.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper internal controls over
financial reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

3D Systems investors may, no later than June 8, 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]

3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE: DDD)
between May 6, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important June 8, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action commenced by the firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased 3D Systems securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the 3D Systems class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper
internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the 3D Systems class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

4 PILLARS CONSULTING: Class Action Waiver Clause Unconscionable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Hutchinson, Esq., of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reported that on May 17, 2021, the British
Columbia (B.C.) Court of Appeal released a decision in Pearce v. 4
Pillars Consulting Group Inc. (Pearce) finding a class action
waiver clause unenforceable as unconscionable and contrary to
public policy, largely because it would likely prevent class
members from pursuing any claims at all given the small amounts at
issue. Pearce is one of the few Canadian decisions addressing the
enforceability of class action waiver clauses, a question the
Supreme Court of Canada expressly left open in the past.

BACKGROUND

The defendants sold debt advisory services to individuals on the
brink of insolvency seeking debt restructuring. The defendants
charged fees upfront, regardless of whether any debt relief was
obtained.

On the basis that the defendants were not licensed "debt repayment
agents" pursuant to the B.C. Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act (BPCPA), or licensed insolvency trustees pursuant to
the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), the plaintiff
commenced an action against the defendants, applying to certify it
as a class proceeding on behalf of persons who paid the defendants
fees. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants contravened the
BPCPA's provisions governing debt repayment agents and its
prohibition of unconscionable acts or practices. The plaintiff
further alleged that the defendants' conduct was contrary to the
BIA, that the defendants' unlawful conduct voided the applicable
contracts with customers and that the fees paid are recoverable
through claims for unjust enrichment and conspiracy.

The defendants took the position that their business was lawful.
They applied to have the plaintiff's and proposed class members'
claims struck, dismissed or stayed on a number of grounds,
including a class action waiver clause in standard form agreements
prohibiting class proceedings and requiring disputes be resolved on
individual bases.

B.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION

In October 2019, the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed the defendants'
applications and certified the plaintiff's action as a class
proceeding, holding that the plaintiff's claims were not bound to
fail and that the class action waiver clause was unenforceable.

B.C. COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal. The
Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff's claims were not bound
to fail and that the action was appropriately certified as a class
proceeding. Significantly, the Court of Appeal also agreed that the
class action waiver clause was unenforceable on two independent
grounds.

First, the Court of Appeal held that the class action waiver clause
was unconscionable, finding an inequality of bargaining power and
an improvident bargain. The inequality arose because the clause was
found in standard form contracts not subject to negotiation, the
class members were consumers rather than sophisticated commercial
parties, the class members were distressed persons in vulnerable
and difficult circumstances struggling to service and repay debt
and the clause did not effectively communicate the consequences of
agreeing to it. The clause was improvident because the novel and
complex nature of the legal questions raised by the claims, and the
relatively low monetary values involved for each class member,
meant that it was unlikely class members would be able to pursue
individual claims if the clause were enforced, effectively and
practically blocking them from access to justice.

Second, the Court of Appeal held that the clause was contrary to
public policy because it significantly interfered with the
administration of justice. Its practical effect, as noted above,
would be to preclude the plaintiff and class members from accessing
any dispute resolution process at all, defeating the three goals of
class proceedings of promoting judicial economy, access to justice
and behaviour modification. While the Court of Appeal noted that
there is little jurisprudence concerning the enforceability of
class action waiver clauses, it cited two lower court decisions
from Alberta and Ontario for the proposition that such clauses have
not been enforced when considered in the past.

IMPLICATIONS

The principles in Pearce raise serious issues regarding the
enforceability of class action waiver clauses, particularly where
individual claims for damages can be expected to be small (as is
often the case in class actions). Notably, the Court of Appeal
distinguished case law involving arbitration clauses that oust the
jurisdiction of the court, stating that arbitration may offer a
measure of justice comparable to courts and that legislation exists
directing courts to stay court proceedings in favour of
arbitration. [GN]

48 ROCKEFELLER: Conditional Collective Cert. of FLSA Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO GRANDE, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. 48
ROCKEFELLER CORP. d/b/a DELIS 48, and BYUNG W. CHO, Case No.
1:21-cv-01593-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b)1 on behalf of Covered Employees;

   2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
      Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form)

      as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. approving the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be sent
      directly to the Plaintiff's counsel;

   5. producing in Excel format of names, Social Security numbers,

      titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known
      mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone
      numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court
      approval of conditional certification;

   6. posting of the notice, along with the consent forms in each
      of the Defendants' places of business where Covered Employees

      are employed; and

   7. equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations until
      such time that Plaintiffs are able to send notice to
      potential opt-in plaintiffs.

On February 23, 2021, the Plaintiff Grande filed a Class and
Collective Action Complaint against the Defendants seeking unpaid
wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff
brought the FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all current and
former non-exempt employees, including but not limited to cooks,
food preparers, cashiers, counter persons, and cleaning persons
employed by Defendants within the last six years ("Covered
Employees").

The Plaintiff Grande was employed by the Defendants as a food
preparer from in or around June 2014 until on or around January 15,
2021. Specifically, the Plaintiff and all other non-exempt
employees suffered from the Defendants' policy of failing to pay
proper wages for all hours worked and failing to pay overtime
premium, in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name
"Delis 48" located at 48 West 48th Street, New York, NY 10036.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated May 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2RfW56O at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, are:

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

5 STAR NUTRITION: Fifth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Cranor TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lucas Cranor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 5 Star Nutrition,
L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-51173 (5th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district
court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

Robocalls and robotexts are nuisances.  The Congress banned them in
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").  But as
every American knows, there are companies -- like the Defendant in
the case -- who refuse to get that message while collectively
sending millions of others.

The two parties to the case are Cranor, a Missouri citizen, and 5
Star Nutrition, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Austin, Texas.

In June 2018, Cranor made a purchase at 5 Star's Austin location.
While there, Cranor provided 5 Star with his cell phone number.
The company later sent Cranor a series of unsolicited advertising
text messages.  The first came that same month -- 5 Star advertised
a rewards program and asked Cranor to join. Another unsolicited
text came a few months later, advertising a 50%-off sale.  Cranor
responded with a "STOP" request.

After a dispute ensued, the two parties entered into a pre-suit
settlement agreement to avoid litigation.  In the Settlement, both
parties agreed to waive any "causes of action, claims, or
counterclaims direct or indirect with respect to the Dispute and/or
any facts or circumstances involved in or related to the Dispute."
5 Star agreed to pay Cranor $1,000 in exchange for the waiver.  The
parties executed the Settlement on Nov. 29, 2018. Yet 5 Star
persisted.  It sent Cranor another text promoting a sale at its
chain locations. He again responded with a "STOP" request.  5 Star
dutifully stopped.

Mr. Cranor nonetheless filed a class action complaint in the
Western District of Texas, alleging that 5 Star "negligently,
willfully, and/or knowingly sent text messages to Cranor's cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system
without prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA."
According to Cranor, the unsolicited text message caused him "the
very harm that Congress sought to prevent in enacting the TCPA --
namely, a nuisance and invasion of privacy."

Mr. Cranor further alleged that the text message "trespassed upon
and interfered with his rights and interests in his cellular
telephone and cellular telephone line, and intruded upon his
seclusion."  And the text "harmed him by depleting the battery life
on his cellular telephone, and by using minutes allocated to him by
his cellular telephone service provider." Cranor sought
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as
certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing.
It first found that text messages are sufficient forms of injury in
fact in actions arising out of the TCPA.  But it concluded "the
single text message does not constitute an injury in fact."  That's
because a single unwelcome text message will not always involve an
intrusion into the privacy of the home in the same way that a voice
call to a residential line necessarily does.  The court therefore
dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).

Mr. Cranor timely appealed.

The question presented is whether one of the Defendant's victims
has an Article III injury sufficient to support standing for a
claim under the TCPA.

The Fifth Circuit says the victim does.  It concludes that Cranor
has alleged a cognizable injury in fact: Nuisance arising out of an
unsolicited text advertisement.

The Eleventh Circuit seized on the fact that some of the TCPA's
legislative findings refer to "residential telephone subscribers"
and banning telemarketing calls "to the home."  In the Eleventh
Circuit's view, Congress' legislative findings about telemarketing
suggest that the receipt of a single text message is qualitatively
different from the kinds of things Congress was concerned about
when it enacted the TCPA."

The Fifth Circuit rejects the trial court's reasoning for three
reasons.  First, the TCPA expressly covers cellular phones.  The
TCPA also includes text messaging in its prohibitions on
transmitting false caller ID information.  If the statute only
prohibited nuisances in the home, then it would make little sense
to prohibit telemarket.

Second, the TCPA addresses "nuisance and invasion of privacy" in a
variety of other non-residential contexts.  The Act prohibits ATDS
or prerecorded calls to, inter alia, (1) "any emergency telephone
line," (2) "the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of
a hospital," or (3) "a paging service."  It further proscribes
using a fax machine or computer to send an unsolicited fax
advertisement.  And the Act makes it unlawful to use an ATDS "in
such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line
business are engaged simultaneously."  The text of the Act thus
shows Congress sought to remediate "nuisance and invasion of
privacy" in a broader set of circumstances, not just in the home.

Third, Congress delegated authority to the FCC to "prescribe
regulations" implementing the TCPA, and to exempt commercial calls
only where such exemptions "will not adversely affect the privacy
rights" the TCPA protects.  It did so after finding that the FCC
"should have the flexibility to design different rules for those
types of automated or prerecorded calls that it finds are not
considered a nuisance or invasion of privacy."   No part of this
delegation limits the FCC to considering nuisances and privacy only
in the home.

Given all this, the Fifth Circuit thinks the TCPA cannot be read to
regulate unsolicited telemarketing only when it affects the home.

Because the case-or-controversy requirement is "grounded in
historical practice, it is instructive to consider whether an
alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English or American courts."

The Fifth Circuit finds that Cranor's asserted injury has a close
relationship to a harm actionable at common law: public nuisance.
Cranor wants to use our Nation's telecommunications infrastructure
without harassment.  Moreover, he alleges a special harm not
suffered by the public at large.

As the Congress acknowledged in enacting the TCPA, some members of
the general public might be able to avoid robodialed advertisements
-- but not everyone can: "Technologies that might allow consumers
to avoid receiving such calls are not universally available, are
costly . . . [and] place an inordinate burden on the consumer."
And Cranor alleges he's in that latter group: 5 Star's "aggravating
and annoying text messages trespassed upon and interfered with
Plaintiff's rights and interests in his cellular telephone."  After
receiving the unwanted text, Cranor was prompted to read the
message and send a "STOP" request.  The text itself "depleted the
battery life on Cranor's cellular telephone and used minutes
allocated to him by his cellular telephone service provider."
Thus, not only has Cranor alleged an unreasonable interference with
a right common to the public, he also has alleged personal injuries
that separate him from the public at large.  That's enough to show
a "close relationship" between his injury and an actionable public
nuisance at common law.

Finally, on similar facts, the Eleventh Circuit concluded there is
no common law analogue to the harm of receiving an unwanted
robotexted advertisement.  In its view, a single text message is
"the kind of fleeting infraction upon personal property that tort
law has resisted addressing."

Putting aside that Salcedo never addressed public nuisance, the
Fifth Circuit holds that that view is mistaken for at least two
reasons.  First, Salcedo's view of trespass to chattels is
substantially narrower than the scope of that action at common law.
Second, Salcedo's focus on the substantiality of the harm in
receiving a single text misunderstands Spokeo.  Salcedo's focus on
the substantiality of an alleged harm threatens to make this
already difficult area of law even more unmanageable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Andrew S. Oldham, writing for the
Fifth Circuit, reversed the district court's dismissal of Cranor's
complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent
with the Court's opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/42x6pf7z from Leagle.com.


A. PEARLSTEIN: 28 Days Extension to File Reconsideration Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMEION DOUGLAS, v. A.
PEARLSTEIN, et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00533-AA (D. Or.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for an extension of 28
days in which to file his motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
denial of Motion for Class Certification due on May 14 2021.

The Plaintiff says that the motion is necessary because he is
currently working on criminal new trial motions which the Federal
Court granted stay in habeas corpus proceedings and he has
limited access to the law library due to the COVID Virus.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yXxyV6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

A. PEARLSTEIN: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Douglas v. Pearlstein et
al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00533 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken
is not inclined to reconsider the denial of class certification.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]

A2 MILK CO: May Face Shareholder Class Action Over Revenue Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Carroll, writing for stuff, reports that the a2 Milk
Company believes it has complied with all disclosure obligations,
in the wake of reports of a potential class action against the
specialty milk company.

In a statement to the New Zealand stock exchange on May 31, a2 Milk
chief executive David Bortolussi said that the company was aware of
media reports about potential action by Australian law firm Slater
and Gordon.

"The company is not aware of any legal proceeding having been filed
at this time," Bortolussi said.

"The company believes that it has complied with all applicable
disclosure obligations and denies any claim to the contrary."

The Australian Financial Review reported that the possible class
action related to the company's four downgrades over the last
financial year, which a2 blamed in part on Covid-19 disruption on
its sales to China.

In the last update to the market, on May 10, a2 said it expected
revenue of between $1.2 billion and $1.25b in the year to the end
of June, down from its $1.4b forecast in February, and $1.73b last
year.

It slashed its forecast profit margin to between 11 and 12 per
cent, from its February forecast of between 24 and 26 per cent.

The company's shares have fallen from $20.81 at the start of the
financial year to $5.86, a decline of 71.8 per cent.

Border closures and trade disruptions meant fewer tourists and
international students shipped a2's products to China, known as the
daigou trade.

Slater and Gordon was investigating a claim on behalf of people who
bought a2 stock on the Australian or New Zealand stock exchanges
between August 18, 2020 and May 7.

Kaitlin Ferris, Slater and Gordon class actions principal lawyer,
said the firm had not yet filed proceedings, but a number of
shareholders had signalled their interest in a potential case, and
more were expected to come forward.

"a2 Milk gave market guidance in August 2020 which promised strong
growth in revenue -- subsequently, the company issued 4 downgrades
to revenue and EBITDA [earnings before interest, tax, depreciation
and amortisation] margin guidance," Ferris said in a statement on
May 31.

"Slater and Gordon is investigating whether the information
ultimately released by a2 is likely to have been known to the
company at an earlier stage, and therefore whether a2 breached its
obligations to keep investors informed of material information in a
timely manner."

The firm expected to reach a view about the basis for a claim in
the coming weeks, she said.

The NZX's regulatory agency was looking into the financial updates
from a2 Milk, said NZ RegCo chief executive Joost van Amelsfort.

"NZ RegCo continues to monitor developments across operating and
financial performance for a number of listed issuers, in the
context of their continuous disclosure obligations. This includes
assessing the FY21 guidance updates provided by The A2 Milk Company
Limited.

"NZ RegCo will not be commenting further on the status of such
reviews while they remain ongoing," Amelsfort said.

NZ RegCo was not conducting a price enquiry into the company.

"It considers that A2 Milk's share price activity can be explained
by reference to the market statements made by A2 Milk on its actual
and expected operating and financial performance, as well as
general sentiment in sectors affected by distribution via the
daigou channel," he said. [GN]

A2 MILK: Slater & Gordon Investigating Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Fyfe, writing for Newshub, reports that a law firm in
Australia has confirmed it's investigating a class action lawsuit
against specialty dairy company A2 Milk.

The company's share price has fallen dramatically over the last
year after the company downgraded its earning forecasts four times,
dropping from a record $21.74 in August to a low of $5.42.

On May 31, law firm Slater and Gordon confirmed to Newshub a number
of shareholders had "indicated their interest in potential
proceedings" against the company, though "no proceedings have yet
been filed".

Slater and Gordon class actions principal lawyer Kaitlin Ferris
said the company expects more investors will continue to come
forward as the investigation is completed.

"A2 Milk gave market guidance in August 2020 which promised strong
growth in revenue – subsequently, the company issued four
downgrades to revenue and EBITDA margin guidance," Ferris said.

"Slater and Gordon is investigating whether the information
ultimately released by A2 is likely to have been known to the
company at an earlier stage, and therefore whether A2 breached its
obligations to keep investors informed of material information in a
timely manner."

Ferris said the law firm expected to have reached a view about
whether there is sufficient basis for a claim to be made in the
coming weeks.

In a statement to NZX, A2 Milk said it was aware of media reporting
concerning the potential class action but was "not aware of any
legal proceedings having been filed at this time".

"The company believes that it has complied with all applicable
disclosure obligations and denies any claim to the contrary. The
company will respond further if and when any legal proceedings are
commenced." [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Chubchai Sues Over Injury Sustained From CoolSculpting
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHORNPHAN CHUBCHAI, EMILY MICHELLE MCGOLDRICK, JAVIER VALENCIA, and
PAULA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBVIE, INC. f/k/a ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a
ALLERGAN plc, and f/k/a ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-04099 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for strict product liability, negligence,
medical monitoring, negligent misrepresentation and concealment,
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, punitive damages, and
violations of the California False Advertising Law, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
the New York General Business Law, and the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
manufacturing, advertising, and marketing of the CoolSculpting
System, a medical device which has the ability to cause permanent
deformities to a person's body. The Defendant advertises and
promotes the CoolSculpting device as a nonsurgical procedure
intended to reduce stubborn fat bulges in the body. However,
contrary to the representation, the device can cause consumers to
develop a condition called Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia (PAH) or
also known as Paradoxical Hyperplasia (PH). Due to the Defendant's
failure to use ordinary care, the Plaintiffs' CoolSculpting
provider did not and could not adequately inform the Plaintiffs and
other CoolSculpting patients about the real risk of developing
serious and permanent condition. Consequently, the Plaintiffs and
Class members were induced to purchase CoolSculpting cycles and
undergo the CoolSculpting procedure and suffered economic damages
and/or personal injuries as a result, the suit says.

AbbVie, Inc., formerly known as Allergan, Inc., formerly known as
Allergan plc, and formerly known as Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., is an
American biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in North Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
         E-mail: Astraus@Milberg.com

                - and –

         Louiza Tarassova, Esq.
         LOU LAW
         2180 N. Park Avenue., Suite 208
         Winter Park, FL 32789
         Telephone: (407) 622-1885
         Facsimile: (407) 536-5041
         E-mail: louiza@mylawadvocate.com
                 service@mylawadvocate.com

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on May 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ACAD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16362&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the materials submitted in support of the
pimavanserin supplemental new drug application (sDNA) 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 Food and Drug
Administration Agency 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.

Shareholders have until June 18, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the ACAD lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 1 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on the behalf of investors who
purchased Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia") (NASDAQ: ACAD)
between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16375&wire=5

Allegations against ACAD include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin
supplemental new drug application (sDNA) 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 Food and Drug Administration Agency
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.

If you suffered a loss in Acadia you have until June 18, 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.

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

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

ALL ACCESS TELECOM: Must Face TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Reilly, Esq., and A. Paul Heeringa, Esq., of Manatt,
reported that adopting a broad definition of a common carrier, a
West Virginia federal court declined to grant a motion to dismiss
from several voice service providers in a putative Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit.

The case is Mey v. All Access Telecom, Inc., et al. The named
plaintiff, Diana Mey, who is well known to TCPA Connect readers as
a frequent TCPA litigant, sued multiple communications service
providers, alleging that they ran afoul of the TCPA by transmitting
calls over their networks that contained spoofed caller ID
information.

The defendants moved to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction, arguing that they did not "make" the calls
at issue and were immune from liability under the statute as common
carriers.

Rejecting the defendants' arguments, U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Virginia John Preston Bailey first found that
the allegations in Mey's complaint were sufficient to establish
jurisdiction.

In TCPA cases, courts generally find that specific jurisdiction
exists when a defendant makes a call or sends a message into the
forum state by targeting a telephone number within the particular
forum, Judge Bailey explained.

In that regard, Mey alleged that each of the defendants was paid to
send calls into West Virginia, knew the calls were headed to West
Virginia and knew that the calls were in fact received in West
Virginia. These allegations were enough to support a finding of
specific jurisdiction, Bailey said.

The allegations were also sufficient to state a claim that the
defendants "made" calls for TCPA liability purposes.

Along those lines, Mey claimed that each defendant knew when the
spoofed robocalls were placed through their systems, which would
"light up" when the spoofer generated large numbers of spoofed
calls; could easily have made simple programming changes to block
the robocalls from being connected; took the steps necessary to
physically place obviously spoofed robocalls to Mey and other class
members; profited from the calls; and knowingly and willfully
assisted the spoofers to complete the critical steps necessary to
make the calls.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Mey's favor, the court found
that the totality of the circumstances alleged supported a
plausible inference that the defendants were liable.

Bailey also determined that the defendants were not immune from
TCPA liability as common carriers.

"The defendants paint with too broad of a brush," he wrote. They
"have not identified any authority holding that a common carrier
cannot be held liable under the TCPA—even if it has been found to
have been so involved in the unlawful communications that it can be
deemed to have made them. Indeed, the authority is to the
contrary."

Determining whether a given provider is a "common carrier" is an
activity-based analysis that requires a court to consider the
actual conduct of an entity. Mey alleged that the defendants were
involved in the placement of calls—including the timing or
sending of the calls, enabling the fraudulent spoofing, and
assisting the spoofers in blocking caller ID—and knowingly
allowed them to use the platform in violation of the TCPA.

Based on Mey's allegations, the court could not find that the
defendants were entitled to immunity as common carriers.

Finally, the court quickly rejected the defendants' arguments that
the entire TCPA was unconstitutional during the relevant calls, in
light of the Supreme Court's 2020 decision severing the government
debt collector exemption in Barr v. American Association of
Political Consultants, Inc.

To read the court's order in Mey v. All Access Telecom, Inc., et
al., click here.

Why it matters: The opinion provides an important warning to voice
service providers about the potential for liability under the TCPA.
Looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances as alleged
by the plaintiff, the court rejected the defendants' argument that
there was no jurisdiction, that they did not "make" the calls at
issue and should be immune as common carriers, finding the
plaintiff's allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
The decision is also another in a growing line of authority that
the invalidation of the 2015 government debt collector exemption in
Barr did not make the entire TCPA unconstitutional. [GN]


AMDOCS LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Amdocs Limited.

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

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/amdocs-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=16283&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: December 13, 2016 to March 30, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 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]


AMERICAN HONDA: Cruz Sues Over Vehicles' Battery Drain Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE CRUZ, MITCHELL BRYON PAZANKI, DAYANE TESSINARI, and FERNANDA
NUNES FERREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR, CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61130 (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Florida's Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
manufacturing, advertising, distribution, and marketing of Honda
CR-V (model years 2017-2019) and Honda Accord (model years
2016-2019) vehicles with a parasitic drain defect. The defect
occurs when electrical components in a vehicle fail to shut down
once the vehicle is turned off, which in turn results in the
continuous draining of power from the battery. The issue results in
the premature deterioration of the batteries in Class vehicles as
well as other component failures that directly impact safety and
reliability. Despite possessing exclusive knowledge of the defect
and the potential consequences that could occur as a result of the
defect at all relevant times, the Defendant repeatedly failed to
disclose and instead actively concealed the defect from Class
members and the public, and continued to market and advertise the
quality, safety and reliability of Class vehicles, the suit
alleges.

American Honda Motor, Co., Inc. is an automobile manufacturer based
in Torrance, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Mark. J. Dearman, Esq.
         Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 750-3000
         Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
         E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                 edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com

                - and –

         Marc A. Wites, Esq.
         WITES LAW FIRM
         4400 North Federal Highway
         Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
         Telephone: (866) 558-9631
         E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Jones Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case styled as George Jones, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00148-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa, May 18,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability for
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ --
develops and manufactures automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 741-1019
          Fax: (312) 264-0100
          Email: beth@feganscott.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC (NY)
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (332) 216-2101
          Fax: (312) 264-0100
          Email: jonathan@feganscott.com


AMERICAN WEB: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Goldberg, writing for The Intercept, reports that in the last
11 years, more than 600,000 people in the United States borrowed
roughly $1.05 billion from American Web Loan, an online payday
lending service that promises fast and convenient loans to people
in dire financial circumstances. The company's website features
video testimonials from customers who say that in the face of
medical bills or car repairs, American Web Loan quickly gave them
the cash advance they needed to handle unexpected emergencies.

What the testimonials leave out is the exorbitant interest rates
American Web Loan charges its borrowers. According to documents
from a federal class-action lawsuit filed against the company in
late 2017, American Web Loan's average interest rate for its $300
to $2,500 offerings was more than 560 percent. Almost two-thirds of
customers have managed to pay back their loan -- plus around $472
million in interest -- but many have been unable to shoulder the
additional debt.

In 15 states the interest rates charged by American Web Loan were
illegal; in others where payday lenders can register with the state
to seek exemptions, the company never has. American Web Loan
claimed it could charge sky-high rates because it was owned by a
Native tribe, the Otoe-Missouria. The tribe's sovereign status
meant that the business would have immunity against state usury
laws and civil suits. However, a judge ruled that American Web Loan
had no claims to tribal sovereignty because it actually belonged to
the tribe's business partner, Mark Curry, who's made a career out
of predatory lending.

"If anything, he's controlling the tribe. The tribe isn't
controlling him. And he's continuing to do that," Judge Henry Coke
Morgan Jr. said to American Web Loan's attorney during a 2019
hearing. "The tribe's being, in effect, paid a royalty for your
client to wear -- what is it they call it? -- the ermine cloak of
sovereign immunity? That's all it is."

The case, which reached a preliminary settlement agreement in
April, generated extensive discovery about American Web Loan's
business dealings over the last decade and provides an
unprecedented look under the hood of a major "rent-a-tribe"
operation, a once-popular financial services model among payday
lenders and their Wall Street and Silicon Valley investors.
(Lawyers for Curry and American Web Loan declined to comment on the
record; the preliminary settlement agreement prohibits all involved
parties from speaking to the press.)

In 2009, Curry approached the chair of the Otoe-Missouria, John
Shotton, to set up an online lending company under the tribe's
jurisdiction. Behind the scenes, court records reveal that Curry
and his labyrinth of companies handled almost every aspect of
American Web Loan's operation. As loan repayments began and the
company became flush, Curry reaped millions in profits and began
seeking out investors to grow the business.

Amid federal and state crackdowns on "rent-a-tribe" operations
starting in 2013, Curry eventually arranged with Shotton to sell
the companies that ran American Web Loan to the Otoe-Missouria. The
$200 million deal allowed Curry to continue running the business in
the background and saddled the tribe with insurmountable debt --
just like what happened to many of American Web Loan's customers.

"Tribes have to make money, but doing it at the expense of the
public gives tribal sovereignty a bad name," said Nathalie Martin,
a University of New Mexico law professor who has written about
alliances between payday lenders and Native tribes. "When you use
your sovereignty for these types of things, it could be seen as
weakening and cheapening that sovereignty."

Setting Up Shop
By the time he met the Otoe-Missouria leadership, Curry had already
made a name for himself in the payday lending industry. The
53-year-old native of the Kansas City area -- home of online payday
lenders -- specialized in "rent-a-bank" arrangements, in which
lenders made pacts with federal banks based in states with no
interest rate caps to shield themselves from state lending laws.
His companies, Geneva Roth Ventures and Geneva Roth Capital, had
partnered with banks in Utah to loan money to borrowers nationwide
through the website Loan Point USA. But as regulators banned or
fined Curry's "rent-a-bank" operation in at least seven states, he
began searching for a new venture.

What he came up with appeared in a presentation to potential
investors in American Web Loan: the sovereign nation model.

Shotton, then the 32-year-old chair of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe,
saw in American Web Loan a new revenue source. About 40 percent of
the Otoe-Missouria, a tribe of roughly 3,000 members based in tiny
Red Rock, Oklahoma, lived below the federal poverty line. At the
time, four casinos had been the tribe's economic engine; its
members received quarterly payments of around $700 from gaming,
according to the tribe's newsletters. But that revenue had come
under threat from new establishments across the border in Kansas.

Curry and the tribe's leaders went into business, a relationship
that was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Otoe-Missouria
council created American Web Loan as a tribal corporation, but it
was the lender in name only. Despite Curry's claim that he was just
a consultant for the company, slides from the investor presentation
attached as exhibits in court filings show him as CEO of all the
companies behind it, with "100% Ownership or Control." MacFarlane
Group, his successor to Geneva Roth, ran the lending operation, and
he signed a service agreement with American Web Loan, he would
later testify, that his companies would handle practically every
aspect of business operations: lead generation, follow-up
communications, loan processing, money transfers, software
management, customer support, credit reporting, and collections.

The tribe's contributions were largely cosmetic: It appointed a
nominal head to write out the loan checks, according to the tribe's
then-vice chair, and set up a call center in Red Rock and a
consumer finance regulatory body whose ordinances would create the
impression of oversight. Only six out of 50 American Web Loan
employees were from the tribe, and they all worked in the Red Rock
call center. (Shotton later testified that the company had hired an
additional four tribal members.)

American Web Loan told borrowers that their loans were governed by
tribal law -- not federal law or the laws of their home state. They
had to enroll in automated bank transfers to get the money; the
first repayments would often be automatically deducted from the
registered account two weeks later. Ironically the Otoe-Missouria's
own members could not borrow from the tribe's lender -- charging
members such astronomical interest rates is illegal under the
tribal criminal code.

"The way we look at it at the tribal level is we developed our own
code, developed the rules around lending," Shotton said when asked
about American Web Loan's interest rates in court in 2019. "We're
very protective in a fair way. We have great consumer protection."
(Tribal council leaders and other members did not comment for this
story.)

Curry's companies carried the ultimate financial risk and reward:
His company American Web Loan Holdings LLC purchased a loan from
the lender at a small premium about two weeks after it was
established. The company kept 99 percent of the loan portfolio,
while the tribe retained 1 percent -- a fair split, according to
Curry, since both sides had agreed. From February 2010 until
September 2016, Curry testified that his firm's share of the
profits amounted to around $110 million. In comparison, the tribe
only received about $8 million.

Expanding the Empire
In 2011, American Web Loan's first full year in operation, the
amount of loans the company disbursed rose 71 percent, from $35
million to $59.7 million, according to the class-action complaint.
Over the next three years, Curry sought financing of at least $110
million from private equity firms, hedge funds, and other
investors. He made the pitches with the help of at least two
investment banking firms including Middlemarch Partners, which is
named in the 2017 lawsuit for its role in helping finance the
allegedly illegal operation. Curry's MacFarlane Group spent $15
million annually on marketing, which, according to a 2013
Middlemarch presentation to potential investors filed as an exhibit
in the complaint, made it and its clients "among the largest
acquirers of leads in online consumer lending."

An early investor was a $470 million hedge fund called Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, which provided American Web Loan Holdings
with a loan of almost $23 million in late 2011. Brothers Brook and
Seth Taube, who ran the fund and were also named in the lawsuit,
were familiar with the payday lending industry, previously
investing in a payday store chain. (Lawyers for Medley and
Middlemarch did not return requests for comment.)

The Taubes were not passive investors. As part of their credit
agreement with American Web Loan Holdings, Medley required monthly,
quarterly, and annual financial statements, plus weekly reports
"providing in reasonable detail fees earned and default percentages
on loan portfolios." Curry also had to furnish the documents he had
signed with the tribe's leadership to establish American Web Loan;
if they were ever changed without Medley's consent, the fund could
terminate the loan it had made to Curry's American Web Loan
Holdings.

American Web Loan became one of Medley's top performers. But in at
least one of Medley's investor presentations, it was referred to
only as "Online Consumer Finance Platform" while Medley's 15 other
investments were named. Because its identity was hidden, Medley's
investors, some of which were public employee pension plans, would
not see that a payday lender was in the fund's portfolio. Of all
the companies listed, American Web Loan boasted the highest cash
yield (15 percent) and gross contractual return (25.6 percent).

American Web Loan had emerged as a massive and complex lending
enterprise: American Web Loan Holdings was the borrower, and
another 30 companies -- all of them fully or partially owned by
Curry -- appeared in its corporate structure and provided different
lending functions, according to Medley's credit agreement. All but
two had the same primary place of business: a nondescript
single-story office building outside Kansas City. Companies like
"Dinero" and "Chieftain" were listed as holding loan portfolios;
based on other presentations, as well as their curious names, these
entities might have been intended to mask the identities of
investors outside of Curry's web of businesses, according to the
complaint, since the Medley loan only accounted for part of the
venture capital Curry was seeking.

With Medley's backing, Curry luxuriated in American Web Loan's
explosive growth. According to real estate records, he purchased a
$1.8 million mansion in the Las Vegas suburbs. In late 2012, he
moved to Puerto Rico, where he created SOL Partners, a firm that
provided Spanish-language call center services to the payday
lending industry, and a private family foundation that supports
programs for Native causes and cultural preservation, according to
its website.

By 2013, SOL Partners joined MacFarlane Group to manage the key
lending functions of American Web Loan and provide capital,
according to the Middlemarch presentation. Despite the
Otoe-Missouria's limited role in American Web Loan, in the
presentation the tribe appears in the middle of Curry's lending
empire -- a linchpin onto which Curry would later fasten his entire
legal defense.

Crackdown on Tribal Lenders
The Otoe-Missouria is among dozens of tribes that entered into
dubious arrangements with online payday lenders beginning in the
mid-2000s. Elsewhere in Oklahoma, for instance, the Modoc Tribe and
the Miami Nation partnered with Scott Tucker, a former race car
driver and payday lender who later became a subject of the Netflix
series "Dirty Money." Together with his attorney, Timothy Muir, and
the Santee Sioux of Nebraska, they created a multibillion-dollar
payday operation in which the tribes appeared to be in control.
Many tribes created multiple lending websites; the Otoe-Missouria
Tribe also established two other lending companies -- Great Plains
Lending and Clear Creek Lending -- that targeted different customer
bases than that of American Web Loan.

It wasn't long before federal and state regulators started looking
into tribal lenders. In early 2013, the Justice Department began
investigating online payday lenders and the third-party payment
processors that handled their bank transactions. In August, the New
York State Department of Financial Services sent cease-and-desist
letters to 35 online lenders, 11 of which were purportedly
tribal-owned or affiliated -- including American Web Loan and Great
Plains Lending. The department also sent letters to 117 state and
nationally chartered banks as well as Nacha, the administrator of
the automated clearing house network through which electronic
financial transactions are processed, asking for help in "choking
off" the online money transfers that the lenders depended on.

The Otoe-Missouria, along with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians based in Michigan, sued for an injunction
against that state department in New York federal court. According
to courtroom testimony, the tribes' legal fees were paid from the
membership dues of the Native American Financial Services
Association, an industry lobbying group Curry helped create.

The lawsuit became one of the first tests of the legal framework
behind "rent-a-tribe" operations. In their complaint, the tribes
invoked their sovereign immunity and challenged the department's
authority to impose state laws on tribal businesses.

In response, New York's attorney general wrote that his state's
usury statutes indeed applied to financial transactions between
tribes and New York consumers "when those transactions have
significant and injurious off-reservation effects -- as is the case
here, given the crippling debt that payday loans cause to New
Yorkers."

The Southern District of New York ruled against the tribes. On
appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the decision, concluding that the
tribes hadn't provided sufficient evidence to prove that their
internet loans should count as on-reservation activity.

The Otoe-Missouria's troubles only escalated from there. In a
one-year period beginning in February 2013, the Federal Trade
Commission received 461 complaints against American Web Loan and
Great Plains Lending -- second only to lenders affiliated with the
Miami Tribe.

In early 2015, Connecticut's Department of Banking fined Shotton
$700,000 and Great Plains Lending and Clear Creek Lending a
combined $800,000 for making loans to Connecticut residents that
violated the state's interest rate cap. Shotton filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit in Oklahoma against Connecticut regulators,
but the rulings were upheld in Connecticut two years later.

Up until then, the masterminds behind the tribal lenders had
largely avoided legal scrutiny. This changed in 2016, when Tucker
and Muir were arrested on federal racketeering charges tied to
their $3.5 billion "rent-a-tribe" operation. Prosecutors described
their ownership arrangements with the three tribes -- the Miami,
Modoc, and Santee Sioux -- as shams.

Tucker and Muir were convicted and sentenced to nearly 17 years and
seven years in prison, respectively, sending shockwaves through the
online payday industry. The tribes accepted non-prosecution
agreements, admitted in court to overstating their roles to help
Tucker and Muir elude state laws, and forfeited their proceeds: $48
million from the Miami and $3 million between the Modoc and Santee
Sioux. The tribes' cuts of the profits were reportedly 1 percent of
the revenues -- the same as the Otoe-Missouria.

It was around the time of the arrests that Curry began talking to
Shotton about selling the tribe the companies behind American Web
Loan.

"The Tribe Owns the Business"
Despite the state legal battles and mounting consumer complaints,
American Web Loan's business hadn't suffered. From 2013 until
September 2016, American Web Loan Holdings brought in revenues of
almost $670 million, and Curry himself was receiving an average of
$18 million a year, according to courtroom testimony. Shotton
claimed in his 2019 testimony that the company was valued at $340
million.

Curry's name never appeared on court documents in the New York
case, and Shotton wrote in his sworn declaration that the
Otoe-Missouria wholly owned and operated its lending companies. As
the walls appeared to be closing in on tribal lenders, Curry and
Shotton agreed that the tribe would buy American Web Loan's
infrastructure for $200 million -- an amount the tribe did not
have.

According to court records, Curry sold MacFarlane Group to the
tribe through seller take-back financing: Companies owned by Curry
would loan about half the $200 million to the tribe, and the tribe
would pay the rest over a five-year consulting deal with Curry's
SOL Partners that it wouldn't be able to get out of regardless of
SOL's performance. This arrangement allowed Curry to pay less taxes
on the sale, he later testified, and the tribe to make fewer
interest payments.

On September 8, 2016, the Otoe-Missouria formed a new entity called
Red Stone to purchase MacFarlane, American Web Loan Holdings, and
Bullet Hole, Curry's software company. According to court records,
Red Stone borrowed about $95 million, plus 10 percent interest,
from three of Curry's new companies, all of which were created a
week later. The remaining balance of roughly $100 million would be
paid through SOL Partners. The management team continued to operate
out of the same corporate offices; the tribe had to pay Curry rent
for the MacFarlane Group office he owned in Las Vegas.

The Otoe-Missouria council approved the deal in a special session
on September 21, 2016, with five in favor, one abstaining, and one
absent. The tribe now had to pay about $4 million to Curry every
month for the next five years.

Curry and Shotton denied in court that the acquisition was meant to
give the appearance of ownership to the tribe and shield Curry from
liability. After six years in business, Shotton claimed that the
tribe had been ready to buy MacFarlane Group, to which he said it
had "outsourced" certain operations.

Shotton spoke about the unusual financing structure in a 2018
deposition: "The tribe didn't care. The tribe wants the business in
five years. They want to be in control of everything." Yet in court
the following year, he insisted that "the tribe owned and operated
the business from day one."

In an email Curry sent to Shotton in July 2016, he wrote, "It was
more clear that the tribe owns the business and not me." Curry also
noted that the tribe still "gets the same as what was originally
contemplated. The tribe will have everything they need to run the
business."

American Web Loan 2.0
The "new" American Web Loan chose not to do business in states
where regulators had challenged its practices, including
Connecticut and New York. According to court documents, the tribe's
cut would come out of a pool of money that also paid for operating
expenses and the monthly loan repayments to lenders owned by Curry.
The tribe would receive 3.6 percent of the revenues, up from 1
percent. Shotton and the tribal council decided to put half of the
profits in the tribe's general fund and the other half in its
economic development authority to help fund its cattle-ranching
company and a new propane business. The tribe's first draw in 2017
was $6 million, an amount that was scheduled to increase by $1
million annually until the loan was paid off.

About a month after the deal was approved, Curry's chief marketing
officer sent him an email, dated November 3, 2016, about how the
tribe's debt posed "challenges" to revenue generation, according to
courtroom testimony.

"We're in a bit of a catch-22," the email read. "AWL must generate
specific EBITDA to support and fund the note" -- referring to
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or
the company's profitability. "On paper, it seems obvious that we
need to push rates higher to drive EBITDA; however, consumer demand
for higher rates is uncertain."

After the merger, American Web Loan raised its interest rates
beyond 700 percent. According to the class-action complaint,
direct-mail solicitations were made to look like a check payable to
the recipient, enticing them to follow up on their "pre-approval"
for a loan: "Get $1,500 in as little as 1 day!" Some borrowers
claimed that they had not been told the rate or the total payment
they would owe, saying they got a copy of their loan agreement only
after receiving the money.

Curry denied in court that the company's skyrocketing interest
rates were connected to the Otoe-Missouria's debt to him. "I
believe there was a shifting of the credit bands that we used," he
said. "I don't believe that it was a wholesale shift up."

The new Trump administration soon calmed the alarm over Tucker and
Muir's case and began to pave the way for Curry to plot American
Web Loan's comeback. In mid-2017, the Justice Department ended its
Obama-era investigation of online payday lenders. The following
year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismissed a lawsuit
against a group of tribal-affiliated lenders. "The federal became
totally denuded in every single way," said Martin, the law
professor.

Curry set out to double or triple the size of American Web Loan's
loan portfolio in three to four years, according to the complaint.
Middlemarch Partners, the firm that had previously helped him find
investors, sent out a solicitation in 2017 seeking up to $90
million for Curry's "top-five fintech company." There was no
mention of the sale to the Otoe-Missouria.

A Sword and a Shield
In 2018, Curry, American Web Loan, Middlemarch Partners, and Brook
and Seth Taube of Medley Opportunity II Fund faced a class-action
lawsuit for racketeering in Virginia federal court. By the time the
preliminary settlement was reached in April, the class included
606,318 people who took out 1,055,376 loans from American Web Loan
between January 1, 2012, and June 26, 2020, plus an unspecified
number of individuals who borrowed money during the two years
before that period when the company did not retain records.

Evidence in the case has shown that Curry did not actually hand
over ownership of American Web Loan to the Otoe-Missouria but that
he did appear to shift financial and legal risk from himself to the
tribe.

Despite Shotton's testimony that American Web Loan retained Curry
as part of a "short-term transition," Curry remained as CEO of the
company four years after the loan deal and maintained control over
day-to-day operations.

American Web Loan's new board of directors -- made up of Shotton,
Curry, two of Curry's associates, and two tribal members -- met for
the first time on November 8, 2016, in Oklahoma City, according to
courtroom testimony. The board voted to appoint Curry as the head
of the company and to pay each board member $5,000 per monthly
meeting. They later raised it to $7,500. Seven months into the
lawsuit, the board -- which still included Curry -- approved
Curry's request to pay his legal fees.

The board's first meeting also included a request to the
Otoe-Missouria council -- on which Shotton and American Web Loan
board member Ted Grant also served -- to pass legislation to give
Curry and the other non-Native board members tribal immunity, which
was granted the following month.

In its loan agreements with Curry, the tribe had already waived its
own sovereign immunity, and any change in tribal law or tribal
government action against American Web Loan would lead to default.
Curry claimed in court that he had no idea who wrote these
provisions into the contracts.

In 2019, Morgan, the judge in the case, seized on the immunity
request as evidence of Curry's motive to retain control of the
company and protect himself from liability -- even if it came at
the tribe's expense. "He wants to use sovereign immunity as a sword
and a shield," Morgan said from the bench.

Based upon well-established legal tests, Morgan ruled that American
Web Loan was not a tribal business because Curry controlled
virtually every part of its operation and that his and American Web
Loan's claims to immunity were invalid. As a result, the judge said
the case could head to trial to take up the legality of the lending
operation. The defendants claimed that tribal immunity applies to
American Web Loan, Curry, and SOL Partners and that their lending
activity was not subject to any state laws or regulations.

As for the Otoe-Missouria's role, Morgan said, "The tribe benefits,
up until now, in a very small way, but a very steep price is paid
by the victims."

Shotton and the other two board members from the tribe, all of whom
were indemnified from the lawsuit, earned far more from the monthly
board meetings than the Native company employees. Around the time
the council granted Curry immunity, Shotton had asked him for a
$25,000 bonus for himself and the other board members, according to
courtroom testimony.

The parties in the lawsuit initially reached a settlement agreement
more than a year ago, but after a handful of American Web Loan
consumers objected in part to the inadequacy of its debt relief,
Morgan rejected it in November. Per the terms of that original
preliminary settlement, Curry resigned from the board and as CEO
last June. In October, he signed an affidavit stating that the
tribe's loan payments to him would be suspended until the
settlement went into effect, at which time the loan would end.

Morgan, who had ordered the parties back to mediation, gave
temporary approval to a modified agreement in April. A final
settlement hearing is scheduled for July 9.

The borrowers' cash award will be $86 million, minus $18.5 million
in attorneys' fees -- about a quarter of which will come from Curry
and the rest from what American Web Loan would have given Curry as
debt payments and consulting fees. Any outstanding debt the
consumers owe to American Web Loan will be canceled, as well as
close to $218 million worth of loans held by a trio of third-party
debt buyers. Curry agreed to leave American Web Loan in all
managerial and operational capacities on or before December 28,
2020.

American Web Loan is still in business, though it has agreed to
change some of its practices. The company will modify its loan
agreements to state that it will comply with applicable federal
laws and to include the full cost of a loan. The company will also
stop requiring borrowers to accept automatic bank withdrawals.

Without federal intervention, American Web Loan and other tribal
payday lenders can continue exploiting borrowers' financial needs
to turn a profit. Right before last November's election, the
Treasury Department issued a rule change that would pave the way
for the return of "rent-a-bank" operations that Curry made his name
from.

"He went from doing the same thing with banks to applying the same
theory to the Indian tribe," Morgan said during a hearing. "He's
just in it to make the money." [GN]

ARCIMOTO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Arcimoto Inc. ("Arcimoto" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: FUV) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02870, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Arcimoto between February 14, 2018 and March 22,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Arcimoto 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.

Arcimoto is purportedly engaged in the business of manufacturing
ultra-efficient three-wheeled electric vehicles. The Company's
products include the Fun Utility Vehicle ("FUV").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the preorders of Arcimoto's
FUVs were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units
delivered out of an alleged preorder of 422; (ii) Arcimoto failed
to disclose to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered
were under safety recall; (iii) Arcimoto's largest customer,
R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD
Capital, LLC; (iv) Arcimoto's partnership with HULA was an
undisclosed related party transaction; and (v) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 23, 2021, Bonitas Research ("Bonitas") published a
short-seller report addressing Arcimoto. In the report, Bonitas
alleged that Arcimoto fabricated pre-orders to generate fake
demand, only delivered on 19 of the 422 alleged pre-orders since
2018, sold 13 of these 19 pre-orders to an undisclosed related
party, and failed to notify customers that Arcimoto had filed a
total production recall notice with the the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

Following publication of the Bonitas report, Arcimoto's stock price
fell $1.10 per share, or approximately 6.56%, to close at $15.67
per share on March 23, 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]

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Array Technologies, Inc.
("Array" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Array securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's October 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"), or (2)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 2020 offering
(the "December 2020 SPO"), or (3) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's March 2021 offering (the "March 2021 SPO"), or (4)
between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021 both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/arry.

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 misleading statements to the market.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Array failed to disclose
that it was facing increasing costs for commodities such as steel
as early as Q1 2020, and simultaneously, Array was facing
increasing freight costs and other deteriorating business
conditions.

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/arry 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 Array
you have until July 13, 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]



ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Array Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY): (a) securities between October 14, 2020
and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with (1) the October 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"); or (2) the December 2020 secondary
public offering (the "December 2020 SPO"); or (3) the March 2021
secondary public offering (the "March 2021 SPO," and together with
the IPO and the December 2020 SPO, the "Offerings").

If you suffered a loss on your Array 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/array-technologies-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

In October 2020, Array completed its initial public offering,
selling 7 million shares at $22 per share.

On May 11, 2021, after the close of trading, Array announced first
quarter 2021 results, reporting lower revenues year-over-year and
lower margins as a result of increased steel and shipping costs.
The Company also announced that Peter Jonna had resigned from the
Board of Directors effective May 10, 2021.

On this news, Array's stock price fell $11.49 per share, or 46%, to
close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021, significantly below the
IPO price.

The complaint filed alleges that in the registration statements for
the Offerings and 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) dating back to the first quarter of
2020, prices of certain commodities such as steel was in the
process of more than doubling, and Array was facing increasing
freight costs; (2) the increases in commodity and freight costs had
been negatively impacting the Company's business and operations;
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 Array common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offerings and/or securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 13, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Array Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Array and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On May 11, 2021, post-market, Array issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2021.
Among other results, Array reported lower revenues year-over-year
and lower margins, citing increased steel and shipping costs.
Concurrently, Array announced the resignation of Peter Jonna from
the Company's Board of Directors, effective May 10, 2021. During an
earnings call later that day, when asked by an analysts to explain
the Company's "decision-making process for not hedging steel,"
Nipul Patel, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated that "in
the past, that has not been our strategy. We had been . . .
let[ting our suppliers] take that risk on." Following these
disclosures, analysts cut their ratings on Array's stock, citing
concern about its shrinking profit margins.

On this news, Array's stock price fell $11.49 per share, or 46.05%,
to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 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
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
discloses the filing of a class action lawsuit against Array
Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's October 2020 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), or to the Company's December 2020 offering (the
"December 2020 SPO"), or to the Company's March 2021 offering (the
"March 2021 SPO"), or between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before July 13, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/array-technologies-inc/#case-form to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Array failed to disclose that it was
facing increasing costs for commodities such as steel as early as
Q1 2020. At the same time, the Company was facing increasing
freight costs and other deteriorating business conditions. 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 Array, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

ARROWOOD INDEMNITY: Sheehan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrowood Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Brendan P. Sheehan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrowood Indemnity
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-03076 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2021).

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

Arrowood Indemnity Company -- https://www.arrowpointcap.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company offers insurance,
claims administration and auditing, investment management, and
consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ASA DEVELOPMENT: Graybar Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asa Development LLC,
D/B/A Unified Electric, et al. The case is styled as Graybar
Electric Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated with regard to that certain construction project
located at 770 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York v. Asa
Development LLC, D/B/A Unified Electric, et al, Case No.
653265/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 18, 2021).

Asa Development LLC doing business as Unified Electric --
https://www.unifiedelectric.co/ -- specializes in certified
prevailing wage projects made up of complex electrical
installations.[BN]


ATERIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 1 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Aterian, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ATER) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ATER:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16391&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Aterian, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's
recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed
assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported
artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks
customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or
artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until July 12, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the ATER lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


ATERIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian") (NASDAQ: ATER) between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get
more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16372&wire=5

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

Aterian, Inc. NEWS - ATER NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent,
self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from
questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial
intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks customer
interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or artificial
reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Aterian,
you have until July 12, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Aterian securities between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16372&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) f/k/a
Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MWK) between December 1, 2020
through May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important July 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aterian's organic growth is
plummeting; (2) Aterian's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were
overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (3)
Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed
product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses rebate
programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their product
offerings; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


ATERIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian") (NASDAQ: ATER) between December 1, 2020
and May 3, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16263&wire=5

Allegations against ATER include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's
recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed
assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported
artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks
customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or
artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Aterian you have until July 12, 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.

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

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

AUSTRALIA: Considers Capping Class Action Funders' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Duran at Reuters reports that Australia is considering
capping fees for litigation funders and lawyers, and guaranteeing a
minimum rate of return for plaintiffs, in its latest clamp down on
the industry following a surge in costly class action lawsuits.

Australia's government last year moved to tighten regulatory
scrutiny of wealthy offshore and local litigation funders following
a surge in successful class actions against companies in recent
years.

Litigation funders invest in lawsuits by funding them in exchange
for a share of any settlement or judgment. If the group of
plaintiffs lose, it does not have to repay the financial investor.

Companies such as Omni Bridgeway Ltd, formerly IMF Bentham, and
Maurice Blackburn, have funded more than 300 class action suits in
Australia, including against the country's major banks.

A parliamentary report headed by a governing Liberal party senator
in December said Australia's light touch regulatory regime had
created a global hot-spot for investors based in tax havens and
with "dubious corporate histories" generating huge returns, "in
some cases of more than 500 percent".

It suggested 70% of the gross proceeds could be a minimum return
for class action members.

"This measure is of particular importance to ensure successful
applicants are adequately compensated in their cases as well as
preventing litigation funders and law firms from taking
disproportionate fees in the process," Treasurer Josh Frydenberg
said in a joint statement with the nation's Attorney-General.

Litigation funders, however, say such a limit would be prohibitive
for smaller cases given the high risk nature and costs involved in
backing such lawsuits.

Last year, the government introduced a licencing requirement for
litigation funders, which were previously categorised as managed
investment schemes and did not need a financial services provider
licence.

It has also proposed legislation to permanently lower the bar on
listed companies' so-called "continuous disclosure" obligations,
protecting companies and their officers against liabilities for
misleading or and deceptive conduct unless "fault" can be proven.

The government will consult on the proposed minimum rate of return
guarantees before making a final decision this year, the statement
said. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Court Issues Ruling in Climate Change Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Russell, writing for Reuters, reports that a court ruling
that Royal Dutch Shell must speed up plans to curb greenhouse gas
emissions rocked the global oil and gas industry, but another
decision in a case brought by eight school-aged teens and a nun may
end up being more significant.

The order by a Dutch court that Shell must drastically deepen its
planned emission reductions raised fears in the industry of similar
legal actions against other oil and gas majors, and concern that
companies will be held liable for meeting court imposed climate
change targets.

The decision against Shell, coupled with shareholder rebukes
against U.S. oil majors Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) and Chevron (CVX.N),
made it a bad week for an industry that is grappling with how to
deal with the challenge of operating profitably and sustainably in
what is likely to be a carbon-constrained future.

An Australian court added fuel to the fire on May 27, ruling that
the country's environment minister has an obligation to children to
consider the harm caused by climate change when deciding whether to
approve a coal mine expansion. read more

The Federal Court of Australia made the ruling in a class action
suit brought by eight teenagers, aged between 14 and 17, and an
86-year-old nun acting as their litigation guardian. In the suit,
the teens argued that the expansion of Whitehaven Coal's (WHC.AX)
Vickery mine in New South Wales state would contribute to climate
change and endanger their future.

Australia is the world's largest exporter of coking coal used to
make steel and second-biggest in thermal coal for power generation,
and the industry -- domestically and abroad -- has become a
political battleground.

The court ruling was only a partial victory, though, as the judge
didn't grant an injunction to prevent Environment Minister Sussan
Ley from approving the mine.

The ruling does mean the minister will have to consider her duty of
care to future generations, with Justice Mordecai Bromberg saying
the minister can foresee the possibility of the climate damage from
the coal mine.

The judge said there is evidence of the "severe harm" climate
change can cause future generations.

"It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of
adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest
intergenerational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of
humans upon the next," Bromberg said, according to a report in the
Financial Times.

WIDER IMPACT

Australia's federal government said it will study the judgment, and
it's likely the implications go well beyond a 10
million-tonnes-per-year coal mine.

The obvious end point of the case is that citizens will be able to
sue the government for damages caused by climate change, using the
argument that the government was well aware of the risks but still
took actions that contributed to increasing carbon emissions.

If the government deems the risk of being sued by its own citizens
to be high, it may have to concede that approving more coal will be
challenging.

For its part, Whitehaven Coal welcomed the decision not to grant
the injunction against its planned mine expansion, and will work to
get a final approval from the federal government.

The company also made the curious statement that it foresees a
continuing role for what it termed "high-quality coal" in
contributing to "global CO2 emissions reduction efforts".

The only way burning coal from Whitehaven's mine could be deemed to
be helping reduce emissions is if it were replacing even dirtier,
lower-quality coal, or perhaps if the end user was capturing all
the emissions and storing them.

There is no evidence to support either assertion and Whitehaven's
stance is at odds with a recent paper from the International Energy
Agency that called for an end to the funding and development of
fossil fuel projects.

The one factor in common in the Dutch and Australian rulings is
that for companies and governments the risks of legal actions and
being held accountable on climate change-related issues are not
only very real, but also increasing.

Environmental activists have finally realised that hitting
companies and governments with potentially massive liabilities is a
far more effective strategy than having protesters chain themselves
to mining equipment or staging similar high-profile but ultimately
low-impact demonstrations. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over Coal Mine Expansion in New South Wales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Gralow and Cordelia Hsu, writing for Reuters, report that
leading thousands of protest marchers through central Sydney and
joining a landmark class action lawsuit aren't the usual activities
for most 14-year-olds.

But Australian student Izzy Raj-Seppings has abandoned more
frivolous extracurricular activities in favour of stepping up
pressure on the country's leadership to battle climate change.

Raj-Seppings has become one of the country's most prominent
environmental activists since her tear-stained face made global
headlines in late 2019 when she stared down riot police threatening
to arrest her outside the prime minister's home.

"I think a lot of people look at us and just say, 'oh, they're
kids, they don't know what they're talking about," she told Reuters
in an interview on April 6.

"But I think they are underestimating us and they don't realise how
powerful we are and how much work we're putting in. We're listening
to scientists who have been trying to get people's attentions for
generations and people haven't been listening to them about climate
change."

Australia is the highest per capita carbon emitter among the
world's richest nations and, according to Raj-Seppings, Prime
Minister Scott Morrison's inaction on climate change shows the need
for a change in leadership.

Her brush with police in 2019 came when the then 13-year-old joined
angry protestors outside Morrison's official residence in Sydney in
the wake of devastating bushfires – her first protest. The
incident saw Raj-Seppings dubbed "Australia's Greta Thunberg" by
local media.

She stepped further into the spotlight last month, leading
thousands of fellow students in "School Strike 4 Climate" protest
march through central Sydney.

She was also one of eight teenagers who brought a class action
lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the expansion
of a coal mine in New South Wales state would contribute to climate
change and endanger their future.

The case resulted in a landmark ruling that the country's
environment minister has so-called duty of care, or moral
obligation to children to consider the harm caused by climate
change.

Raj-Seppings had her own message for Morrison, should she have the
opportunity to meet him one day.

"I'd definitely tell him that he does need to wake up, that the
time is coming for action and we need it now," she said in the
April 6 interview. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Opens Consultation on Litigation Funding, Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Dickson, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
following industry backlash last year, the government is consulting
on the recommendations for litigation funding and class actions.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial
Services Report Litigation funding and the regulation of the class
action industry, which was handed down on 21 December 2020,
contained 31 recommendations.

The report showed the growth of litigation funding, the
participation of international firms in Australia and abnormally
high profits for class action law firms and litigation funders.

"The Committee found that current regulatory arrangements are
inadequate and greater oversight of the industry is required in
order to ensure fair and reasonable outcomes for all class
members," treasurer Josh Frydenberg said.

The government has acted on Recommendation 29 by introducing
legislation to implement permanent changes to Australia's
continuous disclosure rules and will consult on the remaining
recommendations.

Frydenberg and attorney general Michaelia Cash will focus on
Recommendation 20 which proposes a guaranteed minimum rate of
return for class action members.

"This measure is of particular importance to ensure successful
applicants are adequately compensated in their cases as well as
preventing litigation funders and law firms from taking
disproportionate fees in the process," Frydenberg said.

Last year, when the Senate Parliamentary Joint Committee,
Corporations and Financial Services began looking into the
regulation of the industry it received backlash, particularly after
Frydenberg defined class actions as managed investment schemes.

At the time, Class Actions Australia said the regulations could
prevent compensation payouts to Australians that were cheated by
big banks. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: To Finalize Response on Class Action Reform Proposals
----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the Federal Government will
finalise a response on litigation funding and class action reform
proposals after completing further consultations this year.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash say
legislation has already been introduced to make permanent changes
to continuous disclosure rules and further reforms will be
considered as part of its response to a Parliamentary Committee
inquiry.

The Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which
handed down its report on litigation funding and class action
regulation last December, made 31 recommendations. They included
the disclosure rule reforms and introducing a guaranteed minimum
rate of return for class members.

"This measure is of particular importance to ensure successful
applicants are adequately compensated in their cases as well as
preventing litigation funders and law firms from taking
disproportionate fees in the process," the Government statement
says.

"Consultation on a guaranteed rate of return will be conducted by
Treasury and the Attorney-General's Department ahead of the
Government finalising a response."

The committee's final report says Australia's "unique and
favourably regulated" litigation funding market has become a global
hotspot for international investors, including many based in tax
havens and with "dubious" corporate histories.

Report recommendations also relate to competing class actions,
consistency across jurisdictions and issues around costs and fees.

Insurers appearing before the parliamentary committee last year
highlighted that directors' and officers' (D&O) cover was becoming
increasingly unaffordable as a result of class action pressures,
particularly related to listed companies. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Victoria Wants Lockdown Class Action Claims Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Epoch Times reports that the Victorian Labor government has
asked a judge to dismiss legal claims of economic loss and mental
injury by individuals and businesses who were impacted during the
state's second wave, describing the claims as "futile."

The class actions, which workers and businesses have brought, claim
that the state's handling of hotel quarantine, which allowed the
CCP virus to leak into the community, was negligent and caused
foreseeable loss.

The claims, however, do not argue that restrictions should not have
been imposed.

In the worker class action, the lead plaintiff, Jordan Roberts, who
was made redundant from his job in Tullamarine on Aug. 14, 2020,
during Victoria's stage four restrictions, is filing a lawsuit
against the state for economic loss and psychiatric injury.

The lead plaintiff in the business class action, Anthony Ferrara of
5 Boroughs NY Pty Ltd, which owns a New York-inspired restaurant at
Keilor Park, has filed for economic loss due to Melbourne's 112-day
lockdown last year.

Speaking at Victoria's Supreme Court on May 31, government lawyer
Rachel Doyle SC told Justice John Dixon that the class actions
failed to identify specifics and argued that "that led to this led
to this led to that."

"It's our submission that the answer is there is no real prospect
of success, and it would be futile to proceed," she said.

Doyle added that the plaintiffs' legal arguments were incoherent in
their reliance on "the end of a long line of dominoes."

Nevertheless, Carbone Lawyers, who are representing Jordan Roberts,
claim his retrenchment could be traced back to stage three and
stage four restrictions, which are alleged to have resulted from
then-Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, and Jobs Minister
Martin Pakula, reported The Age.

Genomic testing indicates that a significant proportion of the CCP
virus cases that sparked Victoria's second wave could be linked
back to Victoria's hotel quarantine program.

Government lawyer Rachel Doyle told the Supreme Court that
Victoria's Premier Daniel Andrews acknowledged a failure with the
hotel quarantine program and asked Justice Dixon "to bear that in
mind when it comes to the overall duty of care and the breach of it
in this case."

The two cases, which could cost the state billions of dollars,
continues to be argued in Victoria's Supreme Court.

In August 2020, Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a law firm
based in Sydney, launched a class action seeking compensation
against the Andrews government to all businesses who suffered
economic losses due to stage three and stage four lockdowns.

In March 2021, public housing residents filed a class action
against the Andrews government for allegations of assault and
negligence that occurred during the two-week lockdown in July 2020.
[GN]

AUSTRALIA: Victoria's Bid to Toss COVID-19 Class Suits Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Mills, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers fighting to
block a Victorian government bid to throw out two COVID-19 class
actions have urged a Supreme Court judge to give them a chance to
litigate their case.

The class actions, brought on behalf of businesses and workers
affected by last year's second-wave lockdown, allege the state was
negligent in its operation of hotel quarantine, which led to the
virus seeping into the community and causing the surge.

The defendants, which include the health and jobs ministers and
their secretaries, have called on Justice John Dixon to dismiss the
cases before a trial can begin, arguing the class actions are
futile and have no real prospect of success.

In court on June 1 Wendy Harris, QC, lawyer for the lead plaintiff,
Keilor Park restaurant 5 Districts NY, said failures in
implementing effective infection prevention and control led to the
virus escaping into the community.

"If you do not implement that program with proper regard to
infection prevention and control then, as we plead, it's reasonably
foreseeable that the virus will escape, spread in the community and
necessitate the imposition of restrictions on our businesses," Ms
Harris said.

The virus spread from returned travellers to, mostly, security
guards working in the Rydges on Swanston and the Stamford Plaza in
May and June last year, before seeding in the community.

Genomic and epidemiological sequencing linked 99 per cent of cases
in Victoria's second wave back to the hotels. More than 800 people
died as months of tough restrictions caused widespread commercial
shutdown and limited movement in the community.

The plaintiffs said infection prevention and control experts were
not stationed at the hotels, the workers were not properly trained
and there were failures in the use of protective gear and social
distancing.

Barrister acting for the government, Rachel Doyle, SC, said her
clients cannot be held liable for policy decisions on which the
hotel quarantine program was based. The legal arguments were
incoherent and indeterminate, she said.

The powers were exercised, Ms Doyle said, in the aid of public
health and that obligation to all Victorians would be distorted if
decision-makers had to prioritise commercial interests.

Ms Harris said the policy decision was to impose hotel quarantine,
but the way the system was run involved operational decisions in
which the government held a novel duty of care. Infection
prevention and control, Ms Harris said, was one of the "nuts and
bolts of its operation".

A 21-year-old retrenched worker, Jordan Roberts, heads the second
class action brought on behalf of employers -- including hair
salons and real estate agencies -- and employees who lost income
and suffered psychiatric harm.

This case also argues the government opted to use private security
to guard the hotels and failed to deploy Defence Force troops and
police.

John Richards, QC, said Premier Daniel Andrews admitted there were
failures in the program when he announced an inquiry into the
outbreaks in hotel quarantine in June last year.

"The failure in the operation of the program as described by the
Premier is a failure caused by the negligence in the administration
of the operation of the program and that negligence is actionable
in losses caused to plaintiffs," Mr Richards said.

The plaintiffs should be given a chance, he said, to litigate the
claim and prove their case.

Justice Dixon will hand down his decision about whether the cases
can proceed at a later date. [GN]

BASILICO RISTORANTE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATAN G. GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASILICO RISTORANTE AT DORAL, INC.
RODRIGO R. GONZALEZ and CARLOS LOYA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-22011 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated restaurant employees appropriate minimum wages and
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Mr. Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher and
cleaning person at Basilico Ristorante in Doral, Florida from
September 28, 2020 to April 22, 2021.

Basilico Ristorante at Doral, Inc. is an owner and operator of an
Italian restaurant located in Doral, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 1:19-cv-07786
District Judge Sara L. Ellis
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Baxter International Inc. ("Baxter") common stock during the period
from February 21, 2019 through October 23, 2019, inclusive, and
were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"). Certain persons and
entities are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in
detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April
1, 2021 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally certified
as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of
the Settlement Class. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the parties to the
Action have reached a proposed settlement for $16,000,000 in cash
("Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on August 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Sara L. Ellis at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United
States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604,
Courtroom 1403, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in
the Notice described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the
Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of effectuating
the Settlement; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.

If you have not yet received the detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and
(III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice")
and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at Baxter International Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions,
Inc., P.O. Box 5594, Portland, OR 97228-5594, 1-855-654-0873,
info@BaxterSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website for the Settlement,
www.BaxterSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's
websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.ktmc.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no
later than September 16, 2021, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member
and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but
you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 20, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net
proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option
that may allow you to be part of any other current or future
lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties
concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than July 20, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator:

Baxter International Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 5594
Portland, OR 97228-5594
1-855-654-0873
info@BaxterSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.BaxterSecuritiesLitigation.com

All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel:

James A. Harrod, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-610-667-7706
info@ktmc.com

DATED:  June 1, 2021                                               
          

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois [GN]


BLOOMBERG L.P.: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Adam Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER ADAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04775 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful refusal to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in approximately
November 2019 until April 2021 as a Representative in the Trading
Solutions department to respond to requests for assistance
regarding how to use proprietary Bloomberg software.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees in the Defendant's Trading Solutions department
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week for the Defendant. The
Defendant purportedly required them to be at work before their
shift began to log into the Defendant's computer system, and to
work past the end of their shifts to complete jobs. In addition,
they also worked at home to study various certification exams and
to learn about different issues regarding the Defendant's software
products. However, the Defendant did not properly compensate them
for their overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40, the suit says.

The Defendant allegedly failed to set up a time-keeping system that
would record all the hours its employees performed. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide them with notice at the time of hiring,
and with accurate wage statement that shows the number of hours or
overtime hours its employees worked.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages, including
overtime, as well as liquidated damages, litigation costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court finds just.

Bloomberg L.P. is a multinational mass media corporation that
provides software tools, data services, and news to financial
companies and organizations around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Artemio Guerra, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
          260 Fair St.
          KINGSTON NY 12401
          Tel: (845) 255-9370
          Fax: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: aguerra@getmansweeney.com

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Salmons BELO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA SALMONS, Plaintiff v. BP Exploration & Production
Inc. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY, Defendants, Cause No. 1:20-CV-38-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss.),
Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order.

The case arises out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement ("MSA") in the Deepwater Horizon litigation.  The
Plaintiff, a "Zone A Resident" under the MSA, filed the Back-End
Litigation Option ("BELO") lawsuit against BP on Sept. 30, 2019,
alleging that she was exposed to oil and chemical dispersants after
the blowout of the Macondo Well which caused the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill.  She allegedly suffered permanent injuries and was
diagnosed with "Invasive Moderately Differentiated Adenocarcinoma
Extending to Less than 1mm of the Polyp Base."

The Court's Case Management Order required the Plaintiff to
designate experts by Feb. 5, 2021.  On Dec. 10, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion to modify this deadline so that she could designate
a new expert, Dr. Natalie Perlin, who is expected to give opinions
concerning the effects of "invisible oil."  Dr. Perlin co-authored
a Feb. 12, 2020, study entitled "Invisible Oil Beyond the Deepwater
Horizon Satellite Footprint."

The Plaintiff explained that Dr. Perlin and her co-authors applied
"a never-before-used combination of technologies to calculate the
spatial extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, as well as the
toxicity of the released oil."  "The study concluded that satellite
imaging conducted during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill failed to
detect large amounts of toxic and invisible oil that spread
throughout the Gulf during oil spill cleanup response activities."

The Plaintiff's counsel reportedly "has been diligent in taking the
steps necessary to admit this newly discovered evidence in the
Plaintiff's case, as well as hundreds of other cleanup workers and
zone residents involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill."  The
Plaintiff therefore sought additional time so that her attorney and
Dr. Perlin could perform this work.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment, arguing that Salmons failed to timely designate
experts who could testify as to legal causation.  The Plaintiff
filed a Response, relying on her then pending Motion to Modify the
expert designation deadline.  The Defendants filed a Reply.

On March 4, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order declining to
extend the expert designation deadline and citing the Court's
decision in a similar case, Reeves v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No.
1:19-cv-456-LG-RPM.  On April 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Review of Magistrate Judge Order, arguing that the Reeves
order, as well as the Magistrate Judge's reliance on it, was
clearly erroneous and contrary to law.  The Defendants filed a
Response, to which the Plaintiff did not reply.  The Plaintiff then
filed a Supplemental Brief in opposition to summary judgment, to
which the Defendants replied.

Discussion

I. Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order

The Plaintiff raises three objections to the Magistrate Judge's
reliance on Reeves in denying her Motion to Modify Dates in Case
Management Order.  In so doing, she assails the Magistrate Judge's
Order and the Reeves opinion on which it is based.

First, the Plaintiff objects that a number of other court decisions
support her requested relief and that these decisions were not
sufficiently considered in either the Reeves opinion or the instant
Order.  However, Judge Guirola finds that in both cases, the
Plaintiff freely cited other courts' orders granting similar
motions; the Judge was aware of those other decisions.
Nevertheless, after consideration of the relevant facts and legal
authority, the Judge determines that the Plaintiff had not shown
good cause for modification of the expert designation deadline, a
decision which is not without precedent.

Second, the Plaintiff objects that the Reeves opinion committed
legal error in discussing the probable inadmissibility of Dr.
Perlin's testimony under Daubert on a Rule 16(b) Motion.

However, Judge Guirola holds that the Court exercised the
gatekeeping function under Daubert in relation to the second and
third Rule 16(b) factors -- namely, the importance of the expert
testimony and potential prejudice to the Defendant.  The Court
found that Dr. Perlin's opinions were most likely inadmissible,
that it would needlessly complicate the matter, and that it would
thereby prejudice the Defendant.  Similarly, in Melendez v. BP
Expl. & Prod., Inc., Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-3158 (S.D. Tex. Dec.
3, 2020), the Southern District of Texas cautioned that it was "not
making a Daubert ruling as it cannot without actually reviewing the
resulting study, the circumstances surrounding how it was
conducted, the results, and how it is received by experts in the
field."  Rather, it found that the Invisible Oil theory was "not
the kind of evidence that one waits to the last minute to create."
Like Melendez, the Court considered the expert's admissibility only
in connection to the importance of the expert and the additional
expense, time and effort implicated by Daubert motion practice.

In agreement with the Magistrate Judge, Judge Guirola is convinced
that the reasoning shared by Reeves and Melendez is
indistinguishable and applicable to the Plaintiff's Motion.  While
the Plaintiff has provided an explanation for the delay in
designating Dr. Perlin, the other three Rule 16(b) factors support
the Magistrate Judge's decision.  Hence, the Magistrate Judge did
not commit clear error in relying on the Reeves decision, and the
Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Order must therefore be
denied.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), which provides that summary
judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law."  "When the moving party has
carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than
simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts."  "The nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial."

In opposition to summary judgment, the Plaintiff concedes that she
"is unable to fully factually support her position in regard to
expert disclosures."  She, therefore, invokes Rule 56(d), which
provides that, where "a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration
that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to
justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the
motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other
appropriate order."  The Plaintiff maintains that she "requires
additional time to secure the new science outlined in the Invisible
Oil Study to provide a scientifically reliable measure of exposure
that can be provided to Plaintiff's medical causation experts
and/or toxicologist."  Her supplemental opposition also relies on
the Invisible Oil Study as the basis of her Rule 56(d) request.

Because Judge Guirola affirms the Magistrate Judge's denial of an
extension to designate this expert, he must regard the Rule 56(d)
request as moot.  Beyond her proposed late designation of Dr.
Perlin based on the questionable Invisible Oil theory, the
Plaintiff has not designated any experts to prove the essential
legal causation element of her claim.  As such, BP is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, and the lawsuit must be dismissed with
prejudice.

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Judge Guirola granted the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants and denied the Motion for
Review of Magistrate Judge Order filed by the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9y8fmp6 from Leagle.com.


BRAND ENERGY: Class Settlement in McClure Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Marlin McClure, an individual, for himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brand Energy Service, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement of his class, collective and
PAGA claims.

Defendant Waveland Services, Inc., employed the Plaintiff as a
sandblaster painter, supervisor, and relief foreman on an oil
platform off California's coast.  The Plaintiff and the similarly
situated employees worked 12-hour shifts daily with one 30-minute
meal period and two rest periods.  He alleges Waveland did not pay
employees meal or rest period premiums and did not itemize meal and
rest period earnings in employees' wage statements.  He also
alleges Waveland provided free meals and lodging to him and
similarly situated employees but did not account for the value of
these meals and lodging when calculating overtime wages.  Finally,
he alleges Waveland did not pay minimum wages to him and other
similarly situated employees.

While the case was pending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton. See 139 S.Ct.
914 (2019).  In Parker, the Court agreed to consider whether
California law would be adopted as surrogate federal law under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") Section 4 (43 U.S.C.
Section 1333(a)(2)(A)).  The Court's decision to hear Parker
Drilling had significant implications for the value and viability
of the Plaintiff's claims.

Originally, the Plaintiff's minimum wage claims were based solely
on California wage and hour law, which he insisted applied to the
Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"), and he relied heavily on the Ninth
Circuit's ruling in Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services,
Ltd., 881 F.3d 1078, 1099 (9th Cir. 2018), the decision for which
the Supreme Court granted certiorari.  The parties thus executed a
tolling agreement that would permit certain amendments to the
complaint, and the Court stayed the litigation until the Supreme
Court issued its decision in Parker Drilling.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that California wage and
hour law does not operate as surrogate federal law under OCSLA.  It
dismissed Newton's state law overtime and minimum wage claims and
remanded the remaining state law claims for the lower court to
determine the extent to which other California labor law could be
adopted and applied to the OCS.  The Supreme Court's decision was
adverse to the Plaintiff in the case because it meant his claims
for state minimum wages and overtime "failed as a matter of law"
and the viability of his other state law claims remained
unsettled.

The Plaintiff sought to file a second amended complaint to replace
his state law overtime and minimum wage claims with overtime claims
under federal law and clarify that the remaining state law claims
survived because there are no federal laws applicable to the issues
relevant to his case.  The parties stipulated to the Plaintiff's
filing of the second amended complaint, which is the operative
complaint.  The amended complaint includes claims under the
California Labor Code, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  He also
seeks civil penalties under California's Private Attorney General
Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.

The complaint is styled as a putative Rule 23 class action and FLSA
collective action.  The Rule 23 class ("California class" or
"putative class") would include those with state law claims, i.e.,
the Plaintiff and any similarly situated hourly employees who, in
the four years before the case began, worked shifts of twelve hours
or more on oil platforms off the coast of California.  The FLSA
collective would include the Plaintiff and any similarly situated
hourly employees who, within the three years before the case began,
worked more than forty hours in a single workweek on oil platforms
off any coast of the United States and who were given meals,
lodging, or both in addition to their wages.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the proposed class and
collective claims after participating in mediation with Steven G.
Pearl, who has been recognized as "a well-respected mediator in
wage and hour matters."  Waveland agreed to pay a "Gross Settlement
Value" of $290,000.  Under an "escalator clause," if by the time of
preliminary approval, the number of individuals in either the
California class or the FLSA collective has increased by 7% or
more, Waveland will increase the gross settlement value on a
pro-rata basis by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in
the class or collective size.  Waveland may terminate the
settlement agreement if more than 7% of the California class
members opt out.

Several deductions would be taken from the gross settlement value
before it is distributed to the California class and the FLSA
collective.  First, Waveland agreed not to object to an attorneys'
fee award of up to 33% of the Gross Settlement Value, or $95,700,
and an award of litigation expenses of up to $7,500.  Second, the
agreement proposes a "service" or incentive award of $5,800 to the
Plaintiff.  Third, under California law, the California Labor and
Workforce Development agency will be paid 75% of any amounts
awarded under the PAGA.  That provision results in an effective
deduction from the total settlement amount of $5,800 with $4,350
being paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
(LWDA) and the remaining 25%t paid to the California class
members.

Fourth, the Gross Settlement Value would be reduced by the amount
of any administration costs, but the agreement limits that
deduction to $12,500.  Any administration costs greater than
$12,500 will be deducted from the proposed fee and expense awards
to the counsel.  After these deductions, the estimated Net
Settlement Value at the time the settlement agreement was reached
was $162,700, just above half of the Gross Settlement Value.  From
the Net Settlement Value, 40% would be distributed to the
California class and 60% would be distributed to the FLSA
collective.  The payments to each employee would be prorated by the
number of weeks they worked at Waveland.

If the Court approves the settlement agreement, a settlement
administrator would distribute two notice packets within 20 days of
the Court's order granting preliminary approval.  First, the
administrator would send a notice packet to the California class
members.

The California class members will not be required to submit a claim
form to receive a distribution, but they may opt out or object
within 45 days.  Once checks are delivered, checks not cashed after
90 days would be voided.  If the value of voided checks exceeds
$20,000, the unclaimed funds will be reallocated pro rata to those
who did cash their checks.  If the value of unclaimed funds does
not exceed $20,000, the amount would be "allocated to a suitable cy
pres recipient, including at the Plaintiff's choice, the Legal Aid
Foundation of Los Angeles."

Second, the settlement administrator would send a notice packet to
FLSA collective members.  The packet will advise the class members
of their minimum settlement allocations and the opportunity to opt
into the FLSA collective.  Recipients would have 45 days to opt in.
The settlement administrator will follow up each week of the
45-day period by phone and email.  The allocation for any member
that does not opt in will be reallocated on a pro rata basis to
collective members that are participating upon distribution of the
relevant settlement funds.

Discussion

A. California Class

The Plaintiff first seeks preliminary certification of the proposed
California class under Rule 23.  The California Class includes "all
current and former hourly employees of Defendant, who worked for
Defendant on oil platforms off the California coast for shifts of
12 hours or more during the California Class Period."  Rule 23(a)
imposes four prerequisites on every class.  If these prerequisites
are satisfied, the proposed class must fit the requirements of one
of the three subsections of Rule 23(b).  Finally, Rule 23(e)
imposes several additional requirements when, as here, the parties
have proposed to settle a putative class action.

1. Rule 23(a)--Prerequisites

Judge Mueller holds that the Plaintiffs are likely to satisfy the
four prerequisites of Rule 23(a).  First, tere are approximately
eighty-two California class members so the numerosity requirement
is satisfied.  Second, the case presents common questions suitable
to resolution "in one stroke" in a class action.  Third, the
Plaintiff's claims, and the defenses to them, are identical to
those of the other proposed class members.  Fourth, the Plaintiff's
representation is adequate and Strauss & Strauss, APC is also
adequate to represent the interests of the class with no apparent
conflicts.

2. Rule 23(b)--Type of Proposed Class

The Judge also finds that it does not appear the case will require
extensive fact-intensive inquiry into the circumstances of
individual Plaintiffs.  She finds preliminarily the questions
common to the class predominate.  Further, the Judge holds that the
record at this stage supports a preliminary finding the class
action is the superior method for resolving the matter.  In sum,
the proposed class appears likely to be certified under Rule
23(b)(3) at this preliminary stage.

3. Rule 23(e)--Preliminary Certification and Approval

Judge Mueller finds that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  She has already noted the arm's-length
negotiations and adequacy of Mr. McClure's representation as
Plaintiff, given the time he has dedicated to the case and his
verified explanation of his role.  The proposed settlement also
appears fair, reasonable and adequate given the strength and
weaknesses of the California Class' claims.

Other elements of the proposed settlement agreement, however, weigh
against preliminary approval under Rule 23(e).  First, a
disproportionate award to the counsel is a "subtle sign that the
class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interests and
that of certain class members to infect the negotiations."  Second,
the proposed incentive award is cause for concern.  Third, the
settlement agreement contains a 'clear sailing' provision, in which
Waveland agrees not to challenge a motion for attorneys' fees up to
33% or the incentive award to the Plaintiff of $5,800.  Finally, if
more than $20,000 in settlement checks to "Claimants," defined as
those in either the California class or the FLSA collective remain
uncashed 90 days after distribution, the funds will be allocated to
a second distribution to California class members who cashed their
first check.

The Judge concludes the settlement agreement is likely to be
approved under Rule 23(e)(2) if the concerns expressed can be
resolved at the final approval stage.  But the Judge can offer no
assurance that the proposed fee and incentive awards will be
approved without the additional information called for by her
order.

B. The FLSA Collective

Judge Mueller concludes for similar reasons as reviewed that the
members of the proposed FLSA collective action are similarly
situated.  The pleadings show more similarity than dissimilarity.
The Plaintiff alleges Waveland had a policy of failing to include
compensation for meals and lodging in calculating FLSA collective
members' base rate of pay for overtime purposes, and of failing to
pay minimum wages while collective members were not on shift but
confined to the oil platform.  He avers these policies are
memorialized in handbooks and other documentary evidence relevant
to all workers for the company.  The Judge finds these are the
requisite "substantial allegations" turning on a "reasonable basis"
as required at this stage of the litigation.  The FLSA collective
action may proceed to give putative collective members notice of
their right to opt in to the settlement.

Although the Judge has looked favorably on declarations of
similarly situated employees in the past as supporting the
plausibility of material similarities among FLSA collective
members, she says such declarations are not strictly necessary.
Their absence does not lead to the Court to reject the proposed
FLSA collective.

The Plaintiff amended the complaint to add FLSA claims, which
supported lower damages.  The Plaintiff's counsel estimates once
the Parker Drilling decision issued, it reduced the total value of
the case by 84.3%.  At the time of settlement, the total estimated
value, including nearly $3 million assigned to FLSA claims, was
between $3.3 and $3.5 million.  Although the parties agree the FLSA
is the controlling law post-Parker Drilling, Waveland maintains it
is in compliance with the law and the settlement may not "be
construed as, or used as an admission, concession, or indication by
or against the Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing or liability
whatsoever." In other words, absent the settlement, "the FLSA
claims would lose substantial if not all of their value."

The Judge also finds at this preliminary stage that the settlement
agreement is likely to embody "a fair and reasonable resolution of
a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" under Lynn's Food Stores.
  The factors described addressing the California claims support
the preliminary conclusion, but final approval will depend on the
resolution of the same concerns raised.

C. Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

The Plaintiff has not estimated the maximum value of his PAGA
claims.  The proposed $5,800 payment is only percent of the
$290,000 gross settlement.  But because the viability of the
California-based claims has been undermined by the decision in
Parker Drilling, Judge Mueller declines to deny the motion for this
reason.  Final approval, however, may not be granted without a more
thorough explanation of why the heavy discount is fair and
reasonable.

D. Proposed Class Notice

Judge Mueller holds that the California class notice packet
satisfies Rule 23.  It explains in plain language the parties to
the lawsuit, the claims at issue, and the terms of the settlement.
It provides instructions on how to object or opt out with
deadlines.  It informs class members they will be bound by the
release of claims if they do not opt out.  The notice packet
indicates class members may enter an appearance through an
attorney.  In the section titled "THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL
HEARING" it states, "You are not required to attend the Final
Approval Hearing, but you or your lawyer may attend if you choose.
If you are a Claimant and you wish to speak or have your lawyer
speak for you, you may do so."

The Judge approves the notice plan.  Waveland will provide the name
and contact information of all class members to the settlement
administrator, who will then mail notice packets directly to class
members and attempt to obtain a forwarding address for any class
member whose packet is returned as undeliverable.

E. Proposed FLSA Notice

Judge Mueller holds that the FLSA notice is sufficiently
even-handed.  It sets forth all the claims asserted in the suit,
but notes Waveland's belief that it has complied with the
applicable law.  Finally, the notice disclaims any endorsement of
any position in the suit by the Court.  The proposed notice period
during which FLSA collective members will be able to opt-in to the
suit is 45 days, which the Judge approves.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mueller grants preliminary
approval of the California class and conditionally certifies the
proposed FLSA collective for settlement purposes only but cautions
that the deficiencies identified above must be remedied before
final approval is appropriate.

The Judge preliminarily approves the California and FLSA class
definitions, and the settlement of the collective claims under
California law and the FLSA.

She approves and appoints (i) Phoenix Settlement Administrators as
the Settlement Administrator, (ii) Strauss & Strauss, APC to
represent the Settlement Class as the Class Counsel, and (iii)
Plaintiff Marlin McClure as the Class Representative.

The California class notice and FLSA notice are approved.

Judge Mueller orders the following schedule, as set forth within
the Settlement Agreement and proposed by the Plaintiff:

      a. Waveland will provide the contact information for
California Class and Collective Members to Phoenix Settlement
Administrators within 14 days from entry of the Order.

      b. Phoenix Settlement Administrators will mail Notice Packets
to California Class and Collective Members within 20 days from
entry of the Order.

      c. California members will have 45 days from the mailing of
notice packets to opt-out.  Collective Members will have 45 days
from the mailing of notice packets to opt-in.

      d. California Class and Collective Members will submit
objections, if any within 45 days of the mailing of notice
packets.

      e. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval and attorney's
fees and costs will be filed 40 days in advance of the final
approval hearing.

      f. The Final Approval Hearing is set for Aug. 27, 2021.

The Order resolves ECF No. 60.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/n3hnkksn from Leagle.com.


BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Braxia Scientific Corp. f/k/a
Champignon Brands Inc. ("Champignon") (OTC Pink: SHRMF) between
March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important June 9, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action commenced by the firm.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 9, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Champignon had undisclosed
material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2)
Champignon's previously issued financial statements were false and
unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported financial statements
would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's acquisitions involved
an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and
subsequent reporting delays and issues, the British Columbia
Securities Commission would suspend Champignon's from trading; and
(6) as a result, defendants' statements about Champignon's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: Former Salesperson Files Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Sienkiewic, writing for Summit Daily, reports that a lawsuit
has been filed against Breckenridge Grand Vacations for how it
classifies its salespeople as independent contractors.

On April 30, Arthur McMahon, who was formerly employed as a
salesperson with the company, filed a class action complaint and
demand for a jury trial. McMahon is challenging Breckenridge Grand
Vacations' practice of classifying its salespeople as independent
contractors and is seeking to recover overtime wages and benefits
for time worked while employed. He is also hoping to stop the
company from classifying its salespeople as independent contractors
in the future.

In the complaint, McMahon alleges that the company violated the
Colorado Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
Breckenridge Grand Vacations denies. [GN]





BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Conditional Certification Bid Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Binder, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. Brentlinger
Enterprises, d/b/a/ Magistrate Judge Vascura Midwestern Auto Group,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00136-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael
H. Watson entered an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to filing a properly supported motion for
conditional certification.

Judge Watson says that if Plaintiff decides to file another motion
for conditional certification, he must do so within 60 days of the
date of this Order. Because Plaintiff has failed to adequately
support his motion, it is denied. The Plaintiff may, however, file
another properly supported motion for conditional certification.
The Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's effort to include all
"current and former hourly employees" in the class is overbroad. At
this juncture, the Court does not need to decide whether "all
current and former hourly employees" is a proper class, nor does it
need to decide whether conditional certification would be
appropriate for any other reason. However, should Plaintiff decide
to file a new motion for conditional certification, he is
encouraged to consider the appropriateness of whatever class he
seeks to certify.

The Defendant is a general partnership formed under Ohio law that
provides retail sales of automobiles and other services including
repair, maintenance, and automobile accessories.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a porter from November 2015
through March 2020.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 20, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdOO3S at no
extra charge.[CC]

C.A. BURGHARDT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. A. Burghardt &
Sons, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. C. A. Burghardt
& Sons, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04849 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021).

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

CA Burghardt & Sons Inc. doing business as Burghardt Sporting Goods
-- https://burghardtsportinggoods.com/ -- retails sports
products.[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


CALIFORNIA: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Fitzgerald Suit v. RJD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants in part the Defendants'
motion to bifurcate discovery in the case, RHONDA FITZGERALD,
Plaintiff v. MARCUS POLLARD; Lieutenant C. MOORE; Sargeant H. CRUZ;
Officer JACKSON; Officer LITTLE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20cv848-JM (NLS) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Fitzgerald brings the putative class action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleging violations of 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Defendants along with state law
claims.  She alleges that she was subjected to a strip search at
the Richard Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") when she went
there to visit her friend, inmate Christopher Roberts.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was not screened upon arrival but
was told by Defendant Officer Little that she would not be
permitted to see Roberts without submitting to a strip search.  She
alleges that she was told that the search was random, and that
Defendant Warden Pollard requested it.  Prior to the search, the
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Little produced a Notice of Request
to Search form, which she signed but alleges that no supervisor
signed until after the search.

Defendant Officers Jackson and Little conducted the search, which
included asking the Plaintiff to remove all her clothing and submit
to a body cavity search as well.  The Plaintiff alleges that she
was not told and not aware that it would include a body cavity
search.

The Plaintiff alleges that she believes the strip search she was
subjected to was common practice.  Thus, she brings a class action
consisting of "visitors to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility in the class period who were required to submit to an
unclothed search as a condition to visiting an inmate and whose
Notice of Request for Search form states no specific objective
facts and rational inferences establishing individualized
reasonable suspicion to believe that the person targeted for the
search had an intention of smuggling contraband into the Prison."
She alleges that the Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment
Rights in searching her without reasonable suspicion and for
failure to train and supervise, and state law claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.

The Court held an early neutral evaluation conference, where the
case did not settle, and issued a Scheduling Order after holding a
case management conference.  The Defendants now bring the motion to
bifurcate discovery related to the claims of the individual named
Plaintiff, Fitzgerald, from the remainder of the class claims.

The Defendants argue that bifurcation is appropriate because they
intend to bring an early motion for summary judgment to ask the
court to adjudicate the issue of whether there was reasonable,
individualized suspicion to search Ms. Fitzgerald.  In support of
this, the Defendants submit several confidential memoranda and
other evidence that they argue they relied upon to find reasonable
suspicion to conduct the search in accordance with their guidelines
and procedures.  If their motion is granted, the Defendants argue
that the class claims would also fail.  Thus, the Defendants
contend that judicial economy and cost savings would be achieved in
not having to engage in class discovery until a ruling on the
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff objects to the request to bifurcate.  First, they
argue that the Defendants' evidence does not establish reasonable
suspicion to search Ms. Fitzgerald.  Second, they argue that the
factors do not favor bifurcation.  Finally, they argue that even if
Ms. Fitzgerald were deemed to not be an adequate class
representative, they would seek leave to substitute another class
representative.

As a preliminary matter, Judge Stormes notes that it will not
address any merits of the contention of whether the evidence
submitted by the Defendants would establish reasonable suspicion to
search Ms. Fitzgerald or the issue of whether Ms. Fitzgerald is an
appropriate class representative.  However, the evidence and the
Defendant's intention to bring an early summary judgment on that
issue does affect the procedural posture of the case and how the
case will proceed going forward as a class action.  The Defendants
state that they are ready to file the motion imminently.  Thus, the
Judge finds that there will be some judicial economy to be achieved
if the initial discovery was limited to the Plaintiff's claims
before delving into the class claims.

The Judge will grant in part the motion, and limit initial
discovery to only that discovery related to Ms. Fitzgerald's
individual claims until July 30, 2021, after which discovery will
be open to all class claims.  There may be some overlap between
individual discovery and class discovery as the Plaintiff points
out (for example, as to the Defendants' practices and policies),
but as long as the discovery pertains to the Plaintiff's claims,
the Plaintiff would not be precluded from seeking that discovery
initially.

Moreover, contrary to what the parties state in their motion, there
is a scheduling order in place.  This temporary stay on class-wide
discovery does not affect the close of fact discovery as set in the
scheduling order, nor does it effect the class certification date
at this time.  Thus, the factors related to prejudice and early
class certification are not affected.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Stormes grants in part the
motion to bifurcate discovery.  Discovery will be limited to only
discovery related to Ms. Fitzgerald's individual claims until July
30, 2021, after which discovery will be open to all the class
claims.  In addition, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
was due on June 1, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/27btnz7z from Leagle.com.


CANAAN INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on May 31 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Kadmon Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KDMN)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT KDMN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16346&from=1

Class Period: October 1, 2020 - March 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the
additional new data that the Company submitted in support of the
Belumosudil NDA in response to an information request from the FDA
materially altered the NDA submission; (iii) accordingly, the
initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the degree of support
that the Company had led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly,
the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target action date to review
the Belumosudil NDA; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ:CAN)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT CAN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=16346&from=1

Class Period: February 10, 2021 - April 9, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: they
concealed that due to ongoing supply chain disruptions and the
introduction of the Company's next-generation A12 series bitcoin
mining machines - which had cannibalized sales of the older product
offerings - Canaan's 4Q20 sales had declined more than 93%
year-over-year compared to its fourth quarter fiscal year 2019
("4Q19") sales and more than 93% quarter-over-quarter compared to
its third quarter FY20 ("3Q20") sales.

Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE:RMO)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RMO:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/romeo-power-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16346&from=1

Class Period: October 5, 2020 - March 30, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Romeo had only two battery cell suppliers, not four, (ii) the
future potential risks that Defendants warned of concerning supply
disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already
negatively affecting Romeo's business, operations and business
prospects, (iii) Romeo did not have the battery cell inventory to
accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021, (iv)
Romeo's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo's
revenue growth, and (v) Romeo's supply chain for battery cells was
not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just
two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021
inventory. Given the supply constraint that Romeo was experiencing
during the Class Period, Defendants had no reasonable basis to
represent that the Company had the ability to meet customer demand
and that it would support growth in revenue in 2021.

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

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

CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) ("Canaan") that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Canaan American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canaan ADRs during the Class Period may, no later than June 14,
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/canaan-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=canaan


Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines,
primarily in the Peoples Republic of China.

The Class Period commences on February 10, 2021, when Canaan issued
a press release claiming that Canaan's "revenue visibility has
improved substantially in 2021 as a result of attaining purchase
orders totaling more than 100,000 units of bitcoin mining machines
from customers in North America. Many of those purchase orders were
placed with prepayment and will likely occupy [Canaan]'s current
manufacturing capacity entirely for the full year of 2021 and
beyond."

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants concealed that due to
ongoing supply chain disruptions and the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines, Canaan's fourth
quarter 2020 sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year
compared to its fourth quarter 2019 sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter 2020 sales.

According to the complaint, on April 12, 2021, before the opening
of trading, Canaan issued a press release disclosing its actual
fourth quarter 2020 and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the
period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year
decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter.

Following this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs fell from
their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14
per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Canaan had
experienced significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during the
fourth quarter 2020; (2) the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines had cannibalized
sales of the older product offerings during the fourth quarter
2020; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Canaan's fourth quarter
2020 sales and sales revenues had declined dramatically; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Canaan was not on track to achieve the
strong financial prospects it had led the market to believe.

Canaan investors may, no later than June 14, 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]

CANADA: Bodies of Boarding School Students Discovered
-----------------------------------------------------
Amol Rajput, writing for Eminetra, reports that Ottawa-Aboriginal
communities on the west coast of Canada have reopened the wounds of
a century of abuse of the country's indigenous people, saying they
have found the bodies of more than 200 children who may have
attended state-owned schools.

Tk'em lúps te Secwépemc First Nation, British Columbia, said the
bodies of an estimated 215 children were found using ground
penetrating radar. It worked. First Nations, based in the town of
Kamloops, plans to complete its findings in mid-June.

"We are still working on that impact," Rosanne Caismir, Secretary
of Tk'em lups te Secwepemc First Nation, said at a press conference
on May 28. "This loss is absolutely unthinkable."

Political leaders, led by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,
expressed their condolences to the indigenous community. "It's a
painful recollection of a dark and shameful chapter in our
history," Trudeau said on Twitter. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
has been working to promote reconciliation with 1.7 million
indigenous peoples, which has been a policy priority since his
inauguration. Indigenous Canadians make up about 5% of the total
population of 38 million, have poor indicators, and have higher
suicide, imprisonment, and infant mortality rates than the general
population.

For over a century, Canada's boarding school system, as is known,
has separated approximately 150,000 indigenous children from their
families. According to a 2015 survey report, an estimated 4,100
children died of illness or accidents while using the system. Same
as cultural genocide. According to the investigation, officials at
the time destroyed hundreds of records, so the complete death toll
may never be known.

Following the settlement of a class action proceeding with boarding
school survivors, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
said Announced an apology He said the school policy was "wrong,
causing great harm, and there is no place in our country."

Kaismir said community elders have relayed stories of school abuse
and missing children.

"It's a harsh reality. This is our history," said Secretary
Caismir. "This is about revealing the truth and honoring those
children."

A 2015 study report, called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
of Canada, found that indigenous children in boarding schools
endured poor diet, physical harm and sexual abuse. Indigenous
languages and religions were banned to assimilate children.

The study, which gathered testimony from 6,750 witnesses, shared
the experience of a student who brought a miniature totem pole
received on his birthday to a boarding school in Kamloop. "When she
proudly showed it to one of the nuns, it was picked up by her and
abandoned. She was told that it was nothing but a devil," quoted a
former student's testimony, the survey said.

The Kamloops school operated for nearly 90 years under the control
of the Roman Catholic Church until 1978, with enrollment peaking at
500 in the 1950s. Knowing this discovery, he vowed to support First
Nations. He expressed sympathy "to all who mourn this tragic loss."
[GN]

CANADA: Manitoba Gov't Faces Solitary Confinement Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vera-Lynn Kubinec, writing for CBC News, reports that holding
inmates in solitary confinement cells in Manitoba jails amounts to
torture, and is cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment according to a
lawsuit that seeks to end the practice.

The proposed class action lawsuit seeks damages from the Manitoba
government for current and former inmates who were in solitary
confinement for 15 or more consecutive days at a provincial jail at
any point since December 1992.

The two representative plaintiffs are Virgil Charles Gamblin, 32,
who's been in solitary confinement at The Pas Correctional Centre
since December 2020, and a 17-year-old at the Manitoba Youth Centre
who's been in solitary confinement nine times since July 2020.

"They've shown real courage in coming forward and putting their
name down on this claim, and they've shown real courage . . . in
taking this case on for the thousands of other people who are
similarly situated," said Toronto lawyer James Sayce, who filed the
claim.

Solitary confinement is "a dungeon inside a prison," says the
statement of claim filed May 21 in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
at Winnipeg.

It says solitary confinement cells are often smaller than parking
spaces, and many of them don't have windows. "Inmates often sleep
on mats on the floor. The cells are often covered in filth, blood
and excrement," the claim says.

It defines solitary confinement as segregation in a room or area
without any meaningful human contact for at least 22 hours in a
day.

"Inmates at Manitoba's provincial custodial facilities are
subjected to these conditions every day for indefinite periods of
time," the claim says.

Pushing for reform
Youth inmates and those with serious mental illness "are
particularly vulnerable given their disabilities and age," the
court document says, and people in those two categories are
included in the lawsuit if they were held in segregation for any
length of time at a provincial jail.

"Hopefully this case pushes the province to reform their
practices," Sayce said, noting that other provinces and the federal
government have made changes.

He said the plaintiffs are seeking to end the practice of solitary
confinement through the deterrent effect of compensatory damages.

The claim alleges that after only a short time in solitary
confinement, any prisoner's physical and mental health
deteriorates. "Such damage is often irreversible and will have a
substantial and lasting effect on that person's life."

Inmates are "left for weeks, months and even years in solitary
confinement with little or no concern for the lasting physical and
psychological consequences. This practice is regularly carried out
with respect to inmates with serious mental illnesses and children
as young as 12 years old."

The allegations in the claim have not been tested in court.

A spokesperson for Manitoba's Minister of Justice issued a
statement saying, "As this matter is before the courts there is no
further comment."

Class action lawsuits about the use of solitary confinement have
been filed previously in other provinces, such as Ontario, British
Columbia and Nova Scotia, as well as cases involving inmates in
federal prisons.

In April 2020, the Ontario case resulted in an award of $30 million
in damages to inmates.

The Manitoba claim seeks a declaration that use of solitary
confinement has violated inmates' rights under the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, such as under Section 12: "the right not to
be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

'Serious and long-lasting harm,' claim says
As one of the plaintiffs, Gamblin is described in the claim as an
Indigenous man who was born in Norway House, and is an adult inmate
of The Pas Correctional Centre.

Gamblin's grandparents were placed into residential schools in
Manitoba, which resulted in multigenerational trauma affecting
Gamblin's parents and himself, the court document says.

It says Gamblin was placed in solitary confinement at The Pas in
December 2020, and was still in solitary at the time the lawsuit
was filed in May 2021. He is confined to his cell 22 hours a day,
the claim says.

In addition, Gamblin previously had spent six months in solitary
confinement at The Pas starting in about 2017, and in 2008 and
2009, he spent about three months in solitary confinement at each
of The Pas Correctional Centre and Brandon Correctional Centre, the
claim says.

It alleges this has caused "serious and long-lasting harm" to
Gamblin's emotional and psychological health.

"While confined in cells for such long durations, Mr. Gamblin has
experienced depression, confusion and fixation on past trauma," the
claim alleges.

The other representative plaintiff, a 17-year-old at the Manitoba
Youth Centre, was first placed into solitary confinement at the age
of 15, the claim says.

The claim alleges he was held in solitary for nearly 40 days
between March 2 and April 8 this year. During that time, he was
confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, the claim says. It says he
was held in the observation unit with small, windowless cells
without beds, so he was required to sleep on a mat on the floor.

The youth's experiences in solitary confinement "have had
devastating emotional and psychological consequences, including
strong feelings of depression and anxiety." He has been driven to
suicidal thoughts and has permanent psychological damages, the
claim alleges.

The lawsuit cites 11 reports issued in Canada and internationally
that concluded solitary confinement "causes harms to inmates that
cannot be justified and that the practice should end."

The list includes the 2015 United Nations General Assembly adopting
the Nelson Mandela Rules, which stipulate that "solitary
confinement should only be used 'in exceptional cases as a last
resort, for as short a time as possible and subject to independent
review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent
authority."

It says the Mandela Rules also stipulate that solitary confinement
should be prohibited for children and for prisoners with mental or
physical disabilities. [GN]


CAPITOL COMPLIANCE: Long Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Compliance
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Long, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capitol Compliance
Management, LLC, CC101, Inc., Kolas & Co., Inc., Kolas, LLC, Sharp
Source, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00301119-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 20, 2021).

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

Capitol Compliance Management -- https://ccmup.com/ -- is a
Consulting Agency in the Sacramento Area specializing in refining &
expanding business and brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          1110 Franklin St. Ste. 6
          Oakland, CA 94607-6528
          Phone: (415) 779-2888
          Fax: (415) 738-7873
          Email: larry@ysleelaw.com


CARSOUP OF MINNESOTA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarSoup of Minnesota,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. CarSoup of Minnesota,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-03051 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2021).

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

Carsoup of Minnesota, Inc. -- https://www.carsoup.com/ -- is
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota and is part of the Used Car
Dealers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CATTLEMENS: Elroy Files Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cattlemens, et al.
The case is styled as Lawrence Elroy, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cattlemens, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2021-00301133-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
20, 2021).

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

Cattlemens -- https://www.cattlemens.com/ -- is a group of
family-owned Northern California steakhouses featuring hand-cut
beef and a ranch-style atmosphere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
ChemoCentryx, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI)
Class Period: November 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021

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.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you 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.

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on May 30
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) ("ChemoCentryx") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired ChemoCentryx common stock
between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired ChemoCentryx
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than July 6,
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/chemocentryx-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chemocentryx


ChemoCentryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of new medications targeting
inflammatory disorders, autoimmune diseases, and cancer.
ChemoCentryx's lead drug candidate is avacopan, which ChemoCentryx
describes as a "potential first-in-class, orally-administered
molecule that employs a novel, highly targeted mode of action in
the treatment of ANCA vasculitis and other complement-driven
autoimmune and inflammatory diseases."

The Class Period commences on November 26, 2019. After the market
closed on November 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx issued a press release
announcing "Positive Topline Data from Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE
Trial Demonstrating Avacopan's Superiority Over Standard of Care in
ANCA-Associated Vasculitis." Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants lauded the results of the ADVOCATE Phase III trial, as
well as the safety profile of avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis ("AAV").

However, the truth was revealed on May 3, 2021 when, the United
States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published a Briefing
Document concerning ChemoCentryx's New Drug Application ("NDA")
#214487 for avacopan. In this Briefing Document, the FDA wrote 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 Briefing Document continued that
"[a]lthough primary efficacy comparisons were statistically
significant, the review team has identified several areas of
concern, raising 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 ANCA-associated vasculitis. Following this news, the price of
ChemoCentryx's common stock fell over 45% in one day, down from its
May 3, 2021 closing price of $48.82 per share to a May 4, 2021
close of $26.63 per share.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or 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 of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

ChemoCentryx investors may, no later than July 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx") (NASDAQ: CCXI)
between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16445&wire=5

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

ChemoCentryx, Inc. NEWS - CCXI NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (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 New Drug Application ("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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
ChemoCentryx, you have until July 6, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities between
November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16445&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against ChemoCentryx,
Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. ChemoCentryx designed the study of its
Phase III ADVOCATE trial in a manner that presented issues of trial
data interpretability to define a clinically meaningful benefit of
avacopan. The trial data presented serious safety concerns for
avacopan. These problems combined to form a deep concern over the
viability of the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for
avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis. 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 ChemoCentryx, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

CHETHAM'S SCHOOL OF MUSIC: Court Orders to Pay Sexual Abuse Victim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Lebrecht at slippedisc.com reports that the High Court
ordered Chetham's School of Music in Manchester to pay a former
pupil GBP45,000 for sexual abuse by her violin teacher.

The school was found to have facilitated sexual behaviour by Wen
Zhou Li.

The former teacher faced police charges for rape and indecent
assault which were later dropped. He has consistently denied
wrongdoing.

However:

Mr Justice Fordham found Mr Li had misused his position at CSM,
adding: "The employment relationship at CSM caused Mr Li to have
access to Abigail at CSM as her one-to-one instrumental tutor and
on a day-to-day basis.

"The circumstances of that access to Abigail facilitated the sexual
assaults which occurred."

The ruling sets a precedent for further private lawsuits against
Chethams and several other colleges.

Full report at https://bit.ly/3gaFsC5.

Chetham's says: 'The current Chetham's team carries a sense of deep
regret and sorrow for the way in which some former teachers at our
school betrayed and manipulated the trust that had been placed in
them. We will remain forever sorry.'

None of its past administrators or board members has been called to
account. [GN]


CIGNA HEALTH: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due June 7
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Neufeld v. Cigna Health
and Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01693 (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting177
Motion for extension of time as follows.

   -- The Defendant's Opposition and Class Certification Expert
      Reports shall be due on or before June 7, 2021.

   -- Plaintiffs' Reply shall be due on or before July 8, 2021.

The nature alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm.[CC]

CIRCLE K: James' Claims Dismissed for Lack of Standing
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL JAMES v. CIRCLE K
STORES INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00215-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Court
entered a judgment that the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for
lack of standing according to the Clerk of Court Jessica J.
Lyublanovits.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. Founded in
1951 in El Paso, Texas, the company filed for bankruptcy protection
in 1990 and went through several owners, before being acquired by
Alimentation Couche-Tard in 2003.

A copy of the Court's judgment dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ibCSy8 at no extra charge.[CC]


CLUB FITNESS: Grace TCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KAREN GRACE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLUB FITNESS, INC., Case No.
21SL-CC01828, was removed from the Circuit Court of the County of
St. Louis, Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00623-JAR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Club Fitness, Inc. is an owner and operator of a fitness center in
Missouri. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Paul Croker, Esq.
         ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
         2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500
         Kansas City, MI 64108-2617
         Telephone: (816) 221-3420
         Facsimile: (816) 221-0786
         E-mail: pcroker@atllp.com

COIGNFRA CO: Fails to Pay Warehouse Staff's OT, Mucenieks Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISIS S. MUCENIEKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COIGNFRA CO., d/b/a EMEDE
ELECTRIC, and OMAR RAFAEL PUCCIARELLI, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-22014 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated warehouse employees overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' warehouse as a non-exempt
employee from approximately May 2012 to March 12, 2021.

Coignfra Co., doing business as Emede Electric, is a manufacturer
and distributor of industrial electrical equipment and supplies,
with its principal place of business in Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

CONCEPT HEALTH: Infante Balks at Therapists' Unpaid OT, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISSET INFANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONCEPT HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. and EDWARD
MCGOWAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22008 (S.D. Fla., May 31,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated program
therapists overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Infante worked for the Defendants as a program therapist from
July 22, 2019 through May 19, 2021.

Concept Health Systems Inc. is a drug and alcohol addiction
rehabilitation services provider located in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         J.H. Zidell, Esq.
         J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
         300 71st Street, Suite 605
         Miami Beach, FL 33141
         Telephone: (305) 865-6766
         Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
         E-mail: zabogado@aol.com

CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Files Petition for Permission to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Chery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs Respondents v. CONDUENT EDUCATION SERVICES,
LLC; ACCESS GROUP, INC.; and ACCESS FUNDING 2015-1, LLC,
Defendants–Petitioners, (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Second Cir., May
19, 2021) filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-00075.

The district court certified a class of thousands of student loan
borrowers based on claims that they were harmed by delays in their
loan consolidation applications allegedly caused by Defendant
Conduent Education Services, LLC. The court certified the class in
the face of an expert model, offered by Plaintiff himself, showing
that more than half the class suffered no economic injury.

Conduent is a former servicer of student loans. Under federal
regulations, when a borrower submits an application to consolidate
student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
("FFELP") into a Direct Loan, the FFELP loan servicer must provide
a Loan Verification Certificate within 10 business days upon
request. From March 2015 to December 2016, while Conduent was
remediating issues in its servicing system under U.S. Department of
Education supervision, Conduent was in many cases unable to process
LVCs within 10 business days.

The Plaintiff alleges he was injured because he made loan payments
during the processing delay that should otherwise have been made
under a new consolidated loan. But whether making payments under
one loan instead of another caused any actual harm necessarily
requires an individualized examination of each relevant loan and
each class member's circumstances. And Plaintiff's own expert
determined that a majority of the class members made no payments
during the time their loan applications were delayed, and thus
suffered no identifiable economic harm.[BN]

The Defendants–Petitioners are represented by:

          John C. Grugan, Esq.
          Thomas F. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel C. Fanaselle, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          173 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19
          Phone: (215) 665-850
          Email: grugan@ballardspahr.com
                 burke@ballardspahr.com
                 fanaselle@ballardspahr.com
               - and -

          Fred Rowley, Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq.
          Benjamin G. Barokh
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 683-910
          Email: fred.rowley@mto.com
                 jeffrey.wu@mto.com
                 benjamin.barokh@mto.com


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and
consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class
action lawsuit against ContextLogic, Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's December 2020 initial public offering
("IPO"), alleging violations of both the Securities Act of 1933
and, separately, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you
purchased ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020 and May
12, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are
encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman.

ContextLogic is a mobile ecommerce company that operates the Wish
platform, which connects customers with merchants across the
globe.

On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed its IPO, issuing 46
million shares of its Class A common stock at $24 per share,
raising more than $1.1 billion in gross proceeds. According to the
complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus used to
effectuate ContextLogic's IPO were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, these offering materials misrepresented the
then-existing truth about: (1) the "differentiated user experience"
ContextLogic repeatedly credited as driving the wide-adoption of
the Wish platform by customers who are offered access to
high-quality merchants, selling affordable, high-quality products,
and merchants who are offered reliable logistical services; (2) the
Company's sales and marketing engine, which ContextLogic said it
would "continue to invest in" and that purportedly serves as a
competitive advantage in attracting new users and increasing user
engagement on the Wish platform; and (3) the Company's monthly
active user (MAU) growth, which it considered "a key indicator of
user engagement and awareness of [its] brand."

On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December
31, 2020, disclosing that its MAUs had already "declined 10% year
over year during Q4." In that same report the company also revealed
logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year. On this news,
ContextLogic's stock declined 10%, falling from $17.77 on March 5,
2021 to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021, the next
trading day.

Then on May 12, 2020, ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial results
for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, revealing that its
MAUs had declined another 7%. On this news, ContextLogic's stock
price fell $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on
May 13, 2021.

What You Can Do

If you purchased ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020
and May 12, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan
Zimmerman. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 26, 2021.

                          About Scott+Scott

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

Contact Information:
Jonathan Zimmerman,
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169,
(888) 398-9312,
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. [GN]

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Thornton Law Reminds of July 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of ContextLogic Inc.
(NASDAQ:WISH). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased WISH stock or other securities between
December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021 or investors who purchased
ContextLogic common stock pursuant or traceable to ContextLogic's
initial public offering may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/ContextLogic for more information.

Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.

The case alleges that ContextLogic and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors about the strength of
ContextLogic's business operations and financial prospects by
overstating its then-present monthly active users and monthly
active user growth trends.

Interested ContextLogic investors have until July 16, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

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

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

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111 [GN]



CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed federal
securities class action lawsuit been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:  ) common stock:

between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about December 16, 2020
(the "IPO" or "Offering").

All investors who purchased shares of ContextLogic Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or on our website,

If you have incurred losses in your investment in shares of
ContextLogic Inc. , you may, no later than July 16, 2021 , request
that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.
Please contact to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of ContextLogic Inc.

In December 2020, ContextLogic completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") in which it sold 46 million shares at $24 per
share.

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:

ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 MAUs had declined materially and
were not then growing; and
as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially overstated the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects.
On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December
31, 2020, disclosing that by the time of its December 2020 IPO,
ContextLogic's monthly active users ("MAUs") had already "declined
10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million, primarily in some emerging
markets outside of Europe and North America where Wish temporarily
de-emphasized advertising and customer acquisition as the company
worked through logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year."

On this news, ContextLogic's common stock price fell $1.83, more
than 10%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021.

On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic reported its first quarter 2021
financial results and disclosed that MAUs had declined another 7%
to just 101 million. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell
$3.36 per share, or approximately 29%, to close at $8.11 per share
on May 12, 2021, significantly below the IPO price of $24 per
share.

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

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at , or visit

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan,
Esq.Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial AnalysisEmail: ,
or Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Rodgers Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Continental Service Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Rodgers, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental
Service Group, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560 (M.D.
Fla., May 31, 2021).

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

Continental Service Group, Inc. doing business as ConServe --
https://www.conserve-arm.com/ -- provides debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CREDIT SUISSE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on May 30
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Credit Suisse Group AG (: CS) ("Credit Suisse")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Credit Suisse American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between October 29, 2020 and March 31,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/credit-suisse-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=credit_suisse
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Credit Suisse is a global financial services company based in
Zurich, Switzerland. Greensill Capital ("Greensill"), who for filed
for insolvency protection on March 8, 2021, was a financial
services company based in the United Kingdom and Australia focused
on the provision of supply-chain financing and related services.
Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos") is a family office
investment fund run by Sung Kook Hwang. Archegos' investment
holdings are primarily in the form of total return swaps, a
financial instrument where the underlying securities are held by
the banks that broker the investments.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants concealed material defects in Credit Suisse's risk
policies and procedures and compliance oversight functions and
efforts to allow high-risk clients to take on excessive leverage,
including Greensill and Archegos, exposing Credit Suisse to
billions of dollars in losses.

Credit Suisse investors may, no later than June 15, 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]

CREDIT SUISSE: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 1 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Credit Suisse
Group AG (NYSE: CS) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: October 29, 2020 and March 31, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in CS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/credit-suisse-group-ag-loss-submission-form?id=16373&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Credit Suisse Group AG made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: defendants concealed material defects in the
Company's risk policies and procedures and compliance oversight
functions and efforts to allow high-risk clients to take on
excessive leverage, including Greensill Capital ("Greensill") and
Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"), exposing the Company to
billions of dollars in losses.

Shareholders have until June 15, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the CS lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS)
between October 29, 2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important June 15, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Credit Suisse class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2091.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Credit Suisse's co-mingling of
its lending, asset management, and private wealth management
functions and imprudently aggressive pursuit of fees had materially
diminished the Company's ability to properly assess and manage its
own risk exposure to high-risk clients and potential liabilities
from client losses; (2) Credit Suisse had ignored numerous red
flags in connection with the Greensill Capital funds, such as
suspicious shipment activities during an internal compliance check,
and overrode the concerns of the Company's in-house
credit-structuring team in packing and selling billions of dollars'
worth of Greensill-linked securities to investors; (3) Credit
Suisse had conspired with Sung Kook ("Bill") Hwang to allow
Archegos Capital Management to covertly take on billions of dollars
in excessively concentrated and risky positions by utilizing highly
leveraged total return swaps, placing the risk of loss associated
with these positions on Credit Suisse and its investors; (4) Credit
Suisse was understating its exposure to risk and thus overstating
its Tier 1 capital ratios in its public statements; and (5) Credit
Suisse's internal controls were inadequate to ensure that the
Company's potential liability to customers and losses arising from
its exposure to customer losses were properly accounted for,
managed and disclosed to investors. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Credit Suisse class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2091.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CRICKET WIRELESS: Asks Court to Continue Hearing on Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE POSTPICHAL, SARAH
WATERS, and URSULA FREITAS, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-07270-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Defendant Cricket moves the
Court under Civil Local Rules 6-3, 7-7, 2 and 7-11 for a
continuance of the June 10, 2021 hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification to any other day that week (i.e., June 7-9
or 11) or, if the Court has no other availability that week, to the
first available hearing day the following week (i.e., June 14- 5
18) or any other day the Court may prefer.

Cricket Wireless is an American wireless service provider, owned by
AT&T Inc. It provides wireless services to 10 million subscribers
in the United States.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fFMZK8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
          Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  kranlett@mayerbrown.com
                  djones@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Ingber, Esq.
          Richard A. Spehr, Esq.
          Jason Kirschner, Esq.
          Jarman D. Russell, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2373
          Facsimile: (212) 849-5973
          E-mail: mingber@mayerbrown.com
                  rspehr@mayerbrown.com
                  jkirschner@mayerbrown.com
                  jrussell@mayerbrown.com

CVS HEALTH: Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Firefighters Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS'
RETIREMENT TRUST and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
PENSION FUND OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, Plaintiffs v.
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, LARRY J. MERLO, DAVID M. DENTON, JONATHAN
C. ROBERTS, ROBERT O. KRAFT, AND EVA C. BORATTO, Defendants, C.A.
No. 19-437-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), Judge Mary S. McElroy of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to
Amend.

On Feb. 11, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the securities fraud action, finding that the Plaintiffs
had failed in their Amended Complaint to meet the heightened
pleading requirement of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C.A. Section 78u-4.  The Court's Order also
denied leave to amend, which the Plaintiffs had requested in their
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss if the Court were to grant any
portion of the Motion.  Judgment was entered that day.

Twenty-eight days later, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, requesting that the Court "partially" reconsiders
by altering the dismissal to be without prejudice and allowing
leave to amend.  They proffered a Proposed Second Amended Class
Action Complaint (PSAC).

Judge McElroy holds that the Plaintiffs invite the Court to travel
with them down either of two roads leading to leave to amend the
Amended Complaint.  However, she finds that both are dead ends.
First, the pre-judgment contingent "request" to amend made in the
last paragraph of their Memorandum in Opposition to dismissal is
not in the Circuit considered a "real" motion for leave to amend.
It was a tagalong paragraph in the Memorandum, attempting to
reserve the option of amending if and only if the Court ordered, or
felt inclined to order, dismissal.  For obvious reasons, the
Plaintiffs failed to attach a Proposed Amended Complaint, as
required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.  They manifested no
actual desire to amend; any wish to amend was wholly contingent,
materializing only if the Court determined that the Amended
Complaint were inadequate.

The second road leads to the request to amend conjoined to the
Motion for Reconsideration, made post-judgment, and accompanied by
a Proposed Second Amended Complaint.  The problem the Plaintiffs
face, according to Judge McElroy, is that post-judgment leave to
amend is not possible: in the words of the First Circuit, once
judgment enters, the case is a "dead letter" and the Complaint can
no longer be amended.  The law is clear that the judgment must be
vacated first, pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60 to
put a post-judgment request to amend in a position to be ruled
upon.  Alternatively, the judgment could be altered under Rule
59(e) to be without prejudice and allow amendment.  The Motion
invokes Rule 59(e) and is brought timely, within 28 days of the
entry of judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Judge McElroy concludes that neither of the
Plaintiffs' requests for leave to amend have merit.  The "passing
request" made in its opposition to dismissal was of no legal effect
in the Circuit.  As for the post-judgment request, there is
insufficient basis to vacate the judgment such as to revive the
Complaint in order to amend it for a second time.  Therefore, the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the Motion to Amend are
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6pu6upxp from Leagle.com.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Refusing to Fill Opioid Prescription
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Roe, writing for WTVC, reports that people suffer with chronic
pain and were prescribed opioids, but now for several reasons can't
get the medication.

Edie Fuog is the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against CVS.

"It started about 10 years ago," Fuog said.

She has a long medical history. She's had ailments no one would
want to go through. She had breast cancer. She then got very sick
with MRSA. "Then I got Guillain-Barre Syndrome from a flu shot
vaccine and I ended up completely paralyzed," Fuog said.

She was in the hospital for months.

"I also ended up with a very severe pain condition called brachial
neuritis, also known as Parsonage Turner Syndrome," Fuog said.

Parsonage Turner Syndrome is a rare neurological disorder. She says
it can be painful just to put on clothes or take a shower.

"It'll go from a burning sensation to an ice freezing sensation to
an electrocution sensation," Fuog said. "So my showers are as quick
as possible now."

She says when she goes to bed at night, the cool sheets can make
her feel the same way. It might last for minutes. It might last for
hours.

Fuog says because of her long medical history, surgery is not an
option.

"My only option is living in pain and taking opioids because they
do help me tremendously," Fuog said.

WTVC has spoken to chronic pain sufferers who can't get
prescriptions or get a lower dose now. Fuog does not have that
problem.

She has a doctor who prescribes her opioids, and she was going to
her local CVS in Florida. She says in late 2016 CVS told her it
would no longer fill her opioid prescription.

"I remember it, oh gosh, so vividly. I walked into my regular
pharmacy that I had been going to for over a year. It was CVS
pharmacy in Parrish, Florida, and the manager pulled me aside,"
Fuog said. "This was October, November 2016. He said coming up in
February we will no longer fill your medications and I said, 'like
what do you mean?'"

She had been using the medication for about a decade, and she says
she had been getting prescriptions filled at that CVS for about a
year. Now she uses a locally-owned pharmacy. She gets her
medication, but it's no longer covered by her insurance.

She says she was paying $45-to-50 per month. Now, she pays $320 per
month.

Fuog says she feels she has been the victim of discrimination . . .
so she found an attorney.

"All these roadblocks and hardships are being put in front of her
while she's suffering and to me that was inexcusable," said
attorney Scott Hirsch.

CVS's attorney's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In the complaint, CVS' lawyers make the point that more than 2,000
lawsuits have been brought by state and local governments against
CVS and other large pharmacies for harming people by filling too
may opioid prescriptions.

The motion reads in part, "that CVS is simultaneously being sued
for dispensing too many -- and too few -- prescriptions for opioids
only underscores the degree to which pharmacy work is laden with
professional judgement and varying circumstances."

There has been a hearing on that motion, and at this point, they
are waiting for the judge's ruling. [GN]


DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Danimer Scientific Inc.
("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR) and reminds investors of
the July 13, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Danimer stock
or options between December 30, 2020 and May 4, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/DNMR

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
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.

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

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

Then, on April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce
Point") published a research report entitled "When the Tide Goes
Out, What Will Wash Ashore?" In addition to the concerns about
Danimer's product biodegradability claims, the report found
"multiple conflicting sources of Danimer's facility sizes and
production capacity" and "inconsistencies between reported figures
and city filings for Kentucky facility capital costs." The report
also raised doubts about the strength of the Company's purported
partnerships with Pepsi and Nestlé because Pepsi recently sold its
equity stake in Danimer and "both the top Pepsi and Nestlé
executives with close relationships to Danimer recently resigned."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.01, or 8%, to close
at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published a follow-up report. Citing
information obtained via a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
request from the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection,
the report alleged that "Danimer's production figures, its pricing,
and rosy financial projections are wildly overstated" and that its
Kentucky facility received a notice of compliance violations from
the Division for Air Quality. Moreover, "Danimer's PHA average
selling price appears to be 30% - 42% below management's claims."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.48, or 20%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $17.66 per share on
May 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Danimer's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Oct. 5, 2020 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/DNMR
Contact An Attorney Now: DNMR@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) Securities Fraud Action:

The complaint alleges that Danimer made misrepresentations and
omissions concerning its production of polyhydroxyalkanoate ("PHA")
- a biodegradeable alternative to petrochemical-based plastics,
which the company sells under its proprietary Nodax brand.

The truth began to emerge on Mar. 20, 2021, when the Wall Street
Journal reported that "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and
misleading." One quoted plastics expert labeled Danimer's claims
about Nodax's biodegradability as "not accurate" and as
"greenwashing."

Next, on Apr. 22, 2021, analyst Spruce Point published a scathing
report noting: red flags; inconsistencies in Danimer's claims about
the size of its operations and Nodax's makeup and degradability;
and the company's expected profitability.  

Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report after
acquiring documents from Kentucky's Department of Environmental
Protection and accused Danimer of "wildly overstating" production
figures, pricing, and financial projections.

Most recently, on May 21, 2021, news outlets reported that the
Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions had opened a formal
inquiry into Danimer and Spruce Point's claims.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Danimer misled
investors by greenwashing and misstating its true performance
metrics," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a Danimer 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
Danimer 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 DNMR@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]


DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) ("Danimer
Scientific") between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16358&wire=5

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

Danimer Scientific, Inc. NEWS - DNMR NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) Danimer had
deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had
misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory
compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Danimer
Scientific, you have until July 13, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Danimer Scientific securities
between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16358&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Danimer Scientific, Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company")(NYSE:
DNMR) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02708, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities between
December 30, 2020 and March 19, 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 Danimer securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 13, 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.

Danimer was formerly known as "Live Oak Acquisition Corp." ("Live
Oak"), a publicly-traded special purpose acquisition company. In
December 2020, Live Oak consummated a business combination with
Meredian Holdings Group, Inc., doing business as Danimer Scientific
("Legacy Danimer"), a performance polymer company specializing in
bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based
plastics (the "Business Combination"). Following the Business
Combination, Live Oak changed its name to "Danimer Scientific,
Inc.," changed its business to Legacy Danimer's business, and
replaced its management with Legacy Danimer's management.

Since 2020, Legacy Danimer -- and, following the Business
Combination, Danimer -- has sold polyhydroxyalkanoates commercially
under its proprietary "Nodax" brand name for usage in a wide
variety of plastic applications including water bottles, straws,
and food containers, among others. The Company has touted Nodax as
a 100% biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic, which is
purportedly superior to traditional plastics because of its
advanced biodegradability. The Company attributes Nodax's advanced
biodegradability to microorganisms in nature that eat the
bioplastic.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal
controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter
alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii)
Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in
oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an
article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the
Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things,
Danimer's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly than
fossil-fuel plastics. The WSJ article alleged that, according to
several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax
are exaggerated and misleading." While Danimer reportedly asserts
its claims are factual, the article cites at least one expert as
stating that making broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is
not accurate" and is "greenwashing."

On March 22, 2021, the first trading day following the publication
of the WSJ article, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or
12.87%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021.

Following the end of the Class Period, on April 22, 2021, Spruce
Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report on
Danimer, noting, among other red flags, various inconsistencies
with Legacy Danimer's (and Danimer's) historical and present claims
regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and
degradability, and the Company's expected profitability.

Following the publication of the Spruce Point report, Danimer's
stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per
share on April 22, 2021.

Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on
Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated"
production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on
documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection under the Freedom
of Information Act, all of which cast serious doubt on the
integrity of the Company's internal controls.

Following the publication of this second Spruce Point report,
Danimer's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to close at
$22.14 per share on April 22, 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]


DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:
DNMR) between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important July 13, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Danimer Scientific class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2065.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Danimer Scientific had
overstated and/or misstated the biodegradability and
environmentally-friendly nature of its Nodax product, particularly
in oceans and landfills; (2) defendants misrepresented the size of
Danimer Scientific's facilities, production capacity and actual
production amounts, and costs; (3) defendants misrepresented
Danimer Scientific's growth, financial results, and financial
projections; (4) Danimer Scientific had deficient internal
controls; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Danimer Scientific class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2065.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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]

DAPPER LABS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over NBA Top Shot
---------------------------------------------------------
Cody Mathieson-Lowe, writing for Ministry of Sport, reports that a
new lawsuit alleges that the creators of digital collectable
marketplace, "NBA Top Shot", violated the Federal Securities Act of
1933 by deceptively manipulating buyers and preventing investors
from withdrawing funds.

The Vancouver-based blockchain company, Dapper Labs, are accused of
illegally selling unregistered securities in a complaint launched
by Rosen Law Firm, on behalf of Jeeun Friel, with the potential for
a class action lawsuit.

"NBA Top Shot" is a non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace where
users can purchase virtual cards of single digital moments of NBA
highlight clips with Top Shot hosting more than five million
transactions.

Friel is asking for a jury trial and an award of "significant
damages" towards her, and other allegedly manipulated buyers with
the complaint stating that they lacked the "technical and financial
sophistication necessary to have evaluated the risks associated
with their investments in moments and were denied the information
that would have been contained in [security registration
materials]."

Dapper is also accused of devising a deceptive marketplace with the
complaint stating that an owner of a moment (an NFT of an NBA
highlight clip) "does not acquire any intellectual property rights
or rights to the underlying NBA highlight" as well as exploiting
investors by selling digital packs of moments with pricing based on
scarcity.

Dapper is also accused of preventing investors from withdrawing
funds for multiple months and resulted in boosting the NBA Top Shot
market.

Dapper have not yet offered a statement but is assumed to deny any
claims and wrongdoing.

NBA Top Shot's terms of use asserts that upon agreement, users
agree to give up rights to litigate claims in a court as well as
being limited in arbitration.

The terms of use also states that "[users] hereby expressly give up
[their right] to have a trial by jury" as well as giving up the
right to participate as a member of a class action lawsuit.

NFTs have seen a massive surge in popularity and sales in 2021 with
over 100,000 sales in April totalling USD$280 million (AUD$361
million) in sales, according to nonfungible.com. [GN]

DCM SERVICES: Route Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM Services, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Lissana Route, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. DCM Services, LLC,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-01030-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 1,
2021).

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

DCM Services, LLC -- https://www.dcmservices.com/ -- is a
third-party collection agency with a primary focus on estate
recoveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEBT RECOVERY: Wells Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00928 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on or about January 26, 2021 in an attempt to
collect an alleged outstanding debt of 3309.04 dollars that was
incurred to Installment Loan. However, the Defendant's collection
letter is deceptive and insufficient to inform the Plaintiff as to
who the original creditor was, or what the alleged debt is for, the
suit says.

The Defendant has allegedly violated the FDCPA and the RFDCPA by
falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of the
Plaintiff's debt, by falsely representing the Plaintiff that
services were rendered or that compensation maybe lawfully received
by the Defendant for collection of the Plaintiff's debt, and by
using false representations and deceptive practices in connection
with collection of an alleged debt from the Plaintiff.

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 W. Oxnard St. #780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Class Action Takes Aim at Prothonotary Offices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Curtis at tribdem.com reports that a pair of Delaware County
school districts are at the head of a class-action lawsuit filed
against prothonotary offices in 54 Pennsylvania county Courts of
Common Pleas over alleged overcharging of fees.

Cambria County Solicitor William Barbin said the action is a result
of excessive fees allegedly charged to political subdivisions when
filing complaints in prothonotary offices.

"In some counties in the eastern United States, it costs as much as
$350 to file a complaint," Barbin said. "In Cambria County, it
costs $110 to $115, and $60 to $75 of our $115 is fees that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts on, so that's out of our control.
The prothonotary charges $40 to file a complaint.

"In that fee law, there's a clause at the end of it saying no
political subdivision should be required to pay more than $10 to
file a document. Everybody's sort of ignored that. The
prothonotary, my entire legal career, starting in 1981, has charged
subdivisions the same that they charge everybody else."

The suit, which names Chester Upland School District and the
Chichester School District as class representatives, was filed on
April 30.

Subdivisions protected under the act include townships, boroughs,
cities, counties and school districts. Municipal authorities are
not included under the umbrella covered by the act.

Barbin said that Cambria County Prothonotary Lisa Crynock had
recently completed an audit of the Cambria County office's ledgers
over the past four years and stated that, if the office was only
allowed to charge $10 per filing to political subdivisions, the
county would owe a total of $3,000 to various subdivisions within
the county.

The Somerset County Prothonotary's Office is also one of the 54
counties named in the legal filing.

Each office now has a window to respond to the claims, Somerset
County Solicitor Michael Barbera said.

"Basically, the underlying issue is that they claim there's an
obscure state provision that caps the filing fee that can be
charged to a political subdivision, such as a school district, to
$10," Barbera said. "So if the filing fee is $17.50, they say you
can only charge $10."

County officials have reviewed the petition and, at this point, do
not plan on relying on a joint defense being spearheaded by the
County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.

"If we just assumed for argument's sake that the plaintiff was
right about everything they claim, our exposure would be minimal,"
Barbera said.

At a meeting of the Cambria County Board of Commissioners, Barbin
explained the situation to the county commissioners before they
voted to approve an agreement with McNees, Wallace & Nurick for
legal representation in the suit, along with entering into a joint
defense agreement with other Pennsylvania counties.

Barbin told the commissioners that he would try to find the most
inexpensive resolution if the county prothonotary's office was
found to be in the wrong.

"The attorney fees could far surpass any actual amount that was
allegedly overcharged," Barbin said.

The complaint asks for four years of excessive fees back.

"It might be a whole lot cheaper to just refund the money right
now," Barbin said. "We're double-checking that all things say what
we think they say, and to make sure everything's calculated right
and proper. But I intend to contact the political subdivisions who
have filed complaints and other documents about refunds."

The proactive approach, Barbin feels, might be in the best interest
of county residents.

"Is there a way we can short-circuit our involvement?" Barbin said.
"If we can short-circuit the involvement and get out of the case
before the attorneys start running up big bills, that would be very
beneficial to the taxpayers." [GN]

DESEDA LLC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deseda LLC. The case
is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Deseda LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04843 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021).

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

Deseda -- https://shopdeseda.com/ -- offers Chic Silk Scarves +
Complements for the modern woman, designed in collaboration with
artists around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Dinkevich Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Telekom AG,
et al. The case is styled as David Dinkevich, on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Deutsche Telekom AG, Braxton
Carter, Bruno Jacobfeuerborn, Christian P. Illek, G. Michael
Sievert, John Legere, Marcelo Claure, Raphael Kubler, Ronald
Fisher, Softbank Group Corp., Srini Gopalan, Thorsten Langheim,
Timotheus Hottges, Defendant; T-Mobile US, Inc., Nominal Defendant;
New Castle County, Sheriff; Case No. 2021-0479-PAF (Del. Chancery
Ct., June 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Deutsche Telekom -- https://www.telekom.com/en -- is one of the
world's leading integrated telecommunications companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E Friedlander, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 573-3500
          Fax: (302) 573-3501

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
          FIREDLANDER & GORRIS PA
          1201 N Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-3508
          Fax: (302) 573-3501
          Email: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com


DIGITAL RISK: June 14 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA JOHNSON, KENNEY
JEAN-GILLES, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), v. DIGITAL RISK, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-80606-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their instant Motion in
its entirety, setting the deadline for them to file their motion
for conditional class certification as June 14, 2021.

This is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). On March 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint
seeking relief under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated. On May 10, 2021, this Court issued its
Scheduling Order. Therein, the Court set May 24, 2021, as the
deadline to file "[a]ny motions for class certification."

Digital Risk, LLC provides mortgage and financial services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uCqSbK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
          MLE LAW
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 401-2608
          E-mail: melkins@mlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nolan Kleim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          klein@nklegal.com
          amy@nklegal.com
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher M. Cascino, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL, 33602
          E-mail: chris.cascino@ogletree.com

EASTMAN KODAK: Tang Securities Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIANDONG TANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, JAMES V.
CONTINENZA, and DAVID BULLWINKLE, Case No. 3:20-cv-10462, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of New York assigned
Case No. 6:21-cv-06418-EAW 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 issuing
materially false and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission regarding Kodak's business and operations
to artificially inflate the prices of Kodak common stock from July
27, 2020 through August 7, 2020.

Eastman Kodak Company is an American manufacturer of film and
photographic supplies and provider of digital imaging services and
products, with its principal executive offices located in
Rochester, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700
         Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
         E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and –

         Maya Saxena, Esq.
         Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         SAXENA WHITE P.A.
         7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
         Boca Raton, FL 3334
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
         E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                 jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                 lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and –

         Steven B. Singer, Esq.
         SAXENA WHITE P.A.
         10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Telephone: (914) 437-8551
         Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
         E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:  EBON)
("Ebang") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Ebang
securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Ebang securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 7,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/ebang-international-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=ebang


Ebang is a leading application-specific integrated circuit chip
design company and a leading manufacturer of Bitcoin mining
machines. The Class Period commences on June 26, 2020, when Ebang
filed its prospectus in connection with its initial public offering
(the "IPO"). On October 23, 2020, Ebang filed its registration
statement on a Form F-1 for an offering of Class A ordinary shares
and warrants to purchase Class A ordinary shares. It was
subsequently amended on October 26, 2020, November 6, 2020, and
November 16, 2020 before Ebang filed a related prospectus on a Form
424b4 on November 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, on April 6, 2021, before the market
opened, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among
other things, that Ebang was directing proceeds from its IPO last
year into a "series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable
counterparties." According to the report, Ebang raised $21 million
in November 2020, claiming the proceeds would go "primarily for
development," and that instead the funds were directed to repay
related-party loans to a relative of Ebang's Chief Executive
Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted that Ebang's earlier
efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had failed due
to widespread media coverage of a sales inflation scheme with
Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending platform that
defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655 million
"vanish[ing] into thin air." Following this news, Ebang's share
price fell $0.82, or approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share
on April 6, 2021.

Then, on April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a
statement stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed]
many errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate
interpretations of events," the "Board, together with its Audit
Committee, intends to further review and examine the allegations
and misinformation therein and will take whatever necessary and
appropriate actions may be required to protect the interest of its
shareholders." Following this news, Ebang's share price fell $0.12,
or 2.17%, to close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock
price continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38,
or 7%, to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 2021.

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

Ebang investors may, no later than June 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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

EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 31 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Kadmon Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KDMN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16367&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2021
Class Period: October 1, 2020 - March 10, 2021

Allegations against KDMN include that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was
incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the
Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to
an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA
submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA
submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led
investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to
extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:EBON)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ebang-international-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16367&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 7, 2021
Class Period: June 26, 2020 - April 5, 2021

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

Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16367&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021

Allegations against UI include that: (1) the Company had downplayed
the data breach in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained
administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to,
among other things, all databases, all user database credentials,
and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as
a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely
access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Emergent
BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) ("Emergent") investors that the firm
has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland against Emergent
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Emergent common stock
between April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action, captioned Roth v. Emergent BioSolutions
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01189-PX (the "Roth Action"), was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland (Southern Division). To view a copy of the Roth Action
complaint, please click here.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021

Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/emergent-biosolutions-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=emergent
   
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
  Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
  Toll free (844) 887-9500
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops
vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases.

The Roth Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore
facility had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the
likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) the Baltimore facility
had received a series of Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
citations as a result of these contamination risks and quality
control issues; (3) Emergent had been forced to discard millions of
doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the facility deviated
from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and
capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its
Baltimore facility were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). 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]

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Portnoy Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. (NYSE: EBS)
investors that acquired shares between April 24, 2020, and April
16, 2021. Investors have until June 18, 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.

The New York Times published an article on March 31, 2021 reporting
on the accidental contamination of coronavirus vaccines developed
by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca PLC at an Emergent
manufacturing plant in Baltimore. According to reporting by the
Associated Press, this Emergent factory where the contamination
occurred experienced a series of lapses, as observed in April 2020
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 2020. On April 1,
2021, Emergent's stock price fell $12.45 per share, or 13.4%, on
this news, to close at $80.46 per share.

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 18,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Collective Cert. Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ,
et al., v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-08010-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the plaintiffs' motion conditionally approving case as a collective
action.

The Court says that it previously rejected similar bareboned
arguments for equitable tolling in Contrera v. Langer, 278 F. Supp.
3d 702, 723-24 (S.D.N.Y 2017). As the Supreme Court has stated, "a
litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing
two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently,
and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way." As
in Contrera, the plaintiffs here have failed to establish the first
prong because they "provide no facts or even arguments regarding
existing or potential opt-in plaintiffs that reflect that these
employees of the defendants have been pursuing their rights
diligently." Thus, "we have no basis for making a ruling at this
time that any current or future opt-in employees' claims must be
equitably tolled given that there has been no showing that they
have met the 'diligence' prong of the equitable tolling doctrine."
Accordingly, plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling is denied.
Should plaintiffs who join the collective action have time-barred
claims, they may present arguments for equitable tolling at that
point.

The Plaintiffs Marco Antonio Perez Perez and Jose Eduardo Sanchez
Arias filed this lawsuit against Escobar Construction, Inc.,
Nations Construction, Inc., JRS Services, LLC, and several
individual defendants, their purported employers.

The Plaintiffs have moved to have this case conditionally approved
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. section 201 et. seq. (FLSA), with notice being sent to "all
current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees" of
defendants.

The Plaintiffs are two construction workers. The Plaintiffs allege
that defendants Escobar Construction, Nations Construction, and JRS
Services were their joint employers, as demonstrated by the
corporations "sharing staff, including the Plaintiffs who would
perform construction work at the various worksites" "paying
Plaintiffs for the work performed as an indistinguishable entity,"
"advertising the Corporate Defendants as an enterprise," and being
"co-owned by the same partners, namely the Escobar/Palacios
family."

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 20, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RcI2yW at no
extra charge.[CC]

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC regarding the Esperion
Therapeutics Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN L. DOUGHERTY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Civ. No. 2:16-cv-10089-AJT-RSW
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("ESPERION" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON
STOCK FROM AUGUST 18, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, INCLUSIVE
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"), AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 23,
2021, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow at the
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI
48226, or at such other location or via telephonic or video
appearance as determined by the Court, to determine whether: (1)
the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned
action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation")1 for $18,250,000 should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation should be entered to dismiss the above-captioned
action with prejudice; (3) to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) the
Class Representatives' request for reimbursement in connection with
their representation of the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§78u-4(a)(4) should be approved and, if so, in what amounts; and
(5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate.

This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons or entities who purchased or acquired Esperion common
stock during the period between August 18, 2015 and September 28,
2015, inclusive, against Esperion and Tim Mayleben (collectively,
"Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and
omitting material facts about information concerning the drug
approval process for Esperion's cholesterol-lowering drug. The
Class Representatives allege that these purportedly false and
misleading statements inflated the price of Esperion stock,
resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of the Class Representatives' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ESPERION COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST
18, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September
24, 2021) or electronically (no later than September 24, 2021).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 24, 2021,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Litigation. If you are a Member of the Class and do not request
exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.EsperionSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:

Esperion Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43390
Providence, RI 02940-3390

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a Proof of Claim,
may be made to Class Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900

KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
ALEXANDER BURNS
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Toll-Free: 1-866-467-1400

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY AUGUST 2, 2021,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. CLASS MEMBERS WHO
HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 32.5% OF THE
$18,250,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000
INCLUDING THE PAYMENT TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES IN CONNECTION
WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 IN THE
AGGREGATE. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 2, 2021, IN THE
MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: May 6, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.EsperionSecuritiesSettlement.com. [GN]

EXXON MOBIL: N.Y. City Environmental Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THE CITY OF NEW YORK, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL
OIL CORPORATION, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, SHELL OIL COMPANY, BP
P.L.C., BP AMERICA INC., and AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Case No.
451071/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04807 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions due to their fossil fuel production
activities. The Plaintiff's suit asserted nuisance and trespass
claims under New York law, seeking to impose liability on the
Defendants' worldwide fossil fuel production and the use of their
fossil fuel products, which emit greenhouse gases and exacerbate
global warming.

Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a petroleum and chemical
manufacturing company, headquartered in Irving, Texas.

Royal Dutch Shell plc is a British-Dutch multinational oil and gas
company headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands.

Shell Oil Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell
plc, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

BP P.L.C. is a British multinational oil and gas company
headquartered in London, England.

BP America Inc. is an oil and natural gas company, headquartered in
Houston, Texas.

American Petroleum Institute is a trade association for the oil and
natural gas industry in the U.S., headquartered in Washington, D.C.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
         Daniel J. Toal, Esq.
         PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6064
         Telephone: (212) 373-3000
         Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
         E-mail: twells@paulweiss.com
                 dtoal@paulweiss.com

                - and –

         Justin Anderson, Esq.
         PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
         2001 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20006-1047
         Telephone: (202) 223-7300
         Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
         E-mail: janderson@paulweiss.com

                - and –

         Patrick J. Conlon, Esq.
         22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
         Spring, TX 77389
         Telephone: (832) 624-6336
         E-mail: patrick.j.conlon@exxonmobil.com

FACEBOOK INC: Euroconsumers Reaches Deal to End Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that Brussels-based European consumer
protection body Euroconsumers said it has entered into a three-year
partnership with Facebook to improve consumers' digital lives and
create added value for them. The collaboration brings to an end a
class action that accused Facebook of illegally harvesting the data
of millions of European users in the wake of the Cambridge
Analytica breach. [GN]

FACTUAL DATA: Argueta-Cantizzano Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Factual Data, Inc.
The case is styled as Eduardo S. Argueta-Cantizzano, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Factual Data,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00611-RDA-MSN (E.D. Va., May 18, 2021).

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

Factual Data -- https://www.factualdata.com/ -- provides a wide
range of customized information services to businesses across the
United States that assist them in making critical decisions, such
as determining whether to make a mortgage or other loan, offer
employment, accept new tenants, or enter into a business
relationship.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7570
          Fax: (703) 591-9285
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com


FCA US: Seeks to Stay Case Pending Briefing on Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MARKSBERRY, v. FCA
US LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02724-EFM-JPO (D. Kan.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying this case in its
entirety pending final briefing and a decision on its Motion for
Summary Judgment, or, alternatively, staying all further discovery
until after a ruling on class certification as contemplated by this
Court's Scheduling Order.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (KCPA) and breach of warranty. His claims under the
KCPA are predicated on the notion FCA US failed to tell him he
needed to have a powertrain inspection completed on his truck every
five years in order to keep its Lifetime Powertrain Limited
Warranty in effect. His warranty claims are based on an alleged
breach of that warranty and the implied warranty of
merchantability.

A copy of the Court's order the Defendant's motion dated May 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pfZhfw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC, are:

          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L Azar, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Craig S. Laird, Esq.
          Scottie S. Kleypas, Esq.
          ROBERT A. KUMIN, P.C.
          6901 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 250
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Telephone: (913) 432-1826
          Facsimile: (913) 236-7115
          E-mail: claird@kuminlaw.com
                  skleypas@kuminlaw.com

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL
C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE
NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the parties
stipulated that the deadline for the Defendant's Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be extended to
June 29, 2021, and that the deadline for the Plaintiffs' Reply In
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be
extended to 4 July 30, 2021.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yVcdvB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shields, Andrew, Hosszu, and the
Proposed Class, are:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  cnelson@lchb.com

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff ISL, Plaintiffs Shields, Andrew,
Hosszu, and the Proposed Class, are:

          Neil A. Goteiner, Esq.
          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Joshua W. Malone, Esq.
          Hilary C. Krase, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: ngoteiner@fbm.com
                  bwisoff@fbm.com
                  jmalone@fbm.com
                  hkrase@fbm.com

The Attorney for the Defendant Federation Internationale de
Natation, are:

          Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          Telephone: (415) 646-7839
          E-mail: aaron.chiu@lw.com

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

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

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fibrogen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16264&from=5

CLASS PERIOD : October 18, 2017 to April 6, 2021

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

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

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

FIBROGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on May 31 disclosed that class action complaints
have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ:FGEN)
Class Period: October 18, 2017 - April 6, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 11, 2021

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in FGEN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16343&from=1

3D Systems Corporation (NYSE:DDD)
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - March 1, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021

The complaint alleges that during the class period 3D Systems
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper
internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D
Systems' public statements were materially false and/or misleading
at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in DDD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/3d-systems-corp-loss-submission-form?id=16343&from=1

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:ACAD)
Class Period: June 15, 2020 - April 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021

The complaint alleges Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin
supplemental new drug application (sDNA) 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 Food and Drug Administration Agency
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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ACAD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16343&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


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

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGEN) ("FibroGen") between
October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-information-request-form?prid=16356&wire=5

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

FibroGen, Inc. NEWS - FGEN NEWS

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

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

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased FibroGen securities between
October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-information-request-form?prid=16356&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Suit Seeks to Certify Cash Buyers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN P. HAINES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
8:19-cv-02995-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all cash buyers who used the same FARBAR form (and selected
      Section 9(c)(i)), but who were charged a Closing
      Services Fee (CSF);

   2. appointing John P. Haines as class representative;

   3. appointing Seth M. Lehrman of Edwards Pottinger, PLLC, Joshua

      H. Eggnatz and Michael J. Pascucci of Eggnatz Pascucci, P.A.,

      and Richard Feinberg of Florida Legacy Law, LLC as class
      counsel;

   4. providing him 21 days to file a proposed class notice plan,
      and providing the Defendant 14 days to file any objections to

      the proposed class notice; and

   5. directing the Defendant to produce to him, within 14 days, an

      updated Notice Class List of all transactions that
      potentially meet the class definition, which includes the
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses (if available), for all transactions and/or order
      numbers on the list.

According to the complaint, Fidelity breached its fiduciary duty to
cash buyers by charging them a CSF without regard to the express
and plain language of the Florida Association of Realtors and
Florida Bar (FARBAR). While Fidelity's business practice is
on-going, discovery to-date shows that Fidelity has improperly
collected a CSF from thousands of Florida home buyers.

The Plaintiff seeks return of the CSF collected from Class Members,
and to stop Fidelity's business practice to protect Florida home
buyers.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is a
provider of title insurance and settlement services to the real
estate and mortgage industries. FNF generated approximately $8.469
billion in annual revenue in 2019 from their title and real estate
related operations.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated May 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2RZMhhU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Trial Counsel for theg Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ ǀ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC.
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

          - and -

          Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
          600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 231-6400
          E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com

The Trial Counsel for Fidelity National Title of Florida, Inc.,
are:

          Mary Ellen R. Himes, Esq.
          Jeffrey N. Golant, Esq.
          FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
          200 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 210
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone No: (954) 414-2111
          Facsimile No: (954) 414-2101
          E-mail: maryellen.himes@fnf.com
                  pleadingsfl@fnf.com

FORD MOTOR: 9th Circuit Reverses Sunroof Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
sunroof class action lawsuit is back in business after the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal ruling from a
lower district court.

According to the sunroof lawsuit, the panoramic glass can suddenly
explode and rain shards of glass onto Ford vehicle occupants.

The Ford sunroof class action alleges plaintiff Jessica Beaty was
driving her 2013 Ford Escape in 2017 when the sunroof shattered for
no apparent reason.

The plaintiff says the sunroof glass fell on her and her infant
daughter and Ford allegedly knew it could happen.

The panoramic sunroofs appeared in Ford vehicles in 2007, but Ford
allegedly soon began receiving complaints the sunroofs were
exploding.

Ford argues customer complaints don't prove the automaker knew
about any sunroof problems. According to the automaker, the
plaintiffs improperly relied on customer complaints that post-dated
their purchase, involved non-panoramic sunroofs or were determined
to have been caused by external impacts to the glass.

In addition, the plaintiffs don't cite an "unusually high" number
of relevant, pre-sale complaints that may have put Ford on notice
of a sunroof defect.

Ford also says the calculated sunroof failure rate is only 0.05%,
which is one sunroof out of every 2,000 vehicles. Ford argues the
sunroof failure rate is equal or lower to shattered sunroofs in
vehicles from other automakers.

The district court judge dismissed the Ford sunroof class action
lawsuit by finding it "defies common sense to claim that a
manufacturer must disclose every single failure of any component or
part to every potential purchaser, even if the failure is minor and
not dangerous, or even if it has only happened a handful of
times."

The judge also said it was not reasonable for Ford to warn
customers about components that may or may not have problems one
day.

In dismissing the entire sunroof class action lawsuit, the judge
agreed with Ford that when the plaintiff's sunroof broke the
warranty had already expired.

And even if the vehicle had still been covered by the warranty, the
judge pointed out how the warranty clearly says, "glass may chip,
scratch, crack or break, and that any such damage is not covered by
the warranty."

Ford Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Appeal
In a sign of how contradicting courts can be based on the same laws
and same arguments, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the
district court which had dismissed the lawsuit.

The appeals court found that pre-sale customer complaints to both
Ford and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
do create a triable issue as to whether Ford knew its sunroofs were
prone to spontaneously explode.

The Ninth Circuit also ruled sunroof complaints made directly to
Ford "are circumstantial evidence that the defendant is on notice
of the defect."

Ford argues even if sunroof complaints are enough for a juror to
conclude Ford had knowledge of sunroof problems, the claims made by
the plaintiffs fail because the complaints don't apply to their
specific Ford model and model year.

But the appeals court disagrees.

"[W]hen a plaintiff attempts to introduce evidence of other
accidents" to prove the defendant's "notice of [a] defect," "[a]
showing of substantial similarity is required."

The appeals court says it must view "the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Beatys," which means a "reasonable juror could
find that Ford knew that the PSR [panoramic sunroof] defect would
persist in the substantially similar PSRs installed in the 2013
Ford Escape."

"If [Ford's expert] said one thing and [the Beatys' expert] said
another on the same subject, it is the role of the jury, not a
court on summary judgment, to determine the facts."

According to the panoramic sunroof class action lawsuit, these Ford
models are equipped with defective sunroofs.

2007-present Ford Edge
2009-present Ford Focus
2010-present Ford Fusion
2011-present Ford Explorer
2009-present Ford Flex
2011-present Ford F-150
2009-2014 Ford Mustang
2008-present Ford Escape
2014-present Ford Transit Connect
2013-present Ford C-Max
2007-present Lincoln MKX
2009-2015 Lincoln MKS
2013-present Lincoln MKZ
2010-present Lincoln MKT
2010-2011 Mercury Milan
2010-2011 Mercury Montego

The Ford sunroof class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington: Beaty, et
al., v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Terrell Marshall Law Group,
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg Coleman Law PC. [GN]


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: August 10 Extension to Class Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA WORMLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00154-O (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
time for her to file her motion for class certification by 60 days
to August 10, 2021.

This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. In their proposed Joint Report, the parties agreed
to a deadline of January 10, 2022 for the filing of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

On April 15, 2021, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff
to move for class certification on or before June 11, 2021.

Franklin provides collection and adjustment services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uHXiBF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

GACHINA LANDSCAPE: Bernal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gachina Landscape
Management Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jorge Luis
Diaz Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gachina Landscape Management Company, Inc., Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC21591923 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., June 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Gachina Landscape Management Company -- https://www.gachina.com/ --
provides our customers with the highest quality commercial
landscaping, irrigation, Headquartered in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: AP-Fonden Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN and THE
CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08457-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead
Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and Additional Plaintiff The Cleveland
Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), with the class
      defined as follows:

      "All persons and entities that purchased or acquired GE
      common stock between March 2, 2015 and January 23, 2018,
      inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby,
      excluding (a) Defendants; (b) GE's subsidiaries and
      affiliates; (c) any officer, director, or controlling person

      of GE, and members of the immediate families of such persons;

      (d) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
      interest; (e) Defendants' directors' and officers' liability

      insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries
      thereof; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs,
      successors, and assigns of any such excluded party;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
      proposed Class; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as Lead
      Counsel for the Class and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Liaison

      Counsel for the Class.

General Electric is an American multinational conglomerate
incorporated in New York City and headquartered in Boston. As of
2018, the company operates through the following segments:
aviation, healthcare, power, renewable energy, digital industry,
additive manufacturing and venture capital and finance.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z31G1E
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and Proposed Lead
Counsel for the Class, are:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
          Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
          Joshua A. Materese, Esq.
          Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
          Evan R. Hoey, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
          CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
                  gcastaldo@ktmc.com
                  rrusso@ktmc.com
                  jmaterese@ktmc.com
                  mnewcomer@ktmc.com
                  ehoey@ktmc.com

The Counsel for Additional Plaintiff Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters
Pension Fund and Proposed Liaison Counsel for the Class, are:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Barbara Hart, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Park, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
                  bhart@gelaw.com
                  cmoyna@gelaw.com
                  jpark@gelaw.com

GOALS PLASTIC SURGERY: Faces Labor Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Russell Lee at innercitypress.com reports that Goals
Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery has been sued for not paying minimum
wage or overtime. They want to appeal.

On May 27, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York Judge Gregory H. Woods held a proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.

Judge Woods on May 20 granted the motion to certify a class of
current and former receptionists and patient coordinators.

Plaintiffs' counsel opposed any stay pending appeal, and Judge
Woods declined to certify for interlocutory appeal.

The case is Lawrence et al v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C. et al.,
18-cv-8649 (Woods) [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Ex-Female Employees File Pay Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ananya Varma, writing for Republic World, reports that under heat
for several antitrust complaints, legal woes mounted for Google in
the US after nearly 11,000 women filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Silicon Valley giant over gender pay disparity. The
lawsuit against Google alleges that the company pays men more than
women for the same job and seeks a whopping $600 million in
damages.

Google Gender Equity Lawsuit
Represented by 4 women, the lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
10,800 women who have alleged that Google violated California's
Equal Pay Act. As per the suit, the company is said to have paid
women employees approximately $16,794 less per year than
'similar-suited man' in California. The pay disparity is not only
limited to the salaries. The women have also said that a similar
situation is observed in other perks and women were paid smaller
bonuses and less stock in the same job, code and location as men.

On May 28, Google failed to block the suit after a San Francisco
state judge certified the class action allowing four lead
plaintiffs to represent the 11,0000 women in the case. This
development was welcomed by Kelly Dermody, one of the
representatives of the case who slammed Google for prioritizing
spending money fighting women in litigation than using the same
money to pay women equitably.

Meanwhile, Google has denied the charges saying that it was open to
making upward adjustments if it found a disparity between salaries
of men and women. "If we find any differences in proposed pay,
including between men and women, we make upward adjustments to
remove them before new compensation goes into effect," it said.

This is not the first time the Tech giant has been accused of
discriminating against female employees. In February 2021, it had
to pay USD 2.6 million to more than 5,500 employees to settle a
Google lawsuit for low pay. The accusations had been placed on the
company between 2014-2017 and alleged that salary for Google's
female engineers and Asians in California and Washington state was
less as compared to men in similar positions. The pay discrepancies
were cited in several Google offices such as California, Seattle
and Kirkland, Washington. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Over Gender Equity Granted Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Lyons at theverge.com reports that four women who used to work
for Google have won class-action status for their gender equity
lawsuit against the search engine company, allowing them to
represent some 10,800 women.

The lawsuit alleges that Google pays men more than women for the
same work, in violation of California's Equal Pay Act, and that
Google paid its female employees nearly $17,000 less per year than
male counterparts in the same roles.  The women filed the suit in
2017, claiming they were put into lower career tracks than their
male colleagues-so-called "job ladders" that resulted in them
receiving lower bonuses and salaries.  The women have since left
Google.

"This is a significant day for women at Google and in the
technology sector, and we are so proud of our brave clients for
leading the way," Kelly Dermody, an attorney representing the
women, wrote in an email to Bloomberg. "This order shows that it is
critical that companies prioritize paying women equitably over
spending money fighting them in litigation."

The plaintiffs weren't the only ones accusing Google of
systematically underpaying female employees in 2017; the US
Department of Labor also sued Google that year for withholding
compensation data, and concluded three months later that Google was
responsible for "systemic compensation disparities against women
pretty much across the entire workforce." Google agreed to pay $2.5
million to employees and job applicants earlier this year over
alleged pay and hiring discrimination.

A Google spokesperson said in an email to The Verge that the
company "strongly believes in the equity" of its policies and
practices. The spokesperson did not directly address the lawsuit's
class action status, but said the company has performed a "rigorous
pay equity analysis" annually for the past eight years. "If we find
any differences in proposed pay, including between men and women,
we make upward adjustments to remove them before new compensation
goes into effect," the spokesperson added, saying that last year
alone Google made "upward adjustments" for 2,352 employees across
the company, for a total of $4.4 million. Google had over 135,000
employees as of December, and pulled in $17 billion in profit last
quarter alone.

Dermody, the attorney, told Bloomberg she expected a trial to start
sometime next year. [GN]

GOYA FOODS: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Mejias Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued Memorandum and Order to Show Cause in
the case, ANIBAL MEJIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOYA FOODS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-12365 (BRM) (TJB) (D.N.J.).

Goya manufactures, sells, and delivers food products under the Goya
brand name.  The Plaintiffs worked for Goya as truck drivers for
various periods of time between 2010 and 2019.  According to the
Plaintiffs, Goya delivers its products straight to its customers'
stores, which range from big box retailers to small neighborhood
stores.  To make its deliveries, Goya uses both traditional W-2
employees as drivers, as well as other drivers that Goya designates
as independent contractors, also known as owner operators.

The Plaintiffs maintain Goya unlawfully designated the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated as independent contractors and used
that improper classification to unlawfully withhold compensation
from them.  They specifically allege that Goya unlawfully withheld
wages from the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated by failing
to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week, and by deducting money for truck and equipment rental, truck
repairs and maintenance, permits and licenses, fuel, mileage taxes,
fees, tolls, insurance, health insurance, returned or damaged
products, and other deductions imposed by Goya that are not
permitted under New Jersey law.

Mr. Mejias originally filed the class action on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated on July 18, 2019 in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County against
Defendants.  The Original Complaint asserted Mejias and a class of
Goya truck drivers "were designated as independent contractors or
owner operators" and unlawfully denied wages from Goya through the
deduction of "costs and fees associated with drivers' leasing
vehicles, fuel and maintenance costs, insurance, trailer rentals
and other equipment, administrative fees, returned and damaged
products, and other deductions not allowed by governing law."

Mr. Mejias alleged the following counts against Defendants: (1)
violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J. Stat. Ann.
Sections 34:11-4.1, et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) violation
of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("NJRICO"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 2C:41-1, et seq.; and (4)
unjust enrichment.

On Aug. 22, 2019, the Defendants moved to (1) dismiss Mejias's
Original Complaint in its entirety against the Officer Defendants
with prejudice; (2) dismiss the NJRICO claim against all Defendants
with prejudice; (3) dismiss the unjust enrichment claim against
Goya with prejudice; and (4) transfer the venue of the matter to
Hudson County to adjudicate the remainder of Mejias's claims.
Following Mejias's opposition and the Defendants' reply, the
Superior Court of New Jersey denied the motion to transfer venue
and "dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, but otherwise denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss."

On April 8, 2020, Mejias filed a motion to amend the Original
Complaint.  On May 8, 2020, the Superior Court of New Jersey
granted Mejias's motion.  Mejias subsequently added Minter, Fuller,
and Pena as Plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint against the
Defendants.  Like the Original Complaint, the FAC alleged the
Defendants "designated them and those similarly situated as
independent contractors, and used that improper classification to
unlawfully withhold compensation from them."

Through the FAC, however, the Plaintiffs sought to represent two
separate nationwide classes of Goya workers.

The first class of Goya workers included "all truck drivers of
Defendants who were designated as independent contractors or owner
operators and from whom Defendants unlawfully withheld wages from
by deducting costs and fees associated with drivers' leasing
vehicles, for fuel and maintenance costs, insurance, trailer
rentals and other equipment, administrative fees, returned and
damaged products, and other deductions not allowed by governing law
between July 18, 2013 and the present ("Nationwide Wage Deduction
Class").

The second class of Goya workers included "all truck drivers of
Defendants who were designated as independent contractors or owner
operators who were not paid overtime compensation when they worked
more than forty (40) hours per week between July 18, 2017 and the
present" ("Nationwide Overtime Class").

Furthermore, in addition to the claims for violations of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law, NJRICO, and breach of contract set forth
in the Original Complaint, the FAC also alleged violations of (1)
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections
34:11-56a, et seq.; (2) the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Law, 43 P.S.
Sections 260.1, et seq.; (3) the Maryland Wage Payment Law, Md.
Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Sections 3-501, et seq.; and (4) the South
Carolina Payment of Wages Act, S.C. Code Sections 41-10-10, et
seq.

On May 18, 2020, following the parties' stipulation, the Court
entered an order staying the matter pending mediation.  The
parties, however, failed to settle their dispute and on September
3, 2020 the stay was lifted.  On Sept. 4, 2020, the Defendants
removed the matter to the Court pursuant to CAFA.

On Oct. 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.  On Oct. 26, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion to
Remand and Motion to Amend.  On Oct. 28, 2020, the Court entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' request to stay briefing on the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pending a decision on the
Motion to Amend.  The Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiffs'
request to amend.  On Dec. 4, 2020, the Honorable Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J., granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend and
directed the Clerk's Office to administratively terminate the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pending a decision on the
present Motion to Remand.

On Dec. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") against Goya without the Officer Defendants.
Like the preceding Original Complaint and FAC, the SAC alleged Goya
unlawfully designated the Plaintiffs and other truck drivers as
independent contractors and withheld compensation.  The SAC sets
forth claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the New Jersey Wage
Deduction Class, and the New Jersey Overtime Class.

The New Jersey Wage Deduction Class consists of "all truck drivers
who performed work for Goya in the State of New Jersey and who were
designated as independent contractors or owner operators and from
whom Goya withheld wages by deducting money associated with truck
and equipment rental, truck repairs and maintenance, permits and
licenses, fuel, mileage taxes, fees, tolls, insurance, health
insurance, returned or damaged products, and/or other deductions
set forth in Goya's records, between July 18, 2013 and the
present."

The New Jersey Overtime Class includes "all truck drivers who
performed work for Goya in the State of New Jersey and who were
designated as independent contractors or owner operators, and who
were not paid overtime compensation when they worked over forty
(40) hours in a workweek, at any time between July 18, 2017 and the
present."

The SAC alleges (1) violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
on behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New Jersey Wage
Deduction Class; (2) violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
on behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New Jersey Overtime
Class; (3) violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law on behalf
of Mejias individually; (4) violations of the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law on behalf of Mejias individually; and, alternatively, (5)
violations of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act on behalf of
Mejias individually.

The Plaintiff now moves to remand the matter to the Superior Court
of New Jersey, arguing remand is required under several CAFA
exceptions.  The Defendants oppose remand, arguing they have
satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements and the Plaintiffs
have failed to meet their burden of establishing CAFA exceptions
apply to the matter.

Judge Martinotti explains that any civil action brought in a State
court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending."  CAFA confers on district courts 'original jurisdiction
of any civil action' in which three requirements are met: (1) an
amount in controversy that exceeds $5 million, as aggregated across
all individual claims; (2) minimally diverse parties; and (3) that
the class consists of at least 100 or more members."  With respect
to the second requirement, known as the 'minimal diversity'
requirement, CAFA provides that minimal diversity is satisfied if
any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State
different from any defendant.

To determine whether CAFA's subject-matter jurisdictional
requirements are satisfied, courts consider the allegations in the
complaint at the time of removal and defendant's notice of removal.
If there is no jurisdictional basis under CAFA, the case must be
remanded to state court."  In the case, at the time of the
Defendants' Sept. 4, 2020 removal, the FAC was the operative
complaint.

In their Notice of Removal, the Defendants assert their counsel
reviewed relevant corporate records and determined that the
putative 'Nationwide Wage Deduction Class,' as defined in the FAC,
has 276 members.  Moreover, according to the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs provided "a mediation statement setting forth their
respective position on liability and damages" on Aug. 13, 2020.
The Defendants maintain this "mediation statement calculated total
potential damages well in excess of $5 million."  The Plaintiffs do
not appear to contest either of these assertions, and, instead,
argue "this action falls squarely within the mandatory Local
Controversy and Home State exceptions to" CAFA.  Judge Martinotti,
accordingly, finds the Defendants have adequately established two
of the three CAFA jurisdictional requirements.

CAFA's minimal diversity requirement, however, is not as clear.
Although the Plaintiffs do not appear to challenge the Defendants'
satisfaction of this requirement, federal courts have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.  In support of removal, the Defendants note Goya is a New
Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Jersey
City, New Jersey.  Because a corporation will be deemed to be a
citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business," the Defendants have adequately
demonstrated Goya is a New Jersey citizen for diversity purposes.

Next, to establish minimal diversity between the parties, the
Defendants assert Mejias is not a citizen of New Jersey.  Indeed,
the Plaintiffs do not allege any connection between Mejias and New
Jersey.  Instead, they allege that he resides in Pennsylvania and
previously contracted with Goya to deliver products in South
Carolina.  As the Defendants point out in their opposition,
however, "residency alone does not establish citizenship."
Moreover, the Defendants concede, based on the allegations in the
FAC, it is impossible to discern Mejias' state of citizenship, only
that it is likely he is not a citizen of New Jersey.  Judge
Martinotti, accordingly, finds the Defendants failed, at the time
of removal, to meet their burden of establishing federal subject
matter jurisdiction in the case.  However, despite the Defendants'
failure to demonstrate CAFA jurisdiction, the Judge will allow the
parties to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery on this
issue.

Such discovery should be limited to CAFA's minimal diversity
requirement as it relates to the parties in the FAC, which was the
operative complaint at the time of the Defendants' removal.
Following limited jurisdictional discovery, the Defendants are to
show cause as to whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' FAC pursuant to CAFA.

Accordingly, Judge Martinotti orders that within 45 days of the
entry of the Memorandum and Order to Show Cause, the parties are to
conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to determine whether
CAFA's minimal diversity jurisdictional requirement was satisfied
under the Plaintiffs' FAC.  Within 21 days of the completion of
jurisdictional discovery, the Defendants are to show cause as to
why the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' FAC pursuant to CAFA.  The Defendants' failure to show
cause within 21 days of the completion of jurisdictional discovery
will result in remand to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is administratively terminated
pending jurisdictional discovery and adjudication of the Court's
Order to Show Cause.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7zhc4jyn from Leagle.com.


GUARDIAN PORTFOLIO: Schwartzenberger Suit Alleges Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SCHWARTZENBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00867-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal., May 28, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California's
Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, failure to provide wages upon
separation from employment, and failure to reimburse for necessary
expenditures.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field services agent at
various residential and commercial locations in and around Tulare
County and Kern County in California since 2013.

Guardian Portfolio Services, Inc. is a field services management
company based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
         SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 621-2277
         Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
         E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

                - and –

         Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
         SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
         402 West Broadway, Suite 400
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (713) 621-2277
         Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
         E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net

HIREWIRE INC: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hirewire Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Hirewire Inc., Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them Case No. 2:21-cv-04506 (C.D. Cal.,
June 1, 2021).

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

Hirewire -- https://www.hirewire.com/ -- is an on demand hiring
marketplace where employers can connect with job seekers in real
time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. 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


HISTORIC IMAGES: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katie Van Buren and Bret
VanDepolder, v. Historic Images, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-02917-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. authorizing to proceed as a collective in this action for
      overtime and/or minimum wage violations, under the Fair Labor

      Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of similarly-situated Image
      Catalog Specialists employed by Defendant from December 21,
      2017 to present who were denied the statutorily required
      minimum wage for all time worked and overtime premium for
      work performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week;

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel

      within 10 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
      containing the names, last known addresses, last known email

      addresses, and phone numbers for Image Catalog Specialists of

      the Defendants for the relevant period, as defined in
      Paragraph 1 above;

   3. authorizing to send notice, with consent to join, to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail and email so that

      they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of
      this litigation;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as

      of the date this action was filed;

   5. authorizing to send a reminder notice 45 days prior to the
      deadline for the end of the notice period with Consent to
      Join Form; and

   6. directing the Defendants to post notice, in the form, in an
      employee frequented area at all locations where putative
      class members work.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated May 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fM0gAY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14 th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com

HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok, et al. Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BARTOK, et al., v.
HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

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

      "all current or former residents or tenants who have resided
      in or have otherwise been obligated to pay rent to Miller's
      Woods at any time since June 16, 2015 (Miller's Woods
Class);

   2. appointing Mr. Bartok as the representative of the Miller's
      Woods Class and designating their counsel as class counsel
      for the Miller's Woods Class;

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

      "all current or former residents or tenants who have resided

      in or have otherwise been obligated to pay rent to Oak Point

      at any time since June 16, 2015 (Oak Point Class);"

   4. appointing Ms. Lee as the representative of the Oak Point
      Class and designating their counsel as class counsel for the

      Oak Point Class;"

   5. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of all current residents or

      tenants who reside in or are otherwise obligated to pay rent

      to Miller's Woods ("Miller's Woods Rent-Payer Class")

   6. appointing Mr. Bartok and the MFM as the representatives of
      the Miller's Woods Rent-Payer Class and designating thir
      counsel as class counsel for the Miller's Woods Rent-Payer
      Class;

   7. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of:

      "all current residents or tenants who reside in or are
      otherwise obligated to pay rent to Oak Point ("Oak Point
      Rent-Payer Class"), appointing Ms. Lee and the MFM as the
      representatives of the Oak Point Rent-Payer Class and
      designating the undersigned as counsel for the Oak Point
      Rent-Payer Class;

   8. alternatively, certifying each of the above-described Classes

      pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, section 9(2), and
      appointing the class representatives as well as class
      counsel; and

   9. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs a class

      list for each of the proposed Classes within 30 days of the
      date of this Order.

By this action, Mr. Bartok -- who is a more recent entrant to
Miller's Woods -- seeks reimbursement from Hometown and its
applicable Miller’s Woods affiliates for excess rent which
Hometown or its affiliates collected from him in violation of
Section 32L(2), plus interest. And, by this motion Mr. Bartok seeks
to prosecute his damages claim on behalf of a putative Rule
23(b)(3) class of current or former residents or tenants who have
resided in or have otherwise been obligated to pay rent to Miller's
Woods at any time since June of 2015 ("Miller's Woods Class").

The Defendant Hometown is a national operator of manufactured
housing communities, that is, communities where the
resident-tenants typically own their manufactured homes but rent
from Hometown or a Hometown affiliate the land on which their homes
sit, land that is often called a home site. Through its affiliates,
Hometown owns or operates six such communities in Massachusetts,
five of which are 55+ communities marketed to seniors.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TB2nin
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq.
          Northeast Justice Center
          50 Island Street, Suite 203B
          Lawrence, MA 01840
          Telephone: (978) 888-0624
          E-mail: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org

HOUSE OF BEAUTY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against House Of Beauty, Inc.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. House Of Beauty, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04851 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021).

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

House Of Beauty World -- https://www.houseofbeautyworld.com/ --
offers you a wide selection of beauty supplies from hair products
to fragrances, cosmetics & skin care products.[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


HRB TAX: Supreme Court Set to Decide on FAA, McGill Rule Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J. Levin, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that for the second time in two years, the U.S.
Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law (the "McGill Rule")
which invalidates arbitration agreements that waive the right of
consumers to seek public injunctive relief. This time, however,
there are changed circumstances that increase the odds that the
Court will grant review of this critically important arbitration
issue.

Earlier, in June 2020, the Court denied two petitions for
certiorari that presented the same FAA preemption issue. We
reported on those cases extensively and filed an amicus brief on
behalf of the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers
Association in support of the petitioners. Those cases arose from
Ninth Circuit opinions which held that the FAA does not preempt the
McGill Rule.

The new petition in HRB Tax Group, Inc. v. Snarr also seeks review
of a Ninth Circuit decision holding that the FAA does not preempt
the McGill Rule, but this time, the petitioners emphasize, there is
now a conflict in federal law. An intervening decision by the
Western District of Missouri, in a case involving the same
corporate defendants, the same arbitration clause and the same
types of California law claims, held that the FAA does preempt the
McGill Rule. Review is needed, the petitioners argue, because
whether the FAA preempts the McGill Rule "depends upon where a
plaintiff chooses to file suit." The petitioners also argue that
review is needed because a public injunction is equivalent to
class-wide injunctive relief, so plaintiffs' attorneys can avoid
arbitration agreements with class action waivers altogether simply
by filing a claim for public injunctive relief in California.
Hundreds of such claims have been filed in the past few years, with
no end in sight.

The response to the petition for certiorari is due June 11. We will
be tracking this important case closely and will update you as
events unfold. [GN]

IDS PROPERTY: Class Settlement in Zuern Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michelle L. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington issued Final Approval Order and
Final Judgment in the case, MAKENZIE and ERIC ZUERN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IDS
PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer; AMERIPRISE
INS. CO., a foreign insurer; and AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME INS., a
foreign insurer, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-06235-MLP (W.D.
Wash.).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Peterson
finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied
for the following reasons: (a) the Settlement Class is sufficiently
numerous to make joinder impracticable, (b) questions of law or
fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any individual
questions, (c) the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the
Settlement Class, (d) the Plaintiffs and their counsel have fairly
and adequately represented and protected the interests of all
members of the Settlement Class, and (e) the class action procedure
is the superior method of settling the claims and defenses in this
Lawsuit.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order, the
Settlement Class will be defined as follows: "All persons insured
by a contract of automobile insurance issued by IDS to a Washington
resident, and who, from October 25, 2013 through [PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL DATE], received compensation for the total loss of their
vehicles under their First Party Coverages (Comprehensive,
Collision, and UIM) and received a total loss valuation from IDS
based upon an Audatex valuation.

The Settlement Class, which will be bound by the Final Approval
Order and Final Judgment will include all members of the Settlement
Class who did not submit a timely and valid request for exclusion.

Plaintiffs Makenzie and Eric Zuern are appointed as the Class
Representatives and the law firms of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
and Nelson Boyd, PLLC are appointed as the Class Counsel.

Judge Peterson approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.  She approves the Settlement Agreement and orders that the
Settlement Agreement will be consummated and implemented in
accordance with its terms and conditions.

The Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear
its own costs.

Judge Peterson further finds that the requested service awards to
the Class Representatives are fair and reasonable.  As such, she
approves a service award to each Class Representative in the amount
of $2,500, to be paid from the Settlement Fund in the manner and at
the times set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Class Counsel or its designated agent is directed to administer
the Settlement in accordance with its terms and provisions.

The individuals or entities identified on Exhibit A have timely and
validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and,
therefore, are excluded.  Such individuals or entities are not
included in or bound by the Settlement or Final Judgment and are
not entitled to any recovery from the settlement proceeds obtained
through the settlement.

The Court will retain exclusive, continuing, jurisdiction to
resolve any disputes or challenges that may arise as to compliance
with the Settlement Agreement, or any challenge to the performance,
validity, interpretation, administration, enforcement, or
enforceability of the Notice, the Order, the Final Judgment, or the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/bc4fd96n from Leagle.com.


INDUSTRIAL APPLE: Clark Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERRY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INDUSTRIAL APPLE, INC. dba APPLE ONE
STAFFING; ECMD, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV14956, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04460 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to properly pay minimum
wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.

Industrial Apple, Inc., doing business as Apple One Staffing, is a
staffing solutions company based in California.

ECMD, Inc. is a company that manufactures and distributes millwork
and building products, headquartered in Wilkesboro, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
         Dessi N. Day, Esq.
         GREENE & ROBERTS
         402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 398-3400
         Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
         E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
                 dday@greeneroberts.com

INVESTINET LLC: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InvestiNet, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Patricia Ruiz, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. InvestiNet, LLC, Velocity
investments, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11981 (D.N.J., May 28, 2021).

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

InvestiNet -- https://www.investinet.com/ -- is a full service
account receivables management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 974-9400
          Fax: (516) 345-1635
          Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com


ISS FACILITY: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Jan. 11, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY
SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Richard Seeborg Judge entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file for class certification is
      extended to January 11, 2022;

  2. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition would be 28
      days later, on February 8, 2022; and

   3. The Plaintiff's reply in further support would be due 21 days

      thereafter, on 8 March 1, 2022.

On October 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class and representative
action complaint against the Defendants in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yUeFCw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie W. Odell, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 545-9200
          Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
          E-Mail: Julie.ODell@lewisbrisbois.com

JOBCO INC: Pineda Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO PINEDA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. JOBCO INCORPORATED,
and COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING SERVICES INC., and JAIME DELAHUNT,
individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-05321-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   2. approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
      Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, and
      approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two overlapping

      settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   4. appointing the Named Plaintiff Julio Pineda as the Class
      Representative for both Classes;

   5. appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;

   6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
      Administrator for this settlement; and

   7. approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of a

      motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a
      Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed
      settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.

Jobco provides construction services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fJbKow
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Justin R. Marino, Esq.
          J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 1821
          New York, N.Y. 10017
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229
          E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com

KANTZAVELOS G-1: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE S. HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KANTZAVELOS G-1, INC., d/b/a GREEK
ISLAND TAVERNA, SAM KANTZAVELOS, and GEORGE KANTZAVELOS,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-61138 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated restaurant
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a buzz boy and
janitorial employee at Greek Island Taverna from March 01, 2021 to
May 09, 2021.

Kantzavelos G-1, Inc., doing business as Greek Island Taverna, is
an owner and operator of a Greek/Mediterranean restaurant located
at 3300 N. Ocean Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Enters Injunctive Relief Order in Gaston
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, entered an
Injunctive Relief Order in the case, DELORIS GASTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-9 (W.D.N.C.).

Judge Bell entered its Final Order granting the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.  Pursuant to that Order and
Section 4.3 of the Settlement Agreement and Release, dated Jan. 21,
2021, the Judge entered the Injunctive Relief Order and ordered
that the Defendants comply with the following:

      a. The terms of the Injunctive Relief Order are intended to
reflect the Injunctive Relief provisions in the Settlement
Agreement and will not be construed to impose any obligations or
requirements in addition to those set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

      b. The Defendants will: (a) incorporate an express
prohibition on marketing and solicitation uses in the End User
License Agreement on the eCommerce Web Portal; (b) incorporate an
express prohibition on marketing and solicitation in commercial
user agreements on the eCommerce Web Portal; and (c) add a
separate, prominently displayed user confirmation for no marketing
and solicitation use before a Crash Report is purchased on the
eCommerce Web Portal with text substantially similar to the
following: "By selecting the Purchase & Download Button, you are
certifying that these records will not be used for solicitation"
and presented in a form similar to Exhibit E to the Settlement
Agreement.

      c. The Defendants agree Crash Reports will only be disclosed
if one of the following three conditions are met: (i) the
Defendants have redacted the following information (to the extent
such information is included in a Crash Report): an individual's
photograph, social security number, driver's license number, first
name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and
medical or disability information (hereinafter, the Personal
Information); or (ii) they have obtained the consent of the person
whose Personal Information appears on the Crash Report; or (iii)
the Crash Report is being disclosed to an authorized recipient as
permitted by 18 U.S. Code Section 2721(c) or for one of the
following permissible uses as set out in 18 U.S. Code Section
2721(b)(1).

      d. The Defendants must keep for a period of five years
records identifying each person or entity that receives a Crash
Report on the eCommerce Web Portal and the purpose for which the
Crash Report will be used.

      e. Employees who work with Crash Reports on the eCommerce Web
Portal will be required to participate in annual training regarding
the requirements of the Injunctive Relief and the DPPA.  The
Defendants will keep records of such training.

      f. With respect to the Rule 23(b)(2) CMPD Settlement
Subclass, the Defendants will implement the Injunctive Relief
within 30 days of the Effective Date.  With respect to the Rule
23(b)(2) CMPD Settlement Subclass, they will implement the
Injunctive Relief within three months of the Effective Date.  With
respect to the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class, the Defendants will
implement the Injunctive Relief within twelve months of the
Effective Date.  Notwithstanding, if the Defendants are unable to
comply with these deadlines, they will receive a reasonable
extension of time sufficient to permit completion of the task upon
submission of an application to the Court showing good cause for
the extension.

      g. With respect to the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class, the
obligations described in the Injunctive Relief Order will expire
seven years from the Effective Date.  With respect to the Rule
23(b)(2) CMPD Settlement Subclass, any relief from the obligations
must be obtained from the Court pursuant to Section 11 of the
Order.

      h. If any Settlement Class Member has a claim or dispute
regarding the Defendants' compliance with the Settlement Agreement,
including but not limited to the Injunctive Relief provisions, then
such Settlement Class Member first must submit, pro se or through
counsel, his or her dispute directly to the Defendants before
taking any other action.  Upon receipt of such a dispute, they will
investigate the dispute and respond to the Settlement Class Member
within 30 days.

      i. Any action by the Defendants determined in good faith to
be reasonably necessary to comply with any federal law, enactment,
regulation, or judicial ruling will not constitute a breach of the
Settlement Agreement.

      j. The Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over the parties with respect to all matters relating to the
Injunctive Relief Order, including its administration,
interpretation, effectuation, and enforcement of its provisions
pursuant to the dispute resolution process.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Injunctive Relief
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3anvsnnw from
Leagle.com.


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Attys.' Fees & Awards in AVGC Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES. REBECCA LEE WILLIS,
et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS
DISTRICT NO. 40, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
F082766 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fifth District affirmed the trial court's order issued on April 25,
2016, denying the Appellants' Second Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class
Representative Incentive Award.

The AVGC concern the existence and priority of water rights in the
Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin (the basin or aquifer).  The
basin spans more than 1,000 square miles across parts of
southeastern Kern County and northeastern Los Angeles County.  A
large portion of the overlying land is owned by the federal
government, but there are thousands of private citizens and
entities who also own real property in the area.

The Public Water Suppliers (PWS) are a group of public agencies and
special districts that pump groundwater from the basin and supply
water to customers throughout the arid region.  The Willis Class
comprises nongovernmental landowners who had not pumped groundwater
from the basin but wished to protect whatever rights they had to do
so in the future.  There are many additional AVGC litigants, but
they are not directly involved in the dispute over Willis' claimed
entitlement to fees and costs.

The earliest lawsuits concerning rights to the subject groundwater
commenced in 1999 and 2000.  In 2004, respondent Los Angeles County
Waterworks District No. 40 filed an action seeking (1) a
comprehensive determination of the rights of thousands of
individuals, companies, public water suppliers, public agencies,
and the federal government to extract water from the basin and (2)
a physical solution to alleviate alleged overdraft conditions and
protect the basin's groundwater supply.  District 40 sought to
establish that it and other public water suppliers had
prescriptively acquired groundwater rights superior to those of
nongovernmental landowners.

In 2005, the Judicial Council coordinated the various actions,
which collectively became known as the AVGC. In 2006, the trial
court issued an order declaring the jurisdictional boundaries of
the aquifer, i.e., the Antelope Valley Adjudication Area (AVAA).
The first of six phases of trial proceedings (Phases 1-6) had been
devoted to establishing those boundaries, which was essential to
determining the necessary parties to any global adjudication of
rights to the basin's groundwater.

In 2007, the PWS filed a class action cross-complaint in the AVGC
seeking essentially the same relief as requested in District 40's
original pleading.  During the same year, Willis filed a class
action complaint against the Public Water Suppliers.  The Willis
Class sought to establish that their rights to the present and
future overlying uses of the groundwater were superior to those of
the PWS.

In 2008, Phase 2 commenced to establish the hydrologic nature of
the aquifer within the boundaries of the AVAA.  The issue was
whether there were any distinct groundwater subbasins that did not
have hydrologic connection to other parts of the aquifer.  The
trial court found all areas of the AVAA were sufficiently
hydrologically connected to constitute a single aquifer for
purposes of the coordinated proceedings.

In 2009, the PWS moved to transfer and consolidate all pending AVGC
actions and cross actions.  The motion was granted in early 2010.

In July 2010, Willis and the PWS reached a comprehensive settlement
of their inter se disputes.  The written agreement acknowledged the
PWS claimed to have prescriptively acquired rights to a substantial
percentage of the basin's native safe yield, while the Willis Class
had asserted the PWS had no prescriptive rights against them.  The
PWS maintained the basin had a native safe yield of 82,300
acre-feet per year (afy) and a total safe yield of 110,500 afy, but
the parties agreed to be bound by the trial court's future
determination of those amounts.  The parties also acknowledged the
United States' entitlement to a portion of the native safe yield
(the Federal Reserved Right), and they agreed to be bound by the
court's future determination of that amount.

The parties negotiated a provision regarding attorney fees and
costs.  The PWS acknowledged that Willis Class counsel intended to
seek an award of their fees and costs incurred from Willis's
earliest involvement in the AVGC through a future date when the
trial court entered a final judgment approving the settlement.  It
was noted the PWS would "likely oppose the motion for fees and
costs."

In November 2010, the trial court granted a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement.  In 2011, Willis filed a
motion to recover attorney fees and costs for work performed in the
AVGC from November 2006 through December 2010.

In March 2011, the trial court approved the parties' settlement
agreement but deferred entry of a judgment thereon until the issue
of fees and costs was resolved.  Two months later, Willis was
awarded more than $1.8 million in attorney fees.  The settlement
agreement and monetary award were incorporated into a "Final
Judgment Approving The Willis Class Action Settlement."

Plaintiff Willis later moved for a "supplemental fee award" based
on attorney services rendered "from January 1, 2011 through May 13,
2011 when the Court entered Judgment approving the settlement."
This motion was also granted.  Pursuant to the rulings on both
motions, the Willis Class was awarded approximately $2 million in
attorney fees and $65,000 in litigation costs, plus a $10,000
incentive award for the class representative.

In September 2011, the trial court amended its earlier judgment to
update the total award of fees and costs in favor of Willis and
against the PWS.  The parties' 2010 settlement agreement and the
2011 amended judgment into which the settlement agreement was
incorporated are hereafter collectively referred to as the
"Settlement."

In January 2016, Willis filed the motion at issue in the appeal.
It was labeled as a "Second Supplemental Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class Represent[a]tive
Incentive Award."

The fees motion pertained to Willis' involvement in the AVGC from
Jan. 1, 2012, through Dec. 31, 2015.  Willis claimed between
$1,558,080 and $2,143,340 in attorney fees (depending on which of
two different rate schedules was used), and $105,107.62 in
litigation costs. Willis also requested a 1.5 multiplier of the
lodestar and a $5,000 incentive award for the class representative.
The stated basis for the fees motion was section 1021.5.

The PWS opposed the motion, arguing "(1) such recovery is
prohibited under the court-approved Settlement between the Willis
Class and the Public Water Suppliers; and (2) the Willis Class has
not met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5."

On April 1, 2016, the fees motion was argued and submitted.  On
April 25, 2016, the trial court issued a written order denying the
motion.

In February 2016, while the fees motion was pending, Willis filed a
notice of appeal as to the underlying Judgment.  In May 2016,
Willis filed a notice of appeal as to the trial court's order
denying the fees motion.  For various reasons, briefing in both
appeals was not completed until October 2020.  In March 2021, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment.

Plaintiff Willis alleges two alternative grounds for reversal.
First, Willis argues the terms of the Settlement, i.e., the
prerequisite conditions for seeking post-Settlement fees and costs,
"were to govern the trial court's determination of whether the fees
motion should be granted."  Although the trial court found the
prerequisites were not established, it misstated the applicable
criteria. Willis thus argues the trial court committed reversible
error by applying "the wrong standards."  Second, notwithstanding
the Settlement provisions, Willis claims it was entitled to an
award of fees and costs under section 1021.5.

The PWS argue the trial court properly denied the fees motion based
on the relevant Settlement provisions.  Nearly 18 pages of the
respondents' brief are devoted to explaining why the prerequisite
conditions did not exist, but the PWS do not address the trial
court's inaccurate paraphrasing of those conditions.  The PWS
further contend Willis did not satisfy the requirements of section
1021.5.

The Court of Appeals opines that under the law of the case
doctrine, Willis' arguments based on the alleged inconsistencies
between the Settlement and the Judgment necessarily fail.  Insofar
as othe Court of Appeals' prior determination could be construed as
upholding a factual finding by the trial court, "an appellate
court's decision on the sufficiency of evidence comes clearly
within the doctrine."  In any event, the Court of Appeals is able
to consider the question anew, its analysis and conclusion would be
the same.

The Court of Appeals also opines that Willis was bound by its
agreement to not seek post-Settlement attorney fees and costs
except under certain conditions.  None of the conditions were
established.  Therefore, the fees motion was properly denied.

Finally, at the oral argument, the Appellate counsel alleged the
Willis Class established grounds to recover fees pursuant to
section 1021.5 from unspecified overlying landowners.

The Appellate Court holds that this claim was not asserted or
developed in the appellate briefing.  Therefore, it has been
forfeited and will not be considered.  As between Willis and the
other landowners, the only adversity alleged by Willis concerned
the trial court's adoption of the proposed Judgment and Physical
Solution -- which Willis unsuccessfully opposed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
fees motion was barred by the terms of the Settlement because the
prerequisites for such a motion were not established.  The trial
court's ruling to that effect is supported by its other findings
and conclusions, so any error in misdescribing the prerequisites
was harmless.  Given the preclusive effect of the Settlement, it is
unnecessary to consider whether Willis could have satisfied the
requirements of section 1021.5 had Willis otherwise been able to
seek an award of post-Settlement fees and costs.

Put simply, the parties negotiated specific prerequisites for the
filing of any motion by Willis for the recovery of postsettlement
fees and costs from the Public Water Suppliers.  The Respondents
correctly argue that none of the prerequisite conditions existed.
The Court of Appeals therefore affirms the challenged order.  The
portion of the trial court's order issued on April 25, 2016,
denying the Appellants' Second Supplemental Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive
Award is affirmed.  All parties are to bear their own costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/32b5wnsn from Leagle.com.

Niddrie Addams Fuller Singh, David A. Niddrie --
dniddrie@appealfirm.com -- Victoria E. Fuller --
vfuller@appealfirm.com; The Kalfayan Law Firm, Ralph B. Kalfayan --
ralph@rbk-law.com; The Katriel Law Firm, Roy A. Katriel --
rak@katriellaw.com; and Gregory L. James -- gregjames@earthlink.net
-- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Mary Wickham -- MWickham@LACourt.org -- County Counsel, Warren R.
Wellen -- wwellen@counsel.lacounty.gov -- Deputy County Counsel;
Best Best & Krieger, Eric L. Garner -- eric.garner@bbklaw.com --
Jeffrey V. Dunn -- jvdunn@bbklaw.com -- Wendy Y. Wang; Olivarez
Madruga Lemieux O'Neill, Wayne K. Lemieux, W. Keith Lemieux; Murphy
& Evertz, Douglas J. Evertz -- devertz@murphyevertz.com; Lagerlof,
and Thomas S. Bunn III -- tombunn@lagerlof.com -- for Defendants
and Respondents.


LTD FINANCIAL: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Patricia Ruiz,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. LTD
Financial Services, L.P., LTD Acquisitions, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11982 (D.N.J., May 28, 2021).

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

LTD Financial Services, L.P. -- https://www.ltdfin.com/ -- provides
collection and custom call center solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 974-9400
          Fax: (516) 345-1635
          Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com


LVNV FUNDING: Salomon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Geordany Salomon, Donna Coburn, Arian
Goxhufi, Barbara Marks, Shellnell Pettiford, Jennifer San Lucas,
Shannon Skubel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC; Resurgent Capital Services, LPP;
Credit Control, LLC d/b/a Credit Control & Collections, LLC; PYOD
LLC; Case No. 1:21-cv-03086 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2021).
ai
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

LVNV Funding LLC -- https://www.lvnvfunding.com/ -- is a company
that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card
issuers and personal loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Subhan Tariq, Esq.
          THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          34-18 Northern Blvd., Ste. 2-25
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Phone: (718) 674-1245
          Fax: (516) 453-0490
          Email: subhan@tariqlaw.com


M&M BEDDING: Martie Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MARTIE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M&M BEDDING,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00043-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a single class of:

      "individuals whose telephone numbers were registered on the
      National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days when the

      Defendant made two or more telemarketing calls to them in the

      summer of 2018, and whose information was acquired by the
      Defendant in the same manner that it collected the
      Plaintiff's number;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiff to serve as the class
      representative;

   3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman,
      P.A. to serve as class counsel; and

   4. directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan and

      form of notice within a reasonable time.

The proposed class includes 7,932 consumers, including the
Plaintiff, who received a total of 42,030 calls to their National
Do Not Call Registry registered numbers.

This action challenges a telemarketing campaign by the Defendant
M&M for the purpose of selling Easy Rest branded adjustable beds to
consumers.

M&M Bedding is located in Halethorpe, Maryland and is part of the
furniture stores industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yWsvV5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MAACO AND ROYAL: Faces Chabaan Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILAL CHABAAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAACO AND ROYAL AUTO CLINIC LLC, RW PROPERTY
INVESTMENTS, LLC and RAMSEY WARED, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-11279-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated assistant managers appropriate minimum wage and overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Chabaan worked for the Defendants as an assistant manager from
approximately August 24, 2020 to January 23, 2021.

Maaco and Royal Auto Clinic LLC is an auto repair shop, with its
principal place of business in Wayne County, Michigan.

RW Property Investments, LLC is a limited liability company based
in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zachary A. Hallman, Esq.
         MEROUEH & HALLMAN, P.C.
         14339 Ford Rd., 2nd Floor
         Dearborn, MI 48126
         Telephone: (313) 582-7469
         E-mail: zhallman@mhatlaw.com

MANCHESTER, NH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Suit Over Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Albertson-Grove at unionleader.com reports that the cases of
hundreds of people who allege they were abused in state custody as
children is too complicated for a class action suit, a Merrimack
Superior Court judge wrote, dismissing much of a lawsuit against
the state but allowing the lead plaintiff to keep pursuing the suit
alone.

The case began when David Meehan reported physical abuse and
near-daily sexual assaults when he was a teenager jailed at the
Youth Development Center in Manchester, now known as the Sununu
Youth Services Center. The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office
opened a criminal investigation, but Meehan and attorney Rus Rilee
brought a civil lawsuit because they thought the criminal case was
moving too slowly.

The criminal case picked up steam this spring, and 11 people have
been charged with abuse of children in state custody at the
Manchester facility and at a Concord facility between 1994 and
2007.

The state urges anyone with information regarding criminal conduct
at the Youth Development Center to contact the New Hampshire
Attorney General's Task Force hotline at 603-271-4000.

Anyone who was physically or sexually assaulted or abused at the
YDC is encouraged to contact their local crisis center. Crisis
center advocates are available across New Hampshire to provide free
and confidential support to anyone affected by sexual violence.

Rilee gathered some 300 people who allege abuse while they were
children in state custody. Rilee aimed to have a "class" of people
who suffered abuse to be certified as part of a class action
lawsuit, but Judge John C. Kissinger of Merrimack Superior Court
wrote in a decision that it would not be practical.

To sue the Department of Children, Youth and Families and other
state agencies, Kissinger wrote, would mean the plaintiffs would
have to prove for each case that the department and other state
agencies could reasonably have predicted that the people they hired
at the Youth Development Center and other department facilities
were going to hurt children.

The judge also wrote that the plaintiffs had not identified dozens
of people they alleged enabled the abuse, such as supervisors and
nurses who they believe should have stopped the abuse.

Nearly all of the claims may also be beyond the statute of
limitations, Kissinger wrote, which is three years for some of the
counts.

Finally, the judge wrote, the defendants did not all suffer the
same level of abuse.

If the suit had been successful, it would be difficult to figure
out how much of any monetary award for damages each person should
get.

But Kissinger is allowing Meehan's case against the state to go
forward. Meehan's claims are within the statute of limitations,
Kissinger wrote, because it has been less than three years since he
discovered that police never investigated his allegations, and
since he came to believe abuse was systemic and covered up.[GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Carpenter Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shannon Carpenter, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No.
2021-CH-02014 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
May 28, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02906 to the
proceeding.

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

McDonald's Corporation --
https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/home.html -- is an American
fast food company, founded in 1940 as a restaurant operated by
Richard and Maurice McDonald, in San Bernardino, California, United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 2741: Prelim. Approval of Deal in Monsanto Roundup Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS MDL LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
document relates to: Ramirez, et al. v. Monsanto Co., Case No.
16-md-02741-VC, MDL No. 2741, Case No. 3:19-cv-02224 (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the motion for preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement.

Attorneys for certain individual plaintiffs in the MDL have
negotiated a class action settlement with Monsanto that would cover
potential future lawsuits.  Those attorneys now seek preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.

The people covered by the agreement are divided into two groups.
The first group consists of Roundup users who have been diagnosed
with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma but who have not yet sued and have not
yet hired a lawyer to sue.  The second group consists of people who
used Roundup before February 2021 but who have not been diagnosed
with NHL.  The settlement is a package deal; the Court has not been
asked to approve the deal for one group if the deal is deemed
unreasonable for the other.

Judge Chhabria notes that it is unnecessary to evaluate whether the
settlement is reasonable for the first group because it is clearly
unreasonable for the second group -- the Roundup users who have not
been diagnosed with NHL.  Judge Chhabria's ruling merely discusses
some of the most glaring flaws with the proposed settlement and the
Plaintiffs' presentation in support of it.

Judge Chhabria finds that if Roundup users who have not been
diagnosed with NHL do not opt out of the class after notice is
disseminated, the settlement purports to offer them two primary
benefits.  First, a medical monitoring program would be available
for roughly four years.  The program is ostensibly designed to
increase the chances that class members' NHL (if they get it at
all) will be diagnosed early. Second, the settlement provides for a
compensation fund, which is designed to last roughly four years.
If a class member is diagnosed with NHL during that four-year
period, they can make a claim to the fund, with a likelihood of
receiving somewhere between $10,000 and $60,000 (and in rare cases,
up to $200,000).

The benefits of the medical monitoring program are far less
meaningful than the attorneys suggest.  In the MDL, both sides'
experts have testified that NHL has a long latency period,
particularly when caused by something like an herbicide (as opposed
to a more jarring intrusion on the body, such as chemotherapy).
According to this testimony, people can reasonably expect to wait
10 or 15 years after exposure before developing the disease.

Moreover, Judge Chhabria's understanding is that NHL is primarily
contracted by older people -- more than half the people with the
disease are diagnosed after age 65.  Finally, his understanding
from the litigation is that doctors generally cannot perform tests
on patients to detect NHL before patients start experiencing
symptoms.  The attorneys filing the motion have provided no
information that contradicts the Court's understanding on these
points.  The motion thus appears to greatly exaggerate the
potential benefits of four front-end years' worth of vaguely
described medical monitoring for those without NHL.

The benefits of the compensation fund are also vastly overstated
for the second group.  The fund is designed to last only four
years.  It may even be exhausted earlier by claims from people
already diagnosed with NHL.  Since many people in the second group
will likely receive their diagnosis more than four years down the
line (with or without medical monitoring), they will not be able to
request compensation from the fund.  Monsanto has the option to add
to the fund and extend its duration with the approval of class
counsel and the Court, but there is no requirement to do so, and
Monsanto would merely incur a relatively minor "exit fee" if it
decided to end the program.  Accordingly, the Court cannot assume
(and a class member certainly could not assume) that money will be
available for longer than four years.

In exchange for these tenuous benefits, the proposed agreement
calls upon the class members to make two major sacrifices.  First,
although class members retain the ability to sue Monsanto upon
diagnosis if they choose to forego compensation from the fund or if
the fund has expired, they lose the right to seek punitive damages.
Second, in any trial where class members seek compensatory damages,
they must stipulate to the admission of the opinion of a
seven-member science panel about whether Roundup can cause NHL.

It may well be true, as the attorneys pushing this deal asserted at
the hearing, that a punitive damages award for a Roundup plaintiff
who sues Monsanto 15 years from now is not likely to exceed a 1:1
ratio compared to compensatory damages. But punitive damages would
presumably still be available because Monsanto continues to sell
Roundup, and it insists on doing so without any real warning label.
Moreover, compensatory damage awards in these trials have been
quite high.  For example, Hardeman's was roughly $5 million, even
though he had made a full recovery from NHL by the time of trial.
Thus, even if punitive damages awards consistently fall to levels
below compensatory damages in future lawsuits, that's still a lot
of money to be giving up.

In sum, Judge Chhabria holds that the settlement proposed by these
attorneys would accomplish a lot for Monsanto.  It would
substantially diminish the company's settlement exposure and
litigation exposure at the back end, eliminating punitive damages
and potentially increasing its chances of winning trials on
compensatory damages.  It would accomplish far less for the Roundup
users who have not been diagnosed with NHL -- and not nearly as
much as the attorneys pushing the deal contend.

These deficiencies are bad enough on their own, Judge Chhabria
finds.  But they are exacerbated by the difficulties with
effectively notifying people of the right to opt out of the class
at the front end.  If notice could ever be adequate, it would need
to communicate the settlement's message very clearly and offer
something sufficiently valuable and tangible to make it worth the
potential class members' attention.

The Judge holds that the settlement and the proposed program for
publicizing it do not come close to accomplishing that.  Indeed,
for people who have not been diagnosed with NHL, the notice's
message is so garbled that they are likely to ignore it.  The
counsel's response at the hearing was simply that they hired
experts and trusted them to craft an appropriate notice.  That is
not an adequate response.  It should be obvious to any expert or
layperson that the proposed notice does a disservice to the group
that has not been diagnosed with NHL, potentially misleading them
into disregarding a message about a settlement that could
substantially diminish their rights if they eventually get sick.

One final note, at the hearing, the Court signaled that a fair
amount of time might pass before it issued a ruling on the motion.
It was based partly on the assumption that the parties might decide
to submit revisions to the agreement in light of the discussion
that took place.

On reflection, from the standpoint of transparency and procedural
fairness, it would not be a good approach, Judge Chhabria finds.
The parties already made significant changes to the agreement
between the time when the motion for preliminary approval was filed
in February 2021 and the time when the reply was filed in April
2021.  It was difficult enough to wade through the briefs and
determine which arguments still applied to the revised agreement.
To entertain further revisions in the context of the motion would
be unfair to objectors and interested members of the public who are
attempting to follow developments and potentially weigh in on this
consequential matter.  Especially since mere tweaks cannot salvage
the agreement.  If a settlement that reasonably protects the
interests of Roundup users who have not been diagnosed with NHL can
be reached, that agreement must be presented on a new motion for
preliminary approval.  This motion, however, is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ywpvvefu from Leagle.com.


MICHAEL BOUCHARD: Cameron Suit Seeks Final Class & Subclasses Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMAAL CAMERON, et al., v.
MICHAEL BOUCHARD, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10949-LVP-PTM (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting final certification of the class and subclasses
that
      were conditionally certified by this Court on May 21, 2020;

   2. appointing Thomas Harvey, Marques Banks, Cary S. McGehee,
      Kevin M. Carlson, Philip Mayor, Syeda Davidson, Daniel S.
      Korobkin, Alexandria Twinem, and Allison L. Kriger as class
      counsel;

   3. preliminarily approving the class settlement;

   4. approving class notice as proposed; and

   5. scheduling a fairness hearing for a date and time as close
to
      28 days after this court orders class notice to be issued,
      and as promptly as possible.

The Plaintiffs have already moved for certification of a class, for
injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief only under Rule
23(b)(2), consisting of: "all current and future persons detained
at the Oakland County Jail during the course of the COVID-19
pandemic," as well as three subclasses thereof (a pre-conviction
subclass, a post-conviction subclass, and a medically vulnerable
subclass).

On May 21, 2020, this Court conditionally certified the class as
requested and certified the subclasses with some variations from
Plaintiffs’ initial motion.

On April 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging that the Defendants were in violation of both the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to take a number of measures
to keep people incarcerated in the Oakland County Jail safe from
COVID-19.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uFJDeb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Marques Banks, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE
          1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          E-mail: Tharvey@advancementproject.org
                  Mbanks@advancementproject.org

               - and -

          Philip Mayor, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Syeda Davidson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6803
          E-mail: pmayor@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  sdavidson@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
          Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER,
          BONANNI & RIVERS, PC
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
                  kcarlson@pittlawpc.com

               - and -

          Allison L. Kriger, Esq.
          LARENE & KRIGER, PLC
          645 Griswold, Suite 1717
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 967-0100
          E-mail: Allison.kriger@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Twinem, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org

MIDEA AMERICA: Sporn Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Sporn, individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated v. Midea America Corporation, Case No.
CGC-21-590503, was removed from the San Francisco County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-03823-LB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Midea -- https://www.midea.com/us/ -- is the world's largest
producer of major appliances with a mission to create
surprisingly-friendly solutions so consumers can enjoy life at
home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GORUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (949) 688-6009
          Fax: (800) 500-0301
          Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GORUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik Christian Swanholt, Esq.
          Alyssa Leigh Titche, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
          Phone: (213) 972-4500
          Fax: (213) 486-0065
          Email: eswanholt@foley.com
                 atitche@foley.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as De' Andre D. Wallace,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-11980 (D.N.J.,
May 28, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 974-9400
          Fax: (516) 345-1635
          Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Church FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLIFFORD J. CHURCH, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-10538 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire
C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey:

    (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first
        amended complaint; and

   (ii) granted their motion to compel arbitration.

In October 2016, the Plaintiff opened a Pier 1 Imports credit card
account, issued and owned by Comenity Bank, which he used to
purchase goods and merchandise from Pier 1.  Terms and conditions
of the account agreement included an arbitration provision.

Prior to acceding to the terms and conditions of the account
agreement by using his Pier I Imports credit card account, the
Plaintiff did not reject or respond to the arbitration provision.
On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received notice that his account
was closed and charged-off, and that Comenity had sold the account
to Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. for collection.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff has an outstanding balance
on the Pier 1 account, and, on July 3, 2019, mailed a collection
letter to him.  The letter stated, in relevant part, "If your
account goes to an attorney, the flexible pay options may no longer
be available to you.  If this process results in litigation, and a
judgment is entered against you, the judgment will be enforceable
according to state law."

On July 31, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New
Jersey, Case No. 19-24892-JKS.  In the petition, he identified a
number of potential claims as part of the bankruptcy estate
including, most relevantly, that in the initial complaint, filed
July 3, 2020,1 as well as in the amended complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants "continue to offer flexible payment
options for accounts even after they are sent to attorneys or after
lawsuits have been filed."  Therefore, he alleges that the
Defendants deprived him "and other New Jersey consumers of
truthful, non-misleading, information" with regard to debt
collection, thereby engaging in practices violative of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In response to the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims, the Defendants contend
that the bankruptcy trustee is the only party with proper standing
to assert an FDCPA claim.  They assert that once the Plaintiff
filed his bankruptcy petition, he abandoned his FDCPA claim, which
then "transferred to the bankruptcy Estate and titled to the
Chapter 7 trustee, unless and until they were abandoned back to him
by the trustee" thus causing the Plaintiff to lose standing.

The Defendants further argue that as "the potential suit against
them was not adequately disclosed in the Plaintiff's Bankruptcy
Petition, the claim was not abandoned back to the Plaintiff, by
Court Order or specifically by the trustee.  Thus it remains
property of the Plaintiff's Estate and a cause of action that only
the trustee can pursue."  They also contend that the FDCPA claim is
barred by judicial estoppel; alternatively, the Defendants assert
that the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims must be submitted to arbitration
per the aforementioned arbitration provision within the account
agreement.

Discussion

A. 12(b)(1) Standing and Judicial Estoppel

Judge Cecchi opines that the Defendants' arguments as to standing
and judicial estoppel based on the Plaintiff's bankruptcy are
unpersuasive.  The parties agree that the Plaintiff listed an FDCPA
claim in his bankruptcy estate and that a potential legal claim can
be abandoned by an estate upon closure of a bankruptcy action.  The
Defendants' main argument against the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim being
abandoned by the bankruptcy estate is that the claim was never
properly scheduled in the first place.  That argument, however, is
belied by the bankruptcy docket which contains a letter from the
bankruptcy trustee specifically agreeing to abandon FDCPA claims
and a "Certification of No Objection" to abandonment of the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims.  Accordingly, as the Plaintiff's FDCPA
claims were voluntarily abandoned by the bankruptcy estate without
objection, the Defendant's motion to dismiss due to lack of
standing or judicial estoppel must be denied as both arguments rely
entirely on the bankruptcy estate being the proper owner of these
claims.

B. Motion to Compel Arbitration

Judge Cecchi finds the arbitration provision is valid and
enforceable, and finds no support for the Plaintiff's contention
that the agreement to arbitrate did not transfer to the Defendants
following the sale of the account from Comenity to the Defendants.
The account agreement substantially details the arbitration
agreement, including arbitration processes and categories of
disputes subject to arbitration.  Moreover, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff assented to the terms of the provision by using his
Pier 1 Imports credit card account, despite being provided with
instructions to opt-out or reject the provision.  Having found that
an agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties, the Judge
must next determine if the Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope
of that agreement.

Judge Cecchi finds that the arbitration provision, as contained in
the account agreement, defines "claim" as "any claim, dispute, or
controversy between you and us that in any way arises from or
relates to this Agreement, the Account, the issuance of any card,
any rewards program, and/or any prior agreement or account."  It is
clear to her that the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim relates to the
Defendants' collection letter and to the agreement the Plaintiff
acceded to in relation to his Pier 1 credit card; it therefore
falls within the domain of the arbitration provision.

Order

For the reasons she stated, Judge Cecchi denied the motion to
dismiss and granted the motion to compel arbitration.  An
appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3n2bmxkw from Leagle.com.


MIKE THOMPSON: Hamlin Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Hamlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIKE THOMPSON RECREATIONAL VEHICLES; MIKE THOMPSON
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, COLTON; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV18889 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., May 19,
2021), is brought against the Defendants alleging that Defendants
have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations
under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission
("IWC") Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges, that the
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages); (b) failing to
provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c)
failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide
compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (e) failing to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment. The Plaintiffs seek monetary relief
against Defendants on behalf of aggrieved employees statewide to
recover, among other things, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and penalties pursuant to Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee at the Defendants' California business location.

The Defendants are in the business of selling and servicing
recreational vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.  
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          Email: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com


MILLS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Reyes FLSA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE J. REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLS CONSTRUCTION & IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, and
JUDSON MILLS, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00299 (M.D. Fla., May
31, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated construction workers appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Reyes was employed by the Defendants as a construction laborer
in Florida from January 06, 2018 through January 5, 2021.

Mills Construction & Improvements, LLC is a construction company,
with its principal place of business in Ocala, Marion County,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

MOHAMMAD AL MOJIL: Ordered to Pay $10.7 Billion to Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arab News reports that executives at Saudi builder Mohammad Al
Mojil Group (MMG) and an auditor have been ordered to pay SR40.2
million ($10.7 million) to a group of shareholders in the Kingdom's
first investor class action.

It follows a ruling by the General Secretariat of Committees for
Resolution of Securities Disputes in the case that involved the
manipulation of financial statements to give a false impression of
the company following its 2008 IPO and in the three years that
followed.

The class action was brought against Adel bin Mohammad bin Hamad
Almojil, Fahad bin Ali bin Saad Alraqttan, Ibrahim bin Sa'ad bin
Ibrahim Alshuai'r, Sek Choy Choong, Amaar bin Adnan bin Ibrahim
Qudoomy, Deloitte & Touche Company and Baker bin Abdullah
Abu-alkhai.

Saudi Arabia introduced a new class action regime in 2017 for
claims by shareholders of listed companies in the Kingdom. [GN]



MPOWER ENERGY: Misclassifies Sales & Marketing Staff, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PETEY MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MPOWER ENERGY NJ LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02918-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 28, 2021) challenges
the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Sales and
Marketing Representative.

According to the complaint, the Defendant incorrectly classified
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated SMRs as exempt
employees. Despite routinely working more than 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendant did not compensate them for their overtime
hours worked at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and
policies, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated SMRs have been
damaged. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective
and class action seeking to recover actual damages for unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and other additional
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

MPower Energy NJ LLC is a renewable energy provider that sells
energy to residential and commercial customers in New York, New
jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, and Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Tel: (216) 230-2955
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massilon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

MULTIPLAN CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Multiplan Corporation F/K/A Churchill Capital Corp.
Iii ("Multiplan Corp") (NYSE: MPLN) between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. To get more
information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/multiplan-corporation-f-k-a-churchill-capital-corp-iii-loss-information-form?prid=16380&wire=5

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

Multiplan Corporation F/K/A Churchill Capital Corp. Iii NEWS - MPLN
NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (a) MultiPlan was
losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to
Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest
customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of the
Company's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (b)
sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger
were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as represented,
but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for
MultiPlan's services and increased competition, as payors developed
competing services and sought alternatives to eliminating excessive
healthcare costs; (c) MultiPlan was facing significant pricing
pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce
its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by insurers, who had
expressed dissatisfaction with the price and quality of MultiPlan's
services and balanced billing practices, causing the Company's to
cut its take rate by up to half in some cases; (d) as a result of
(a)-(c) above, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from
revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and
deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (e) as a
result of (a)-(d) above, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued
revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through
pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of HST for $140
million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive only
one month after the Merger; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above,
Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of
MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far
less than represented to investors.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Multiplan Corp, you have until June 7, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Multiplan Corp securities between
July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/multiplan-corporation-f-k-a-churchill-capital-corp-iii-loss-information-form?prid=16380&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

NATIONAL COUNSELING: Angione Seeks Unpaid OT for TDT Counselors
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN ANGIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COUNSELING GROUP, INC. and FRANCIS
A. VIERA, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00344-REP (E.D. Va.,
May 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated therapeutic day
treatment (TDT) counselors overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a TDT counselor since
May 2018 until her position was changed to mental health
professional in approximately November 2019.

National Counseling Group, Inc. is a company that provides mental
health, behavioral health, and substance use services, with its
principal place of business located in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
         Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
         McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
         1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 833-8855
         E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
                 hdl@mselaborlaw.com

                - and –

         Sam J. Smith, Esq.
         Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
         BURR & SMITH LLP
         9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
         St. Petersburg, FL 33702
         Telephone: (813) 253-2010
         E-mail: SSmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                 LDonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Tosses Youth Center Sex Abuse Class-Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Ramer at Associated Press reports that a judge dismissed a
class action lawsuit involving 300 people who allege decades of
abuse at New Hampshire's youth detention center, but he left the
door open for individual claims against the state.

The lead plaintiff, David Meehan, sued the Sununu Youth Services
Center, the agencies overseeing it and half a dozen former
employees in January 2020 alleging that he endured near daily
beatings and rapes in the late 1990s at what was then called the
Youth Development Center.

His attorney, Rus Rilee, now represents more than 300 men and women
who say they were physically or sexually abused as children by 150
staffers from 1960 to 2018, including gang rapes, being forced to
fight each other for food and being locked in solitary confinement
for weeks or months.

The Merrimack County Superior Court judge ruled that a single class
action is "too unwieldy given the nature of the allegations and the
imprecise putative class."

"This case concerns different perpetrators and different damages
resulting from different injuries incurred via different abuses
suffered at different times in a 60-year period," wrote Judge John
Kissinger. "The damages, and the elements needed to establish them,
will be specific to each class member."

Rilee said he respects the court's decision, and will proceed with
individual lawsuits.

The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they
have been victims of sexual assault, unless they go public, as
Meehan has.

Kissinger also granted the state's request to dismiss Meehan's
individual claim that he was denied an education at the Manchester
facility. But it rejected the state's argument that the remaining
seven claims should be dismissed because Meehan waited too long to
come forward.

New Hampshire's statute of limitations for such cases is three
years from the date of injury, but there are exceptions in cases
when victims did not know of the harm or its link to the wrongful
party.

At a hearing in March, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ramsey
said Meehan should have come forward either soon after his abuse or
after the passage of a federal law in 2003 that called attention to
the sexual assault of inmates. But the judge sided with Meehan, who
claims he did not realize that the state's negligence led to his
abuse until 2017.

"The court is persuaded that a child released from state custody,
as Mr. Meehan was at the age of eighteen, after suffering years of
brutal abuse, would likely not understand that the abuse he had
suffered was caused by institutional negligence in addition to the
intentional acts of the individual abusers," Kissinger wrote.

Rilee said he was very pleased with that determination.

"This point of law will now apply to each of the other 325
individual lawsuits that we will now be filing in the coming days,
weeks and months," he said.

The case had been on hold for more than a year in deference to a
broad criminal investigation into the detention center that began
in July 2019. In April, 10 former workers at the Youth Development
Center and one from a pre-trial facility in Concord were charged
with either sexually assaulting or acting as accomplices to the
assault of more than a dozen teenagers from 1994 to 2007.

Those charged include Brad Asbury, who had been fired over
allegations of physical abuse but got his job back under an
agreement that kept his termination out of his personnel file. He
and a colleague are accused of holding a teenager down while two
other staffers sexually assaulted him in the dormitory where Asbury
served as house leader. [GN]

NEW PENN: Manatt Attorneys Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Reilly, Esq., and A. Paul Heeringa, Esq., of Manatt
Financial Services, reported that uncertainty about whether a
plaintiff's phone number was used for business or residential
purposes put an end to his attempt to lead a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) class action, according to a federal
magistrate judge in Oregon.

The case is Mattson v. New Penn Financial, LLC. The plaintiff, Erik
Mattson, who is a frequent TCPA litigant, accused New Penn
Financial of calling his cellphone while it was registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry. New Penn filed for summary judgment
and the court denied the motion, finding that a genuine issue of
material fact existed regarding whether Mattson's number was a
residential or business phone number.

After losing the motion, New Penn rallied and filed a motion to
deny class certification, arguing that the uncertainty about the
use of Mattson's phone number made him an atypical and inadequate
class representative.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You agreed.

Courts have long recognized that the uncertain standing of a class
representative creates unique legal issues for that plaintiff,
destroying his or her typicality and adequacy as a class
representative, Judge You said, and a danger exists that absent
class members will suffer if the representative is preoccupied with
defenses unique to him or her.

Therefore, where it is predictable that a major focus of the
litigation will be on an arguable defense unique to the named
plaintiff, he or she is not a proper class representative, Judge
You explained.

"In this case . . . there is an issue unique to plaintiff --
whether the subject number is a residential or business phone
number," she wrote. "Here, the issue is not only fact-intensive but
also hotly contested, as the briefing on summary judgment
illustrates. No doubt, plaintiff's 'effort' at trial will be
'necessarily . . . devoted to [his] own problems' and 'may well . .
.  result[] in less attention to the issue which would be
controlling for the rest of the class.'"

While Mattson argued that the issue was not unique to him and
instead pertained to New Penn's affirmative defense of consent, the
court noted that whether the subject phone is a residential phone
number is a burden for the plaintiff to prove at trial.

New Penn was not required to demonstrate that Mattson would fail to
establish standing at trial, but only to show that his issue was
unique, arguable and likely to usurp a significant portion of his
time and energy, You said.

The fact that Mattson bears the burden to establish whether his
number was residential further illustrated how allowing him to
proceed as a class representative would result in less attention to
the issues that would be controlling for the rest of the class.

As Mattson could not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) to be a class representative, You recommended
that New Penn's motion to deny class certification be granted.

To read the findings and recommendations in Mattson v. New Penn
Financial, LLC, click here.

Why it matters: Although the defendant lost at the summary judgment
stage, it was able to use the same argument to win its motion to
deny class certification. If the plaintiff had to establish his
standing to file suit by carrying the burden to show that the
number at issue was a residential line and not a business number,
then he would be too distracted by his own issue to focus on the
needs of the class and to be a typical or adequate class
representative, the defendant was able to persuade the court. This
case also shows how putative class action cases can often be
defeated at the certification stage, even after losing dispositive
motions. While issues of fact may preclude a summary judgment
ruling in a defendant's favor, those same factual issues may make
certification inappropriate. And, without a class, TCPA cases often
resolve when only the named plaintiff's individual claims remain.
[GN]

NEW YORK SPINE: Sawabini Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUTFALLAH T. SAWABINI, Plaintiff v. RYAN McCONN,
(McConn), JOSEPH CATANIA (Catania), NEW YORK SPINE WELLNESS CTR,
(NYSWC), ERIC TALLARICO (Tallarico), and SYRACUSE ORTHOPEDIC
SPECIALTY (SOS), Defendants, Case No. 3:21-CV-158 (N.D.N.Y.), Judge
David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York grants the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 10, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Sawabini filed the civil rights
action against Defendants Ryan McConn, M.D., Joseph Catania, M.D.,
New York Spine Wellness Center, Eric Tallarico, M.D., Syracuse
Orthopedic Specialists, and MLMIC Insurance Co.  Broadly construed,
the Plaintiff's complaint asserted claims sounding in medical
malpractice.

Mr. Sawabini's 41-page amended complaint is almost completely
incomprehensible.  The Plaintiff alleges that the lawsuit was filed
due to bloody gross medical malpractice negligence and negligence
per se.  As best the Court can tell, the Plaintiff alleges that the
named Defendants worked together to incorrectly perform one or more
spinal surgeries and/or spinal procedures on him.  As a result of
this alleged mistreatment, the Plaintiff suffered medical
complications and injuries.

On April 1, 2021, Dr. Catania, Dr. McConn, Dr. Talarico, New York
Spine, and Syracuse Orthopedic ("Medical Defendants") moved under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss Sawabini's
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  As the Medical
Defendants explained, the Plaintiff's complaint asserted purely
state law claims against non-diverse parties.  MLMIC Insurance
filed a separate motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
in which it asserted that the Plaintiff could not sue the Medical
Defendants' insurer because he had not yet obtained any judgment
against them.

On April 5, 2021, Sawabini cross-moved to amend his complaint.
That motion was initially denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav
Lovric because, inter alia, the Plaintiff had failed to comply with
the Local Rules governing the amendment of pleadings.  Thereafter,
Judge Lovric denied a request for the appointment of counsel, but
assisted the Plaintiff in filing his amended complaint as of right
in accordance with Rule 15(a)(1)(B).

Mr. Sawabini's amended complaint and attached exhibits re-assert
claims for medical malpractice and negligence under state law.  The
amended complaint also purports to be a class action pleading that
alleges the Medical Defendants failed to file certain reports
required by the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") and/or that
these defendants used drugs that were not approved by the FDA.

On April 22, 2021, all of Sawabini's claims against MLMIC Insurance
were dismissed by stipulation.  Thereafter, the Medical Defendants
moved under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint in its entirety.  According to them, the latest
pleading does nothing to cure the deficiencies that were present in
the last complaint: It alleges purely state law claims against
non-diverse defendants and therefore does not belong in federal
court.

The motion has been briefed and will be considered on the basis of
the submissions without oral argument.

Judge Hurd holds that Sawabini is entitled to special consideration
because he is proceeding pro se.  Accordingly, his amended
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than a formal pleading drafted by lawyers.

As mentioned supra, in addition to his 41-page amended complaint,
Sawabini has filed a number of additional submissions that have
been construed as motions or cross-motions for relief.  Because he
is pro se, these additional submissions have been examined in an
effort to determine the nature and sufficiency of his claims for
relief.  Notably, however, Judge Hurb finds that Sawabini has some
prior litigation experience in federal court.  Indeed, a quick
search for the Plaintiff's full name in a directory of court
decisions turns up several results.

In other words, Sawabini is an active pro se litigant, Judge Hurd
finds.  Thus, while he is still entitled to a significant measure
of deference and solicitude, he is entitled to somewhat less
deference than would be appropriate for a totally unsophisticated
newcomer to federal litigation.

It is actually the second federal lawsuit that Sawabini has filed
against Dr. McConn and Dr. Catania arising out of his alleged
mistreatment for a spine injury, citing Sawabini v. McConn,
("Sawabini I") 2021 WL 878731 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2021).  In that
prior suit, the Plaintiff alleged that Dr. McConn, Dr. Catania, and
others had violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") by denying him equal access to medical
treatment related to a spine injury.  After examining the various
documents filed by Sawabini in that litigation, the Court dismissed
the Plaintiff's complaint without further leave to amend.

Mr. Sawabini's current lawsuit was filed on Feb. 10, 2021, shortly
before the Court dismissed Sawabini I on March 9, 2021.  Notably,
however, the Plaintiff amended his complaint in the action on April
13, several weeks after the Court handed down its ruling in
Sawabini I on March 9.  This timing is relevant because it means
Sawabini had the benefit of the Court's guidance about the
deficiencies in his prior pleading (arising out of apparently the
same factual allegations and involving some or all of the same
defendants) when he amended his complaint in this second action.

Despite the benefit of that guidance, the Plaintiff appears to have
simply re-filed a new variation on his state law medical
malpractice claim(s) in federal court (in this current action)
rather than pursuing them in the state forum that this Court
suggested would be more appropriate in Sawabini I.

With all this in mind, Judge Hurd holds that Sawabini's amended
complaint in the action must be dismissed.  He says, Sawabini
cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction over his state law medical
malpractice and negligence claims because this suit is between
citizens of New York.  And as the Medical Defendants correctly
explain in their moving papers, the Plaintiff has failed to allege
a "colorable" federal claim under the FDA or any other federal
statute.

According to the Memorandum-Decision and Order, in the absence of a
basis for exercising jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed. Nor
will Sawabini be given leave to amend.  Although district courts in
this Circuit are generally reluctant to dismiss a pro se
plaintiff's action without permitting leave to replead, the Second
Circuit has explained that it is nevertheless appropriate to do so
in cases where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely
to be productive.  That standard has clearly been met.  It is hard
to make heads or tails out of Sawabini's latest pleading or his
additional submissions.

As before, though, the "discernible core" of the Plaintiff's
amended complaint is his argument about medical treatment decisions
attributable to the named Defendants.  And as before, the remedy
for this kind of state law claim lies in state court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Hurd concludes that Sawabini's
amended complaint will be dismissed and his various motions will be
denied.  He notes that this is at least the second time that the
Plaintiff has filed a federal suit that attempts to assert medical
mistreatment claims arising out of broadly the same factual
allegations (i.e., mistreatment connected to a spine injury)
against the same group of medical professionals.  Sawabini should
take note that further lawsuits filed in the federal judicial
district that arise out of the same or similar factual allegations
run the risk of being dismissed sua sponte as frivolous.

Therefore, Judge Hurd granted the Medical Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  He dismissed Sawabini's amended complaint without leave
to amend.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any
pending motions and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/z7sfdfu9 from
Leagle.com.

LUTFALLAH T. SAWABINI, Plaintiff, Pro Se, in Sidney, New York.

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., ERIC G. JOHNSON, ESQ. --
ejohnson@smithsovik.com -- KAREN G. FELTER, ESQ. --
kfelter@smithsovik.com -- Attorneys for Defendants, in Syracuse,
New York.


NEXTDECADE: Mellor Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Mellor III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEXTDECADE CORPORATION, MATTHEW K. SCHATZMAN,
TAEWON JUN, AVINASH KRIPALANI, WILLIAM VRATTOS, EDWARD ANDREW
SCOGGINS, JR., KHALIFA ABDULLA AL ROMAITHI, FRANK CHAPMAN, BRIAN
BELKE, and L. SPENCER WELLS, Case No. 2021-0444- (Del. Chancery
Ct., May 19, 2021), is brought on behalf of all other similarly
situated unaffiliated stockholders of NextDecade Corporation,
bringing this Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint against:
(i) the members of NextDecade's board of directors, namely: Matthew
K. Schatzman, Taewon Jun, Avinash Kripalani, William Vrattos,
Edward Andrew Scoggins, Jr., Khalifa Abdulla Al Romaithi, Frank
Chapman, Brian Belke, and L. Spencer Wells; for breaches of
fiduciary duty; and (ii) NextDecade as a necessary party.

According to the complaint, the stockholder class action arises
from breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of the NextDecade
Board. In March 2021, NextDecade entered into stock purchase
agreements (the "Series C Purchase Agreements") with, among others,
the Company's first and fourth largest stockholders, pursuant to
which the Company issued Series C Convertible Preferred Stock
("Series C Preferred Stock") and warrants ("Series C Warrants").
The Series C Preferred Stock and Series C  Preferred Stock pay
dividends of 12% per year, entitling their holders to millions of
dollars' every year, and are convertible into Common Stock upon the
satisfaction of certain conditions. Until those conditions are met,
however, the holders are still allowed to vote their Series C
Preferred Stock on an as converted basis, which, as of April 26,
2021, equaled 11,642,818 shares of Common Stock.

Recognizing that the Series C Preferred Stock would help them
cement their control over the Company and provide an ongoing
dividend stream, NextDecade's largest stockholder, York Capital
Management, L.P. and its affiliates ("York"), and NextDecade's
fourth largest stockholder, Bardin Hill Investment Partners LP and
its affiliates ("Bardin Hill"), subscribed to a combined $14.5
million worth of Series C Preferred Stock, or 14,500 shares of
Series C Preferred Stock. When their purchase of Series C Preferred
Stock is combined with their previous ownership of NextDecade
stock, as well as their affiliation with certain NextDecade
directors, York and Bardin Hill have cemented themselves as Company
controllers and positioned themselves to receive massive dividends
payments going forward.

Because the terms of the Series C Preferred Stock and Series C
Warrants are so favorable, their issuance implicates Nasdaq Stock
Market Rule 5635(d) ("Rule 5635(d)"), which requires stockholder
approval of any share issuance where the shares issued equal 20% or
more of the common stock at a price that is less than the "Minimum
Price." Rule 5635(d)(2). Per Defendants, the price and number of
shares of Common Stock that may be issued upon the conversion of
the Series C Preferred Stock and exercise of the Series C Warrants
are so generous and numerous that stockholder approval of the share
issuance is required under Rule 5635(d). Accordingly, on April 29,
2021, Defendants filed with the SEC a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement,
through which they are soliciting stockholder approval of the
Common Stock issuances that may be issued upon (i) conversion of
all issued shares of Series C Preferred Stock or that may be issued
the Certificate of Designations of Series C Convertible Preferred
Stock of NextDecade ("Series C Certificate of Designations") and
(ii) exercise of the Series C Warrants. Because they are soliciting
votes from the Company's stockholders, the Director Defendants have
a fiduciary obligation to disclose all information material to
stockholders' votes.

Nonetheless, the Proxy omits several categories of plainly material
information, including: a. Information concerning the process
and/or negotiations that resulted in the Series C Purchase
Agreements; b. Information concerning whether any prophylactic
measures were implemented by the Board to protect against the
conflicts of interest held by directors affiliated with certain
recipients of the Series C Preferred Stock and Series C Warrants;
c. Financial analyses—or even a statement concerning whether a
financial analysis was even performed—prepared for the Board or
NextDecade in connection with the Series C Purchase Agreements; and
d. Information concerning whether the Board retained and/or
consulted with any advisors in connection with the Series C
Purchase Agreements, including the terms and scope of any such
retention.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote at the annual
meeting of stockholders scheduled to be held on June 15, 2021 (the
"Annual Meeting") unless and until the Board complies with its
fiduciary duty to disclose all information material to stockholders
voting on the share issuances that may be issued upon (i)
conversion of all shares of Series C Preferred Stock that are
currently issued or may be issued under the Series C Certificate of
Designations, and (ii) the exercise of the Series C Warrants, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a current stockholder of NextDecade entitled to
vote at the Annual Meeting.

NextDecade is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 231-1500

               - and -

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com


NIKE INC: Boothe Sues Over Improper Payment of Associates' Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN BOOTHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., and
CONVERSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00823-SB (D. Ore., May
28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Massachusetts
Overtime Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
associates at their regular hourly rate and overtime rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Boothe worked for the Defendants as an associate in three
retail stores located in Massachusetts.

Nike, Inc. is an American sportswear company, with its principal
place of business located at One Bowerman Dr., Beaverton, Oregon.

Nike Retail Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of sportswear company
Nike, Inc., with its principal place of business located at One
Bowerman Dr., Beaverton, Oregon.

Converse, Inc. is an American shoe company, with its principal
place of business located at 1 Lovejoy Wharf, Boston,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Jose A. Klein, Esq.
         Damien T. Munsinger, Esq.
         KLEIN MUNSINGER LLC
         1215 SE 8th Avenue, Suite F
         Portland, OR 97214
         Telephone: (503) 568-1078
         E-mail: jose@kleinmunsinger.com
                 damien@kleinmunsinger.com

                - and –

         Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
         STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
         7 North Street, Suite 307
         Pittsfield, MA 01201
         Telephone: (413) 418-4176
         E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com

                - and –

         Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
         Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, Suite 1700
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
         E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                 crash@sommerspc.com

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS: Marijuana Card Holder Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a
medical marijuana card holder is suing a northwest Arkansas
hospital system for withdrawing a job offer after he tested
positive for pot, and he says he's not alone.

Balance "Lance" Reed of Washington County is seeking class-action
status against Northwest Arkansas Hospitals LLC of Springdale,
which operates several hospitals including Willow Creek Women's
Hospital and Northwest Medical Center-Bentonville.

Reed said in his lawsuit, filed earlier in May in Washington County
Circuit Court, that he believes there are at least 35 and as many
as 100 people who were denied a job by Northwest Arkansas Hospitals
because of their medical marijuana patient status.

Under the law, employers can decide not to hire a medical marijuana
patient for a "safety-sensitive position," such as being a truck
driver or manufacturing explosives.

"So the trucking industry could designate positions as
safety-sensitive and then not be forced to hire someone on drugs,"
said Reed's attorney, Chris W. Burks of WH Law of North Little
Rock. "The problem is that a lot of employers in Arkansas don't
understand that they have to designate that position as
safety-sensitive . . . on the front end."

Burks said there are several employers who think that they can fire
or not hire an employee who is a medical marijuana card holder if
they fail a drug test for pot, Burks said.

"But that's not correct," he said. "And the reason you haven't seen
a lot of lawsuits about this is that most of the businesses that
make that mistake are smaller." Burks wants Reed's complaint to be
a "test case" because Northwest Arkansas Hospitals is "a large
employer."

An employer with more than 500 employees, which the defendant has,
could face a penalty of up to $300,000 per person per violation of
the state Constitution.

"It's something that I think will continue to be of importance
because more people are getting the cards and more businesses are
coming into the state," Burks said. As of third of May, there were
nearly 77,000 Arkansas card holders.

Northwest Arkansas Hospitals told Arkansas Business that it does
not comment on pending litigation.

Attorney David Couch of Little Rock, architect of the state's
medical marijuana industry, said he gets more calls on the
employment issue than anything else. "The employers in the state of
Arkansas are not following the law," said Couch, who isn't involved
in Reed's lawsuit.

The General Assembly has declared only a limited number of
positions to be safety-sensitive, he said.

"And to discriminate against someone who is using medical marijuana
for medical reasons is, in Arkansas, violating that person's
constitutional right, because we amended the Constitution to
include the right to use marijuana for medicinal purposes," Couch
said.

J. Bruce Cross, a labor and employment management attorney with
Cross Gunter Witherspoon & Galchus of Little Rock, said he advises
his clients to clearly identify in writing which positions are
safety-sensitive. "What we recommended is to do it in the job
description," he said.

If the job is safety-sensitive, the employer could fire employees
who fail a drug test for marijuana or deny them a job even if they
have a medical marijuana card, Cross said.

An employee could also be fired if they used medical marijuana at
work, even if they had a card.

Reed's Case
Reed applied for a mental health tech 1 position at Northwest
Hospital-Springdale in February 2020. The position was not listed
as safety-sensitive on the application.

He was offered the $11-an-hour job on May 1, 2020, and was set to
start at the beginning of June. Reed said he told his new employer
that he was a medical marijuana patient and would fail a drug test
for use of marijuana, which is what happened.

After Reed tested positive, the hospital said he wasn't "eligible
for hire per policy," the suit said. "Merely because Defendant has
a drug-testing policy and drug-free workplace does not mean
Defendant can decline to hire a medical marijuana patient for a non
safety-sensitive position because of a positive marijuana test away
from work."

Reed is asking that his case be certified as a class-action and is
seeking unspecified damages from Northwest Arkansas Hospitals. [GN]

NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT: McLeer Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City Police
Department, et al. The case is styled as Michael McLeer,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. New York City Police Department, City of New York,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03093 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The New York City Police Department, officially the City of New
York Police Department -- http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/index.page
-- is the primary law enforcement agency within the City of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juyoun Han, Esq.
          EISENBERG & BAUM LLP
          24 Union Sq. E., 4th Fl.
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 353-8700
          Fax: (212) 353-1708
          Email: jhan@eandblaw.com

The Defendants appear pro se.


OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Continued to June 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTI POLICE-TERROR
PROJECT, et al., v. CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police Chief SUSAN E.
MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES, OPD Officer MAXWELL
D'ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order
granting the briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be continued for one week as follows:

   -- Defendants' Opposition Due June 18, 2021

   -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Due July 9, 2021

   -- Hearing Date August 6, 2021

The Plaintiffs include COMMUNITY READY CORPS, SEAN CANADAY, MICHAEL
COHEN, MICHAEL COOPER, ANDREA COSTANZO, JOHNATHAN FARMER, LINDSEY
FILOWITZ, DANIELLE GAITO, KATIE JOHNSON, BRYANNA KELLY, JENNIFER
LI, IAN McDONNELL, MELISSA MIYARA, LINDSEY MORRIS, LEILA MOTTLEY,
NIKO NADA, AZIZE NGO, NICOLE PULLER, MARIA RAMIREZ, AKIL RILEY,
AARON ROGACHEVSKY, TARA ROSE, ASHWIN RUPAN, DANIEL SANCHEZ,
CHRISTINA STEWART, TAYAH STEWART, KATHERINE SUGRUE, CELESTE WONG,
and QIAOCHU ZHANG; on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wTp5QS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walter Riley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY
          1407 Webster Street, Suite 206
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 451-1422
          Facsimile: (510) 451-0406
          E-mail: walterriley@rrrandw.com

               - and -

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com

               - and -

          James Douglas Burch, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          558 Capp Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104
          E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org

               - and -

          Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq.
          Jane Brunner, Esq.
          Sonya Z. Mehta, Esq.
          Emilyrose Johns, Esq.
          Andrew Chan Kim, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          E-mail: abweills@gmail.com
                  janebrunner@hotmail.com
                  sonyamehta@siegelyee.com
                  emilyrose@siegelyee.com
                  chankim@siegelyee.com

OAXACA WILLIAMSBURG: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Carrera Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRICELDA CARRERA TORRES, JOSE ARTURO MENDEZ, GERARDO GONZALEZ, JOSE
LUIS SALAZAR, and VICTOR BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OAXACA WILLIAMSBURG LLC
(D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA), OAXACA BEDFORD, LLC (D/B/A OAXACA
TAQUERIA), OAXACA BEDFORD AVENUE LLC (D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA),
OAXACA FIRST AVE LLC (D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA), OAXACA MURRAY HILL,
LLC (D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA), OAXACA 33RD STREET LLC (D/B/A OAXACA
TAQUERIA), OAXACA HELLS KITCHEN LLC (D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA), OAXACA
HALSEY, LLC (D/B/A OAXACA TAQUERIA), DAVID SCHNEIDER, VISHAL DHAR,
MOHAMED ALHIDAMI, VARUN M. MALHOTRA, KEITH MOORE, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04804
(S.D.N.Y., May 28, 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 minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for all hours worked, failure to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of all hours worked, and failure to
pay wages on a timely basis.

The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, dishwashers, cleaners,
hostess and cashiers, at the Defendants' restaurants located in New
York at any time between 2010 and 2021.

Oaxaca Williamsburg LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 130 Grand
Street, Brooklyn, New York.

Oaxaca Bedford, LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 1116 Bedford
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

Oaxaca Bedford Avenue LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 1116 Bedford
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

Oaxaca First Ave LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 1198 1st
Avenue, New York, New York.

Oaxaca Murray Hill, LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 152 East 33
St., New York, New York.

Oaxaca 33rd Street LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 152 East 33
St., New York, New York.

Oaxaca Hells Kitchen LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican
restaurant under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 405 West 44th
Street, New York, New York.

Oaxaca Halsey, LLC is an owner and operator of a Mexican restaurant
under the name Oaxaca Taqueria, located at 478 Halsey Street,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
         E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

OKLAHOMA: Metrc Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Shen, writing for KFOR, reports that in April, KFOR reported
about a class action lawsuit filed against the Oklahoma Medical
Marijuana Authority hoping to stop the state from implementing a
seed-to-sale tracking program from a company called Metrc.

A judge granted a temporary restraining order. Now Metrc is trying
to intervene.

The company filed a motion to intervene in the case and to vacate
the temporary restraining order.

A hearing is set for June 1.

"We intervened to defend ourselves," David Urbanowicz, director of
external affairs at Metrc, said.

The attorney representing 10,000 cannabis businesses across the
state says the move wasn't necessary.

"We don't believe Metrc has any interest in this case, our position
and our case is about the fact that the state agency, the Oklahoma
Department of Health and OMMA has failed to do its job in adopting
regulations," Ronald Durbin with Viridian Legal Services said.

"Metrc is actually named in the lawsuit but interestingly we're not
actually party to the lawsuit, and this obviously affects our
company and our employees and most importantly our work with
Oklahoma," Urbanowicz said.

Durbin argues Metrc would create a monopoly and many dispensaries
already do their own seed-to-sale tracking, which means a plant is
tracked from the time it's grown to the time it gets to the
consumer.

Metrc says they are not a monopoly and their system would make it
easier for regulators.

"The whole idea behind Metrc is actually to make things more
efficient," Urbanowicz said.

Durbin says using Metrc won't fix illegal activities in the
industry, and that agencies have to do more inspections, which he
says the passage of SB 1033 will help with.

"It opens the door for allowing the OMMA to enter into memorandums
of understanding with the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics for
dangerous drugs to help facilitate enforcement," he said.

For now, the implementation of Metrc is on hold.

"Metrc complains about the temporary restraining order, and they
try to vilify the plaintiffs, the state agreed to the temporary
restraining order, the state did not have to agree to it," Durbin
said.

"We're very confident that we'll be granted our motion and we'll be
allowed to intervene and then comes the next step after that, which
will be our request to vacate," Urbanowicz said.

The OMMA says they don't comment on pending lawsuits.

June 1 is when there will be a hearing on if Metrc can intervene.

On June 29, there will be a hearing to decide what will happen to
the temporary restraining order. [GN]


P&B INTERMODAL: Agreed Motion for FLSA Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, WAYNE BOYD,
and DEDRICK WILEY, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, v. P & B INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-03618-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs and Defendant P&B
Intermodal Services, LLC have conferred and agree to stipulate to
the Court entering an Order certifying a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as follows:

   "All current and/or former CCT Technician employees of
Defendant
   who work and/or worked for Defendant in Texas who are and/or
   were paid on an hourly basis and also receive and/or received
   pay labeled as "incentives" in their earnings statements that is

   not and/or was not included in their respective FLSA regular
   rates of pay for corresponding workweeks in which they worked
   more than 40 hours which allegedly results and/or resulted in an

   underpayment of the FLSA overtime wages they are and/or were
   owed."

The Putative Collective Action Members covered by this Order are
those employed by the Defendant at any time during the time period
of December 17, 2017 to the date of this Order.

A copy of Parties motion to certify class dated May 21, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3chlLaF at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (972) 707-7816
          Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn A. Pellegrini, Esq.
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
          Telephone: (215) 972-7121
          E-mail: carolyn.pellegrini@saul.com

               - and -

          John A. Basinger, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          1037 Raymond Blvd., Ste. 1520
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 286-6724
          Facsimile: (973) 286-6824
          E-mail: john.basinger@saul.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Montez, Esq.
          E-mail: crossmontez@gmail.com
          12222 Merit Drive, Suite 1200
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 202-2571
          Facsimile: (877) 765-6488

PEACEHEALTH: Benelli Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLTON BENELLI and ASHLEY DEWITT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PEACEHEALTH, Case
No. 21CV15474, was removed from the Lane County Circuit Court of
the State of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Oregon assigned Case No.
6:21-cv-00825-AA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Oregon law including failure to pay wages owed, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to timely pay final wages, and failure to
timely pay overtime wages.

PeaceHealth is a not-for-profit health care system that owns and
operates ten hospitals, numerous clinics and laboratories, with its
principal place of business in Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
         Melissa J. Healy, Esq.
         Anthony Blake, Esq.
         STOEL RIVES LLP
         760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
         Portland, OR 97205
         Telephone: (503) 224-3380
         Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
         E-mail: timothy.snider@stoel.com
                 melissa.healy@stoel.com
                 anthony.blake@stoel.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 31 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16364&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021
Class Period: September 11, 2020 - May 5, 2021

Allegations against PTON include 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 that the Tread+ posed a
serious risk to public health and safety and urgently recommended
that consumers with small children 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.

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16364&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021

Allegations against DNMR include that: (i) Danimer had deficient
internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had
misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory
compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/array-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16364&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased ARRY: (a)
between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021, inclusive and (b)
pursuant, or traceable, or both, to: (i) the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2020
initial public offering; or (ii) the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2020
offering; or (iii) any combination of the initial public offering,
December 2020 offering, or March 2021 offering.

Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially
misleading picture of the Company's business and prospects that did
not reflect rising steel and freight costs. After the October 2020
initial public offering, the December 2020 offering and the March
2021 offering, and subsequent to the class period, Array disclosed
that it was experiencing increases in steel prices and substantial
increases in the cost of both ocean and truck freight that in turn
were having a material impact on its margins for the foreseeable
future. This caused Array to miss profit expectations and withdraw
its full-year outlook. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, shareholders have suffered significant losses
and damages.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Floyd Sues Over Golden Butter Crackers' Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00525 (S.D. Ill., May 31, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Golden Butter Crackers. The Defendant advertised and labeled the
product with the word "butter." Due to this representation,
consumers believe that the product contains butter than its
synthetic substitutes, vegetable oils. However, contrary to the
representation, the product contains a non-de minimis amount of
vegetable oils as indicated on the ingredient list. The Defendant
substitutes vegetable oils for butter and consumers get less
butter. Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it, the suit says.

Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated is a producer of baked goods, with
its principal place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

PINTEREST INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Pinterest, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS)
Class Period: February 4, 2021 - April 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021

Shareholders with $100,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that user growth was already slowing; (2) that, as a
result, the Company expected user engagement to slow in the second
quarter of 2021; and (3) that, as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you 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.

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

PIONEER INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wanjohi Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEOFFREY WANJOHI, Plaintiff v. PIONEER INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00742-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 28, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful uniform policy and practice in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant hourly-paid employee
until January 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated
employees were required by the Defendant to work in excess of 40
hours per week. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for
the overtime hours they worked at the applicable overtime rate for
all hours they worked over 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other legal and equitable
relief to which they are entitled.

Pioneer Investment & Development owns and operates three stores in
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, one store in Pelham, Alabama, and one store in
Sylacauga, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
           FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL
          Tel: (205) 314-0500
          E-mail: rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com
                  kjent@wigginschilds.com

PLUG POWER: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP discloses that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Plug Power Inc. common
stock, which expands the class period. The class action is on
behalf of shareholders and expands the class period to those who
purchased Plug Power between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no
later than May 7, 2021.

The Plug Power class action lawsuit charges Plug Power and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plug Power class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Plug Power would be unable to
timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the
review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of
the right to use assets with certain leases; (ii) Plug Power was
reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Plug Power's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 2, 2021, Plug Power filed a Notification of Late Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating that it
could not timely file its annual report for the period ended
December 31, 2020, because Plug Power was completing a "review and
assessment of the treatment of certain costs with regards to
classification between Research and Development versus Costs of
Goods Sold, the recoverability of right of use assets associated
with certain leases, and certain internal controls over these and
other areas." Plug Power stated that "[i]t is possible that one or
more of these items may result in charges or adjustments to current
and/or prior period financial statements."

On March 16, 2021, Plug Power issued a press release announcing
that the Company needed to restate its prior financial results for
fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and quarterly filings for 2019 and 2020
because of several accounting "errors." The accounting errors
impacted the Company's: (i) reported book value of right of use
assets and related finance obligations; (ii) loss accruals for
certain service contracts; (iii) impairment of certain long-lived
assets; and (iv) the misclassification of certain costs, resulting
in a decrease in research and development expense and a
corresponding increase in cost of revenue. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Plug Power class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Plug Power
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the Plug Power class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in
learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

                         About Johnson Fistel

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

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Ruiz, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11983 (D.N.J., May 28, 2021).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 974-9400
          Fax: (516) 345-1635
          Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com


PRO GENITOR: Velez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Genitor. The case
is styled as Lizette Velez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pro Genitor doing business as: Flyt
Delivery, Case No. 4:21-cv-04152 (N.D. Cal., June 1, 2021).

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

FLYT Delivery is a cannabis delivery service serving the Oakland,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Moyer, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          401 W A Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Hernandez Wage Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING,
LLC; SCHENKER, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI
210822, 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 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00921 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit
meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure
to pay timely earned wages during employment, failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all
earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.

Proctor & Gamble Distributing, LLC is a distributor of household
and pharmaceuticals products based in Illinois.

Schenker, Inc. is a logistics company based in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
         E-mail: cagraham@littler.com

                - and –

         Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 705-3067
         Facsimile: (949) 891-1091
         E-mail: jylee@littler.com

PROHEALTH CARE: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Kiselicka Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANET KISELICKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROHEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00674 (E.D. Wis., May 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a
class action against the Defendant seeking redress for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Licensed Practical
Nurse (LPN) from roughly 2000 through 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant implemented unlawful
policies and practices on or around 2017 in which her and other
similarly situated LPNs were regularly assigned more work than they
could reasonably complete during their assigned shifts; were
prohibited from punching-in early; were required to provide written
explanation for all time worked after the end of their designated
shift; and routinely worked through their meal break and performed
work before and after their designated shift times. However,
despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not compensate them for all the work they performed
as well as their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any of the
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In addition, the
Defendant has been automatically deducting a half-hour from each
shift for a meal break that they did not actually take. Moreover,
the Defendant failed to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation in their regular rate of pay for overtime calculation
and compensation purposes, the suit added.

Prohealth Care, Inc. operates a network of healthcare providers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Tel: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com

PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz discloses that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Provention Bio, Inc. ("Provention"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRVB) securities between November 2,
2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Provention
investors have until July 20, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3fVVIrz to participate.

In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a
Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention
of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA").

On April 8, 2021, the Company published a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2,
2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of
the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of
clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."

On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021.

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 teplizumab
BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require
additional data to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; 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 Provention securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than July 20, 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 Provention 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.

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, discloses
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB) between November
2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20, 2021.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Provention Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2101.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the teplizumab Biologics
License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and
would require additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") approval; (2) accordingly, the teplizumab
BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to
believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus overstated the
teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization
timeline for teplizumab; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Provention Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2101.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Ventura Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROSA VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Case No.
2021 CH 01636, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02894 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act by failing to pay non-exempt hourly security guards
for all required minimum wages, failing to pay required overtime
wages, failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment,
and failing to reimburse employees for business-related expenses.

Prudential Security, Inc. is a security guard company,
headquartered in Taylor, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Paul E. Starkman, Esq.
         Samuel J. Tallman, Esq.
         CLARK HILL PLC
         130 East Randolph Street, Suite 3900
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 517-7508
         Facsimile: (312) 517-7574
         E-mail: pstarkman@clarkhill.com
                 stallman@clarkhill.com

PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: June 25 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH TALARICO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, D/B/A PCG PARTNERSHIPS, Case No.
5:17-cv-02165-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline by which he must file his reply in
support of his Motion for Class Certification and Final Collective
Action Certification until June 25, 2021.

On February 3, 2021, this Court set an April 16, 2021 deadline for
PPL to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Final Collective Action Certification and a May
14, 2021 deadline for Plaintiff to file his reply.

On April 5, 2021, the Court granted PPL's request for an extension
of time to file its response on May 5, 2021. The Plaintiff had
originally expected that his reply would be due to the Court on May
14, 2021. Consequently, the Plaintiff's counsel has several case
deadlines in other litigation in late May and early June that
significantly impact counsel's ability to respond to PPL's brief
within the same 28-day interval originally contemplated in the
schedule. The Plaintiff has consulted the Defendant, and the
Defendant does not oppose this request.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34IV4qU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Richard Katz, Esq.
          ARNOLD, BEYER & KATZ
          140A East King Street
          Lancaster, PA 17602
          Telephone: (717) 394-7204
          Facsimile: (717) 291-0992
          E-mail: rkatz@arnoldbeyerkatz.com

               - and -

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Caroline Bressman, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  cbressman@nka.com

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds:
(i) purchasers of the securities of PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PCT) between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive;
and (ii) all holders of Roth CH Acquisition I Co. securities
entitled to participate in the March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on
the merger with PureCycle (the "Class Period") of the important
July 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PureCycle class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2089.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE:  According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the management team bringing
PureCycle public had previously brought six other failed business
public only to have each implode thereafter; (2) the management
team bringing PureCycle public had characterized rank speculation
as financial projections to investors in the past; (3) the primary
motivation of the management team bringing PureCycle public was to
complete any transaction, good or bad, to obtain tens of millions
of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (4) PureCycle faces higher
competition for high quality feedstock than it has led investors to
believe, materially undermining the management team's financial
projections; (5) PureCycle's patent is nowhere as cogent or
valuable as it has led investors to believe, and the technology
underlying its business operations is unproven and presents serious
issues even at lab scale; (6) in reality, PureCycle's flammable
pressurized process is not yet functional, especially at scale, and
is dangerous; (7) PureCycle purports to be advancing to commercial
production scale despite still having operational issues at a lab
scale; and (8) as a result, defendants' positive statements during
the Class Period about PureCycle's business performance, financial
and operational metrics, and financial prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the PureCycle class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2089.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

R&B CORP: Cox Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Prerecorded Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATRINA COX, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate,
Plaintiff v. R&B CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, d/b/a CREDIT CONTROL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00067 (E.D. Va., May 28,
2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed multiple calls and
delivering artificial or prerecorded voice messages to her
telephone number (725) XXX-8310 beginning in or around March 2021
in an attempt to contact and collect a debt allegedly owed by a
third party, who is the Plaintiff's adult son and who does not live
with her. Purportedly, the Defendant used a predictive dialer,
which is a type of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)
that has the capacity to store telephone numbers to be called by
using a random or sequential number generator, in placing outbound
collection calls.

The Plaintiff also asserts that she did not provide the Defendant
with her prior express consent to be contacted via an artificial or
prerecorded voice messages to her cellular telephone. Additionally,
the Plaintiff's adult son does not have authority to provide
consent and did not provide consent to the Defendant to place
automated and prerecorded voice calls to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited calls and
prerecorded voice messages, the Plaintiff has suffered actual harm
in the form of invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, a
private nuisance, and was force to spend time attempting to get the
Defendant's calls and prerecorded voice messages to stop.

The Plaintiff seeks for relief an judgment enjoining the Defendant
from continuing to place unsolicited calls, as well as statutory
damages, reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

R&B Corporation of Virginia d/b/a Credit Control Corporation is a
debt collection company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale W. Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
          The Eliza Spotswood House
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803
          Tel: (804) 861-6000
          Fax: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

                - and –

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

RESTAURANT VENTURES: Sidoti Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SIDOTI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT VENTURES, INC., and JOSEPH COPELAND,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00359-MWM (S.D. Ohio, May 28, 2021)
brings this collective and class action complaint to recover unpaid
overtime compensation from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly employee
from February 2019 until May 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has been automatically
deducting break times regardless of whether those breaks were
actually taken. Despite routinely scheduled to work 42 to 45 hours
per week, the Defendant did not pay him the complete overtime
premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, and its pay
records do not accurately reflect the true hours he worked.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just.

Restaurant Ventures, Inc. operates two sandwich shops owned and
managed by Joseph Copeland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
           Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
           FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
           4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
           Cincinnati, OH 45245
           Tel: (513) 943-5678
           Fax: (513) 943-6669
           E-mail: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
                   matt@finneylawfirm.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Pinchasov Bid for Class Status Due July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHTERNA PINCHASOV v.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-24897-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an amended scheduling
order as follows:

   1. Trial is reset during the Court's two-week trial calendar
      beginning on April 25, 2022. Calendar call will be held at
      9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 19, 2022. No pre-trial conference

      will be held unless a party requests one and the Court
      determines that one is necessary. The parties shall adhere to

      the following schedule:

   2. July 30, 2021 is the Motion for class certification deadline.

      The Defendant shall file a response within 20 days of filing

      of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff

      shall file her reply within 10 days of filing of Defendant's

      response.

   3. December 28, 2021. All discovery, including expert discovery,

      is completed. January 14, 2022.

   4. February 11, 2022. Parties shall file and submit joint pre-
      trial stipulation, proposed jury instructions and verdict
      form, or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as

      applicable, and motions in limine (other than Daubert
      motions).

Robinhood Financial operates as an institutional brokerage company.
The Company provides online and mobile application-based discount
stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vIpe9W at no extra charge.[CC]

ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Romeo
Power, Inc. ("Romeo") (NYSE: RMO) (NYSE: RMO.WT) f/k/a RMG
Acquisition Corp. ("RMG") (NYSE: RMG) (NYSE: RMG.U) (NYSE: RMG.WS)
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Romeo securities
between October 5, 2020 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Romeo securitiesduring the Class Period may, no later than June 15,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/romeo-powerclass-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=romeo.

Romeo is an energy technology company focused on designing and
manufacturing lithium-ion battery modules and packs for commercial
electric vehicles. RMG, a special purpose acquisition company, or
SPAC, was formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization
or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the
diversified resources and industrial materials sectors. On October
5, 2020, RMG announced a definitive agreement for a business
combination with Romeo. On December 29, 2020, Romeo announced that
it completed its business combination with RMG. The business
combination was approved by RMG stockholders in a special meeting
held on December 28, 2020 and consummated on December 29, 2020.

During the Class Period, the defendants represented that for 2020
Romeo estimated revenue of $11 million, and for 2021 Romeo
estimated revenue of $140 million. The defendants further
represented that Romeo had the capacity and supply to meet end-user
demand for Romeo's products, that Romeo was not beholden "to any
level of the value chain", that its supply was hedged, and that it
did not see any material challenges that would hamper growth.

The truth was revealed on March 30, 2021 when, after the market
closed, Romeo issued a press release and filed a report with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on a Form 8-K that
disclosed its financial results for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2020, and conducted a conference call with investors
and analysts. The defendants shocked investors by disclosing that
Romeo's production had been hampered by a shortage in supply of
battery cells and that its estimated 2021 revenue would therefore
be reduced by approximately 71-87%. On March 31, 2021, Morgan
Stanley issued a research report in which it downgraded Romeo's
target price per share from $12 to $7. Following this news, Romeo
shares declined from a closing price on March 30, 2021 of $10.37
per share to close at $8.33 per share, a decline of $2.04 per
share, or almost 20%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants concealed that: (1) Romeo had only two battery cell
suppliers, not four; (2) the future potential risks that the
defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had
already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo's
business, operations and prospects; (3) Romeo did not have the
battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up
production in 2021; (4) Romeo's supply constraint was a material
hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth; and (5) Romeo's supply chain
for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk
and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market
for their 2021 inventory.

Romeoinvestors may, no later than June 15, 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]

ROMEO POWER: Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Romeo Power,
Inc. ("Romeo Power" or "the Company") (NYSE:RMO) (NYSE:RMO.WT)
f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:RMG) (NYSE:RMG.WS) 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 October 5,
2020 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 15, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3v0wPPQ to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Romeo Power had only two battery cell
suppliers despite claiming to have four suppliers. Although the
Company described supply shortages as a future risk, constraints
had already occurred and had negatively impacted the Company's
operations. The Company failed to maintain supply levels sufficient
to meet end user demand and grow production in 2021. The Company's
battery cell inventory was not hedged as it claimed, instead it was
at the mercy of its two suppliers and the spot market for
inventory. 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 Romeo Power, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


ROMEO'S PIZZA: Seeks to Extend Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending time for them to respond
to plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification in view of
pending motion to compel basic discovery from the plaintiff.

The Defendant says that the Plaintiff unfairly asks this Court to
approve of his Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification on the basis
of one-sided discovery. Indeed, unlike Defendants', Spackler,
Smails, and Noonan Pizza Company, The Summer of George Pizza
Company, LLC and I Don't Always Eat Pizza Company, LLC (the
"Romeo's Franchisee Defendants"), full cooperation with discovery,
the Plaintiff has failed to provide any substantive discovery
responses whatsoever, precluding even the deposition of the
Plaintiff. Plaintiff's abusive discovery tactics have impeded the
Romeo's Franchisee Defendants' ability to defend against his
claims, and now will prejudice their ability to fairly brief the
propriety of class certification under Rule 23. As such, the Court
should hold Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification in
abeyance pending a ruling on the Romeo's Franchisee's Motion to
Compel.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yY8IEu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard A. Millisor, Esq.
          Matthew A. Parker, Esq.
          Brittany N. Brantley, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 4000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 838-8800
          Facsimile: (440) 838-8805
          E-mail: rmillisor@fisherphillips.com
                  mparker@fisherphillips.com
                  bbrantley@fisherphillips.com

ROWE RESEARCH: Faces Hammonds Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS E. HAMMONDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROWE RESEARCH, LLC, A/K/A TRUE
MARKET MAVENS LLC, and CHRISTOPHER ROWE, Defendants, Case No.
9:21-cv-80970 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated salesmen overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and for retaliatory
discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Hammonds was hired as a full-time inside salesman working at
home and occasionally at Rowe Research's offices in Boca Raton,
Florida from approximately January 04, 2021, through April 8,
2021.

Rowe Research, LLC, also known as True Market Mavens LLC, is an
investment, researching, and marketing firm, with its principal
place of business located in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Summers Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman, LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas Summers, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11990-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 31, 2021).

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

Rubin & Rothman, LLC -- https://www.rubinrothman.com/ -- is a New
York and New Jersey creditor's rights law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Phone: (201) 507-6300
          Email: lh@hershlegal.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Federal Judge Slams Proposed Roundup Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
cbslocal.com reports that concluding that "mere tweaks cannot
salvage the agreement," a federal judge in San Francisco refused to
bless a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit involving
Roundup, a weed killer alleged to cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The ruling came just a week after the court conducted a full day of
hearings on the settlement and, at the end, told the parties that
it would likely take him some time to rule.

This was the second time that a proposed settlement of the
consolidated litigation was presented to U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria. The first was withdrawn by the parties after he expressed
reservations about the deal.

This settlement resulted from months of negotiations that followed
the judge's unfavorable reaction to the earlier settlement.

According to the motion for approval, the parties went to back to
the drawing board negotiating "intensively, preserving and
enhancing certain elements of the prior settlement . . . .
rejecting others."

The process included "dozens and dozens of virtual meetings,
countless drafts of settlement documents and memoranda, status
reports to the mediator, and direct input on Settlement terms from
the expert vendors proposed to administer the programs, as well as
other consulting experts related to science and medicine."

The proposed new deal was intended to affect two separate groups of
claimants. The first group included those who have been exposed to
Roundup and developed NHL. The second group included those who have
been exposed to Roundup but for whom NHL has not manifested. During
the approval hearings, the judge sometimes referred to the second
group as "future claimants."

Under the settlement, Monsanto, the manufacturer and distributor of
Roundup, agreed to create a $2 billion fund to pay claims over the
next four years.

Future claimants are entitled to medical monitoring and, if they
ultimately develop NHL, are given the option to participate in the
fund (if it is still in place at the time) or bring suit. However,
if they choose to sue, they will be bound by two restrictions.

First, a future report from an independent "Science Panel"
appointed by the court that evaluates whether the science around
whether glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Roundup -- causes
NHL would be allowed to be admitted as evidence in the future case,
though it would only have advisory effect.

Second, future claimants will not be able to seek the recovery of
"punitive damages." Punitive damages are a special category of
damages awarded in tort litigation to punish particularly bad
conduct by a defendant.

The settlement was presented as a package and the judge did not
have the option of approving it with respect to one of the two
groups.

That linkage led him to focus on the settlement's impact on the
future claimants, and because he concluded that the settlement was
not fair to that group, he concluded that the entire agreement had
to be thrown out.

There are some 5,000 Roundup cases from all over the country
consolidated in front of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for pre-trial proceedings.

While a comprehensive settlement of consolidated tort cases is not
unusual when a widely distributed defective product causes serious
injury, the Roundup litigation has some unusual features that have
made resolution challenging.

First, there is no consensus among government agencies on the
question of whether glyphosate causes the serious health effects
that are ascribed to it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has concluded that "glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans."

However, a panel of the World Health Organization classified
glyphosate as a "Group 2A" agent, meaning it is "probably
carcinogenic to humans," and the state of California has
categorized glyphosate as a chemical "known to the state to cause
cancer," for purposes of its Proposition 65 that requires the state
to maintain a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity.

Second, Monsanto continues to sell the product and not only intends
to do so going forward but wants to do so without a warning label
that alerts consumers to the alleged health risks.

A third factor complicating factor is that there is a long latency
period -- the time between exposure to Roundup and manifestation of
injury -- in the observed cases. During that period there do not
appear to be tests that can predict whether the disease will strike
in the future. Thus, a person who has been exposed to Roundup has
no way of knowing whether he or she will ultimately result in NHL.

Finally, Roundup is widely used in gardening, lawn maintenance and
landscaping, and many of those exposed to glyphosate are farm and
fieldworkers, a group that includes many unsophisticated
consumers.

The court evaluated the benefits to the future claimants and
weighed them against what they were being asked to give up. He
didn't find the deal close to acceptable.

The benefits -medical monitoring and a possibility of getting into
the settlement fund -were not of great weight. First, the
monitoring was of limited value because tests can't predict the
disease. Second, getting into the fund was not assured because a
claimant might not present with NHL until after the four-year fund
was exhausted or expired.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that a claimant who did not
participate in the fund retained the right to bring a lawsuit and
therefore was not being prejudiced.

The judge found that unpersuasive. Chhabria said that the
possibility of a potentially unfavorable future Science Panel
report, as well as the waiver of punitive damages, would diminish
the value of the future claim, either in litigation or in the
context of negotiating a future settlement.

Punitive damages have played an outsized role in the Roundup
litigation to date.

In all the three Bay Area cases that have gone to trial, punitive
damages have been awarded against Monsanto, most notably in a suit
in Alameda County Superior Court brought by Alva Pilliod, 78, and
Alberta Pilliod, 75, of Livermore.

The Pilliods were awarded a staggering $2 billion in punitive
damages, though the amount was later reduced by the trial judge to
$86.7 million.

After weighing the benefits against the trade-offs, the judge
concluded that the settlement would "accomplish a lot for Monsanto"
but would garner "far less" for the future claimants.

While that might have concluded Chhabria's analysis, the judge was
not done.

He next turned his attention to the challenges of providing
meaningful notice of the settlement to the future claimants so they
could decide whether to opt-out.

He said began by stating, "Let's assume, for argument's sake, that
an opt-out class notice could ever be adequate in a situation like
this -that is, class notice that is mostly by advertisement for a
massive, diffuse, and largely transient population of people who
have not gotten sick and may not even know of their exposure."

If such a notice could ever be approved, he said, "it would need to
communicate the settlement's message very clearly and offer
something sufficiently valuable and tangible to make it worth the
potential class members' attention."

The proposed notice did not come close to meeting that standard.

The notice began: "Exposed to weed killers? You could benefit from
a $2 billion settlement. People diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma could receive up to $200,000."

The judge said that while that notice might be meaningful to the
group of claimants that actually had NHL, "if you're trying to grab
the attention of someone who has not been diagnosed with NHL, this
is not the way to do it."

The judge made his displeasure very clear: "It should be obvious to
any expert or layperson that the proposed notice does a disservice
to the group that has not been diagnosed with NHL, potentially
misleading them into disregarding a message about a settlement that
could substantially diminish their rights if they eventually get
sick."

The judge's ruling sends the parties back to the drawing board, at
least if they seek a comprehensive settlement.

In the meantime, more trials are expected in individual cases. [GN]

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Lee Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JERRY LEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00493-GJF-KRS (D. New
Mex., May 28, 2021), arises from the Defendant's alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a directional
driller from June 2017 to December 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay. In addition, the Defendant did not maintain accurate time
and pay records, failed to post and keep posted the notice.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated current and former
employees of the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees plus interest and costs,
and all other relief and sums that may be adjudged against the
Defendant.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net

SKILLZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
Skillz Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Skillz Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ)
Class Period: December 16, 2020 - April 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021

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) three games
responsible for a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined
substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue recognition policy
misrepresented the financial condition of the company; (3)
unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android market; 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.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you 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.

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp.
("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) securities between
December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Skillz 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/skillz-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report about the
Company alleging that the growth speculations from Skillz and its
insiders were "entirely unrealistic" and that Skillz's top three
games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue, reported a decline in
downloads since the third quarter of 2020.

On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 10.9%,
to close at $24.45, thereby injuring investors.

On April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous report on
Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of providing
users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely recognizes
substantial non-cash revenue and [] cash revenues may be less than
½ of GAAP revenue."

On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 6.61%,
to close at $14.11 on April 19, 2021. Shares continued to decline
to close at $12.55 on April 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's
revenues had declined substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue
recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the
company; (3) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android
market; 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 or otherwise acquired Skillz securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 7, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

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

Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:SKLZ)

Investors Affected: December 16, 2020 - April 19, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Skillz Inc f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. The filed complaint
alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: representations relating
to certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and
ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to
attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking
popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its
revenue, and the Company's valuation. For example, one of the
Company's objectively unrealistic promises included the
unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at $3.5 billon,
based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million for 2022.
However, the Company failed to inform investors that downloads of
the games that account for a majority share of its revenue have
been declining since at least November 2020. In reality, the
Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale was far from
realistic given its size, market share, reliance on thirdparty app
stores, declining downloads of its most popular games and,
critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus Payments that
Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a fact that
investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are routinely
provided to its customers, who are expected to use them for game
entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz revenue.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=16345&from=1

Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased WISH pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public
stock offering or between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Contextlogic Inc. In the registration statement and prospectus used
to conduct the initial public offering and throughout the class
period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements
about the strength of ContextLogic's business operations and
financial prospects by overstating its then-present monthly active
users ("MAUs") and MAU growth trends.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16345&from=1

Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)

Investors Affected: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ubiquiti Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed the data breach in
January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained administrative access to
Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to, among other things, all
databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to
forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as a result, intruders
already had credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's
customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16345&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]


SKILLZ INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Skillz
Inc. (: SKLZ) ("Skillz") f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (:
FEAC) ("FEAC") investors that a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Skillz securities between December 16, 2020
and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021

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

Skillz is an internet tech company that provides a proprietary
gaming platform for mobile gaming users and developers. FEAC was
formed as a special purpose acquisition company in early January
2020 by its sponsor Eagle Equity Partners II, LLC, led and
controlled by defendant, Harry Sloan, a member of Skillz's Board of
Directors and former President and Chairman of FEAC.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements and
omissions that materially misrepresented Skillz's purported
financial condition and prospects. These materially misleading
statements and omissions included representations relating to
certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and
ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to
attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking
popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its
revenue, and Skillz's valuation.

Skillz investors may, no later than July 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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

SKILLZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on May 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Skillz Inc.
f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: SKLZ) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in SKLZ:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=16363&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: representations relating
to certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and
ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to
attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking
popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its
revenue, and the Company's valuation. For example, one of the
Company's objectively unrealistic promises included the
unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at $3.5 billon,
based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million for 2022.
However, the Company failed to inform investors that downloads of
the games that account for a majority share of its revenue have
been declining since at least November 2020. In reality, the
Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale was far from
realistic given its size, market share, reliance on thirdparty app
stores, declining downloads of its most popular games and,
critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus Payments that
Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a fact that
investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are routinely
provided to its customers, who are expected to use them for game
entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz revenue.

Shareholders have until July 7, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the SKLZ lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) investors
that acquired shares between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021.
Investors have until July 7, 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 Skillz made misleading and
false statements to the market. The majority of Skillz's revenue
was comprised of three games in particular that had suffered from a
significant decline. Skillz's financial condition was
misrepresented by its revenue recognition policy. Skillz's growth
projections, particularly with respect to the Android market, were
unrealistic. Skillz's public statements were materially misleading
and false throughout the class period, based on these facts.
Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about
Skillz.

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.

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.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


SORIN GROUP: B.C. Hospitals Named in Class Suit Over Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Mangione at ctvnews.ca reports that a recently certified
class-action lawsuit over use of medical equipment says the device
was used at five B.C. hospitals.

The suit, which was certified by an Ontario Superior Court judge
earlier, says the Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler system was used during
open-chest cardiac surgery at 35 hospitals.

These devices are used in operating rooms during procedures where a
patient's blood temperature needs to be controlled, and according
to federal health officials, are considered non-sterile.

Plaintiff Bruno Nardi alleges use of the device may have led to
bacteria exposure, causing symptoms in patients years after their
procedures.

The bacteria named in the suit is Mycobacterium Chimera, which
Health Canada described in a previous advisory about heater-cooler
devices as slow-growing and capable of causing "invasive disease"
in vulnerable patients.

These infections are hard to treat, lead to a variety of symptoms
and require long-term treatment with antimicrobials. In some cases,
more surgery is needed, as there is a "high rate of treatment
failure," Health Canada says.

The suit questions whether negligence was involved in the design,
manufacturing, testing, distribution and sale of the heater-cooler
system.

Among the hospitals the lawsuit lists as having used the device are
the following, located in B.C.:

BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver, from Jan. 1, 2010, to Nov.
29, 2017;
Kelowna General Hospital in Kelowna, from Jan. 1, 2020, to Dec.
12, 2017;
Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, from Jan. 1, 2010, to
Dec. 14, 2017;
Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, from Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 1,
2017; and
St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, from Jan. 1, 2010, to Jan. 16,
2018.

The full list is available online, and includes hospitals in
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The suit names two companies as defendants: Sorin Group Deutschland
GMBH and Livanova Canada Corp.

According to an outline of the judge's reasons for certification,
the defendants said they do not oppose class action as the best
option to manage multiple claims. The companies told the court they
reserve their rights to settle the litigation plan.

The case will proceed as, according to the judge, the five
requirements for certification have been met. [GN]

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Calhoun Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Jessica Calhoun,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-02247-AT-LTW (N.D. Ga., May 31, 2021).

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

Southwest Credit Systems, LP -- https://www.swcconsumer.com/ -- is
a small, legitimate debt collection agency headquartered in
Carrollton, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPECIALIZED TOWING: Barrios Seeks Unpaid OT for Tow-Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALIZED TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
RAUL HERRERA, JUAN J. HERRERA, and RIGOBERTO HERRERA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-22012 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated tow-truck drivers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and for retaliatory discharge in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tow-truck driver from
2015 through approximately February 4, 2021.

Specialized Towing and Transportation, Inc. is a towing company
headquartered in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: WRX PCV System Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Subaru
class action lawsuit is being debated in a New Jersey courtroom as
Impreza WRX and WRX STI owners argue the pistons, positive
crankcase ventilation (PCV) systems and engine management systems
cause ringland failures.

The Subaru class action says 2009-2018 Impreza WRX and WRX STI
engines fail at 60,000 miles when they should last at least 120,000
miles.

The class action lawsuit alleges the piston ringlands are too
brittle to handle the power of the engines. Additionally, the PCV
system allows an abnormal amount of crankcase oil vapors into the
combustion chamber.

Impreza WRX drivers complain the engines lose power and stall when
the engines seize from overheating.

Driving the cars is allegedly dangerous because a stalled engine
will cause the car to lose power steering and power brakes.

All three Impreza WRX owners claim in the Subaru class action
lawsuit that they paid thousands of dollars to replace the
engines.

The class action alleges Subaru knowingly withheld information
about the defective engine pistons or piston ringlands in the
Impreza WRX and WRX STI cars.

Motion to Dismiss the Subaru Class Action Lawsuit
In a motion to dismiss the Subaru Impreza WRX class action lawsuit,
the judge gave a green light to the dismissal of a Michigan
Consumer Protection Act claim. Subaru argues the claim is futile
because auto sales are exempt from the Act, and the judge agreed
based on recent case law.

However, it didn't go as well for Subaru regarding a negligent
misrepresentation claim under Michigan law, which says a plaintiff
must allege he "justifiably relied to his detriment on information
prepared without reasonable care by one who owed [the plaintiff] a
duty of care."

Subaru argues the Plaintiffs fail to "allege that [Subaru] made any
representations to [the plaintiff] as part of a sales transaction"
because "he purchased his car used from a third-party seller."

In other words, Subaru argues because a plaintiff [Hinshaw]
purchased his used Impreza WRX from a third-party seller, Subaru
could not have provided misleading information to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiffs argue the "misrepresentations relied upon
by Hinshaw were set out in his class vehicle's Owner's Manual and
Warranty & Maintenance Booklet materials," even if he did not rely
on misrepresentations made by Subaru personnel.

With respect to Subaru owner's manuals generally, the class action
lawsuit alleges the automaker also negligently and recklessly
misrepresented information in the WRX owner's manuals by using
incorrect engine maintenance and service recommendations.

The class action alleges, "[t]he Owner's Manual and Warranty &
Maintenance Booklet materials accompanying class vehicles do not
contain any maintenance or service information for defective class
engine pistons or piston ringlands."

According to the lawsuit, this failure to include ringland
maintenance rendered the owner's manuals misleading because the
manuals otherwise "have maintenance schedules that extend to
120,000.

By allowing the Subaru class action lawsuit to proceed, Judge
Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled:

"At this stage of the litigation, the Court must accept as true
that Plaintiff Hinshaw reviewed the owner's manual for his Subaru
vehicle and relied to his detriment on the manual's incomplete
representations about 'service intervals' for the engine pistons or
piston ringlands. Thus, Plaintiffs do plead facts stating that
Subaru misrepresented information to Plaintiff Hinshaw even though
he did not purchase a vehicle directly from Subaru."

The court will permit the plaintiffs to file a second amended
lawsuit that includes plaintiff Hinshaw's negligent
misrepresentation claim only.

The Subaru class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey - Amato, et al., v. Subaru of
America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., and Thomas P Sobran PC. [GN]


SUNSTAR AMERICAS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunstar Americas,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Sunstar Americas, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03084 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2021).

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

Sunstar -- https://www.sunstar.com/ -- provides high-value-added
products and services in the areas of oral care, health and beauty,
as well as the chemical and automobile industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYMBIOME INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Symbiome, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Symbiome, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-03048 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2021).

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

Symbiome -- https://www.symbiome.com/ -- offers skincare as nature
intended solution which is scientifically and intentionally
formulated using ancestral ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Zamora Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carolina C. Zamora, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Michael
A. Orlando, Ken Walsh, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. BER-L-002497-21,
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey-Bergen County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 20,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-11544-CCC-JBC to
the proceeding.

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

Synergetic Communication, Inc. -- https://www.syncomcorp.net/ -- is
a third party collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GORUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (949) 688-6009
          Fax: (800) 500-0301
          Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GORUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik Christian Swanholt, Esq.
          Alyssa Leigh Titche, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
          Phone: (213) 972-4500
          Fax: (213) 486-0065
          Email: eswanholt@foley.com
                 atitche@foley.com


TEAM PIZZA: Grant of Summary Judgment in Bradford Suit Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BRADFORD, On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAM PIZZA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-60 (S.D. Ohio), Chief Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Litkovitz recommended that:

    (i) the Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment be
        denied; and

   (ii) the Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment be
        granted.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for
partial summary judgment on the operative standard for an
employer's reimbursement of vehicle-related expenses incurred by
pizza delivery drivers under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
responses in opposition, notices of supplemental authority, and
responses to the notices of supplemental authority.

Plaintiff Bradford, an employee of the Defendants, initiated the
action in January 2020 on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work
or worked at the Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores around the
country.  Defendants Team Pizza, Inc. and/or Chris Short operate
Domino's Pizza stores in, but not limited to, Ohio, Indiana, and
Kentucky.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants require delivery drivers
at Team Pizza Domino's stores to use their own cars to complete
deliveries.  The Plaintiff is required to incur and/or pay
job-related expenses such as gasoline, maintenance expenses, and
insurance for his vehicle "for the primary benefit of the
Defendants."  The complaint further alleges that the Defendants
reimburse their delivery drivers a set amount for each mile they
drive.  The complaint states that the Defendants do not track,
record, or reimburse the delivery drivers' actual expenses, and the
reimbursement provided by defendants is less than the IRS standard
business mileage rate.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants'
reimbursement of his vehicle expenses did not fully reimburse him
for those expenses, triggering a minimum wage violation under the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff brings federal and state law claims alleging that the
Defendants violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and
Ohio law by (1) failing to properly claim a tip credit from the
wages of pizza delivery drivers "because plaintiff and the FLSA
collective were paid a wage rate lower than the Defendants informed
them that they would be paid"; and (2) requiring delivery drivers
to pay for automobile expenses and other job-related expenses out
of pocket and not properly reimbursing them for these expenses.

On June 29, 2020, Judge Litkovitz recommended that the Plaintiff's
Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and to
Authorize Notice be granted to the extent the proposed putative
class is limited to delivery drivers at the Akron, Ohio Team Pizza
location and denied to the extent it seeks to certify a conditional
nationwide class.  The district judge adopted the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.

On Sept. 4, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file
cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of the
requisite standard for calculating an employer's reimbursement of
vehicle-related expenses incurred by pizza delivery drivers under
the FLSA.  The matter is now fully briefed and ready for
disposition.

The issue in the case is what standard should apply to an
employer's reimbursement of vehicle-related expenses incurred by
pizza delivery drivers under the FLSA.  The FLSA requires an
employer to pay "wages" at specified minimum rates, but the Act
does not address the reimbursement of vehicle-related expenses at
issue in the case.  The anti-kickback regulation, 29 C.F.R. Section
531.35, provides that when an employee provides tools of the trade
for the performance of the employer's work, there is "a violation
of the Act in any workweek when the cost of such tools purchased by
the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be
paid to the employee under the Act."

The Plaintiff contends the anti-kickback regulation is ambiguous,
and therefore resort to the guidance of the FOH is warranted, as
determined by the Hatmaker court.  He argues that Section 531.35 is
ambiguous because it does not provide a methodology or guidance on
how to calculate the mileage rate and/or expenses incurred by an
employee related to operating his or her own vehicle for work
purposes, i.e., delivering pizza on behalf of his or her employer.
The Plaintiff therefore argues that the Court should defer to the
FOH which is the "agencies' reasonable readin of the genuinely
ambiguous regulation."

The Defendants argue that the anti-kickback regulation, 29 C.F.R.
Section 531.35, is unambiguous because it specifically
cross-references Section 531.32, which in turn references Section
778.217 for "a discussion of reimbursement for expenses such as
'travel expenses,' etc.'"  Section 778.217 specifies that employers
may "reasonably approximate" expenses for purposes of reimbursing
employees for tools of the trade.

The Defendants contend that by these direct incorporations by
reference, there is a straight line from the 'free and clear'
minimum wage provisions to Section 778.217's 'expense
reimbursement' provisions.  They further argue that section
"778.217 is the sole regulation that governs expense
reimbursements" which "declares at the outset that, as a general
rule, expense reimbursement may be in an amount that 'reasonably
approximates the expense incurred.'  The Defendants argue that even
if the anti-kickback regulation is ambiguous, the DOL has clarified
through an opinion letter (FLSA2020-12, at 3) the applicability of
the reasonable approximation standard.

Employing the usual tools of statutory interpretation requires the
Court to examine the language and design of the regulatory scheme
and not to interpret the regulation in a way that renders a
provision "meaningless or superfluous."  Reading the regulatory
scheme as a whole, as the Court must, Judge Litkovitz finds the
anti-kickback regulation of 29 C.F.R. Section 531.35 is not
genuinely ambiguous because the plain language of the regulation
incorporates by reference Section 531.32(c), which in turn
specifically incorporates Section 778.217.

Section 778.217 answers the question by which method should
employee-provided tools of the trade expenses be reimbursed.  It
excludes from an employee's regular rate the expenses that are
reimbursed by the employer so long as the amount of "reimbursement
reasonably approximates the expenses incurred."  To conclude, as
the Plaintiff urges, that Section 531.35 is ambiguous because it
does not itself set forth a methodology for calculating
reimbursement of expenses would require the Court to ignore the
language of the regulations that leads to the answer -- Sections
531.32(c) and 778.217, which are incorporated by reference in the
anti-kickback regulations.

This the Court cannot do.  Because Section 531.35 is not ambiguous,
Judge Litkovitz's inquiry stops, and resort to either the FOH or
DOL opinion letter is not warranted.  She holds that there is no
genuine ambiguity of the term "reasonable approximation" and
declines to consider the authorities of the FOH or DOL Opinion
Letter for further guidance.  The Judge is mindful that another
judge of the Court has considered this same question and reached a
different result.  The Hatmaker court found the anti-kickback
regulation to be ambiguous and ultimately deferred to the FOH that
provided for either reimbursement of actual expenses or
reimbursement under the IRS rate.  As Hatmaker is not binding
precedent on the Court, Judge Litkovitz respectfully declines to
follow it.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Litkovitz finds that the
regulatory language is not genuinely ambiguous and compels the
conclusion that the reasonable approximation standard of Section
778.217 applies to the reimbursement of vehicle expenses in the
case.  Accordingly, the Defendants may "reasonably approximate" the
vehicle-related expenses in the case and are not limited to using
the actual or IRS rate.  Judge Litkovitz recommended that the
Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment be denied and the
Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/8m9c34n5 from
Leagle.com.


TEXAS MARKET: Barry Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Market Research
Group LLC. The case is styled as Peter F. Barry, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Texas Market Research
Group LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01312 (D. Minn., June 1, 2021).

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

Texas Market Research Group doing business as Reconnaissance Market
Research (ReconMR) -- https://www.reconmr.com/ -- specializes in
quantitative data collection for public opinion, political polling,
social science, B2B and consumer opinion surveys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: (651) 770-9707
          Fax: (651) 704-0907
          Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Ticket Price Inflation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ticketnews.com reports that a class action lawsuit accusing
Ticketmaster and parent Live Nation of business tactics that
artficially inflate prices for consumers was certified by a judge
in Vancouver, British Colombia in April. The action - Gomel vs.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. saw a hearing on the matter in
November prior to the rulingbeing made.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges "a series of individual
misrepresentations" by Ticketmaster that imply "that all users will
be afforded a fair opportunity to purchase tickets in the primary
market for face price," according to the filing. The plaintiff had
purchased tickets to a Bruno Mars concert on StubHub prior to the
tickets being available to the general public on the primary
market. It argues, using the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004 as a legal basis, that the business
practices and lack of transparency on ticket availability by
Ticketmaster regarding primary market ticket sales illegally
inflate prices for consumers.

In the ruling, Supreme Court of British Columbia Justice Michael
Tammen ruled that the case should be certified on those grounds,
however he declined to certify additional claims made in the
initial filing using the Competition Act, R.S.C, 1985 as legal
basis.

Justice Tammen's ruling does not mean that the case has been
decided, only that it has room to proceed.

"I thus would not at this juncture stop the plaintiffs in their
tracks, and decline to permit them to move this litigation
forward," he writes in the ruling.

"I find that there is "some basis in fact" in this case that an
award of punitive damages could be made to address "systemic"
conduct," he later writes. "Ticketmaster has a virtual monopoly on
ticket distribution for large segments of the primary market.
Commencing in 2015, the defendants have been participating in the
secondary ticket sales market, attempting to compete with sites
such as Stubhub and Vivid Seats. There is evidence that
Ticketmaster has turned a blind eye to professional resellers using
bots to purchase large quantities of tickets on the primary market,
and encouraged those resellers to list tickets for resale on its
secondary market platform, using its inventory software, Tradedesk.
Both Ticketmaster and the professional resellers profit from this
activity, while the end user consumer pays an amount for the ticket
greater than face price."

Several lawsuits, including this one, have arisen out of reporting
in 2018 by Canadian media regarding Ticketmaster's willing
participation in secondary marketplaces, including turning a blind
eye to ticket resellers violating their own primary market terms
and conditions in acquiring inventory for resale, as long as they
were using Ticketmaster's resale platorm and allowing it to profit
multiple times on the same tickets. Other lawsuits are ongoing in
other provinces, alleging numerous violations of consumer law in
Canada. [GN]


TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., and Keith Hammeran, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), the Supreme Court held that
a named plaintiff must allege a concrete harm to have Article III
standing to sue on behalf of a putative class. But district courts
have since varied in interpreting Spokeo's holding that a "risk of
real harm" can be sufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III.

All eyes are thus now on the Court's forthcoming decision in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which may provide guidance on what the
Court meant by a "risk of real harm," and may affect or narrow the
types of persons who can participate in class actions. The decision
is likely to inform defense strategies at all stages of class
action litigation against large companies, including financial
institutions.

Background
In 2002, TransUnion developed a product to screen the names of U.S.
consumers against those on a list maintained by the U.S. Office of
Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). If a consumer's first and last names
matched those of a person on the list, TransUnion would add an
alert to the consumer's credit report regarding the "potential
match." The named plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez, alleged he suffered
actual injury in the form of denied credit and embarrassment after
a Nissan dealership refused to sell him a car based on a TransUnion
credit report with an OFAC alert. Moreover, upon requesting his
credit file from TransUnion, Ramirez received two mailings that
allegedly did not clearly apprise him of his rights with respect to
the alert.

Ramirez brought a putative class action against TransUnion under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Ramirez did not, however, limit his
putative class definition to consumers who had suffered purported
injuries similar to his own following the disclosure of OFAC alerts
to third parties. Instead, he defined the putative class more
broadly as all persons who had requested their credit files from
TransUnion and been sent similar OFAC mailings. Following
discovery, the parties stipulated that over 75% of the proposed
class had not in fact had a credit report containing an OFAC alert
shared with a third party. The district court nonetheless certified
the class as defined by Ramirez, rejecting TransUnion's objections
that the absent class members lacked standing and that Ramirez's
unique injuries made him atypical of the class.

At trial, Ramirez testified extensively concerning his unique
injuries. Virtually no evidence was presented with respect to the
absent class members' injuries. For example, no evidence was
presented that any of the 25% of class members whose credit reports
containing OFAC alerts had been shared with third parties were
denied credit or were even aware of such disclosure. Nor was there
evidence that any absent class member had been confused or affected
by TransUnion's mailings. Nonetheless, the jury awarded the class
$60 million in statutory and punitive damages.

A divided Ninth Circuit reduced the punitive damages award but
otherwise affirmed. The majority held that a "risk of real harm"
existed, sufficient for standing under Spokeo, merely because the
class members' credit files were designed to be disclosed at a
"moment's notice," and because TransUnion's mailings were
"inherently shocking and confusing" and left class members
"completely in the dark" about how to challenge the OFAC alerts.
The majority further held that Ramirez satisfied the typicality
requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 because all of the class members'
claims were based on the same conduct and legal theories, even if
Ramirez's injuries were different and/or more complex.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court and Potential Ramifications
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address "whether either
Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the
vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an
injury anything like what the class representative suffered." Thus,
not only is the Court in a position to clarify Spokeo's "risk of
real harm" standard, it has been asked also to address what it
means for standing and class certification when classes are broadly
defined to include individuals who suffered significantly different
harms or risks than those of the named plaintiff.

There are many ways in which the Court could provide guidance on
these issues, which could affect how future class actions are
litigated.

At oral argument, several Justices appeared to wrestle with the
question of whether a class member's past exposure to a risk of
harm should give them standing even if the harm in question never
materialized. Some Justices (including Justice Alito, Spokeo's
author) suggested that a mere risk of harm should not support
standing absent some knowledge of the risk by class members
sufficient to cause emotional distress. If the Court adds a form of
knowledge component to Spokeo, it could provide a basis for new
defenses and objections by defendants at the pleading and class
certification stages.

The typicality issues presented by this case are also significant.
The text of Rule 23 does not on its face require a named Plaintiff
to have injuries typical of those of his class (it only says
"claims or defenses"), so a ruling informing the typicality
prerequisite could provide a new basis for defendants to challenge
certification. [GN]

TRUECAR INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueCar, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. TrueCar, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-03047 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2021).

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

TrueCar, Inc. -- https://www.truecar.com/ -- is an automotive
pricing and information website for new and used car buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Says Remediation Offer Inadequate
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Simmons, writing for Business News Australia, reports that
the law firm behind a proposed class action against Tyro Payments
(ASX: TYR) over its handling of a three-week terminal outage says
the remediation offered by the fintech is "inadequate", renewing
calls for a legal response.

In a statement on May 31 Bannister Law says Tyro's offer to
impacted merchants, so far taken up by 3,656 customers, paves the
way for a class action on behalf of affected businesses.

Bannister Law principal Charles Bannister alleges the alternative
offered by the company is a long and protracted dispute resolution
process, controlled by Tyro.

"We have spoken to one small business who estimated that the offer
of rebates on merchant fees would result in her receiving just ten
percent of the amount she has lost," says Bannister.

"The compensation is inadequate. In our view Tyro has prioritised
minimising churn of its customers over actually providing them with
adequate compensation and if customers opted for the dispute
resolution process instead of taking the rebate compensation, the
onus appears on the customer to substantiate their losses."  

Any class action launched by the law firm would seek to compensate
merchants for lost sales and goodwill.

"The outage happened at a terrible time. Customers were starting to
return after a disastrous 2020 and a disappointing festive season
where sales were well below previous years," adds Bannister.

"Tyro's failure was extensive. They did not communicate the extent
of the issue or provide businesses with an accurate estimate as to
when the service would be restored.

"Many businesses had customers return multiple times to make
purchases and were unable to do so due to Tyro's terminal failure.
Businesses deserve fair compensation." [GN]

TYRO PAYMENTS: Lackluster Compensation Prompts Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Blake, writing for Inside Retail, reports that Sydney-based
firm Bannister Law has said lackluster compensation offered by Tyro
has opened the way for a class action lawsuit, as businesses look
to recover sales lost during the payment gateway's outage in
January 2021.

The outage seemed to happen due to a configuration issue, which
'bricked' a number of its eftpos terminals for ten days.

According to the law firm, Tyro offered a rebate on future merchant
to businesses impacted by the outage which, in some cases, amount
to about 10 per cent of sales lost during the period and locks them
into ongoing contracts. Alternatively, businesses can go through a
"long and protracted" dispute resolution process, which is
controlled by Tyro itself.

"The compensation is inadequate," said Bannister Law principal
Charles Bannister.

"In our view Tyro has prioritised minimising churn of its customers
over actually providing them with adequate compensation and if
customers opted for the dispute resolution process instead of
taking the rebate compensation, the onus appears on the customer to
substantiate their losses."

According to Bannister, Tyro's failure was extensive and
disasterous, and the businesses impacted deserve fair compensation
-- and it is actively investigating a potential class action
lawsuit to get it. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Shainfield Rooter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brent Shainfield, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Postmates, Inc.; Does 1-10, Inclusive Case
No. CGC21591900 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 28,
2021).

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

Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as Uber, is an American
technology company. Its services include ride-hailing, food
delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight transportation, and,
through a partnership with Lime, electric bicycle and motorized
scooter rental.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (877) 206-4741
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


UBIQUITI INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) 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: Jan. 11, 2021 – Mar. 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/UI
Contact an Attorney Now: UI@hbsslaw.com
                                 844-916-0895

Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint centers on Defendants' false disclosures concerning
the nature and scope of a serious security breach incident at
Ubiquiti.  

Specifically, on Jan. 11, 2021, Ubiquiti urged customers to change
their passwords and enable multi-factor authentication after it
became aware of unauthorized access to certain of its IT systems
hosted by a third-party cloud provider. Defendants also downplayed
the seriousness of the incident and repeatedly stated that they
only became aware of the breach in Jan. 2021.

But, on Mar. 30, 2021, the truth emerged when KrebsOnSecurity
reported that a Ubiquiti security professional who worked on the
company's response to the breach said (1) work actually began in
Dec. 2020, (2) "[t]he breach was massive, customer data was at
risk, access to customers' devices deployed in corporations and
homes around the world was at risk," and (3) the Jan. 11, 2021
breach disclosure was "downplayed and purposefully written to imply
that a 3rd party cloud vendor was at risk and that Ubiquiti was
merely a casualty of that, instead of the target of the attack."  

This news drove the price of Ubiquity shares sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ubiquiti
intentionally misrepresented the security of a core business," said
Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are an Ubiquiti 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
Ubiquiti 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 UI@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. [GN]


UBIQUITI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ubiquiti Inc. ("Ubiquiti") (NYSE: UI) between January
11, 2021 and March 20, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get
more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-of-submission-form?prid=16355&wire=5

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

Ubiquiti Inc. NEWS - UI NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the Company had
downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2) attackers had
obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained
access to, among other things, all databases, all user database
credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO)
cookies; (3) as a result, intruders already had credentials needed
to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Ubiquiti, you have until July 19, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ubiquiti securities between
January 11, 2021 and March 20, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-of-submission-form?prid=16355&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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


UBIQUITI INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, discloses the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Ubiquiti, Inc. ("Ubiquiti"
or the "Company") (NYSE: UI) and certain of its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Ubiquiti
securities between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021 (the "Class
Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact
attorney Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980
or rswartz@scott-scott.com.

Ubiquiti develops and markets equipment and technology platforms
for high-capacity internet access, unified information technology,
and consumer electronics.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed a data breach to its
system in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained administrative
access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to, among other
things, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets
required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as a result,
intruders already had credentials needed to remotely access
Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 30, 2021, after the market closed, Krebs on Security
published an article entitled "Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach
'Catastrophic,'" which stated that the Company's assertion that
hackers had only gained unauthorized access to certain of its
information hosted by a third-party cloud provider was false and
that the Company had been aware since December 2020 that attackers
had "administrative access to all Ubiquiti [Amazon Web Services]
accounts, including . . . all user database credentials, and
secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $50.70, or 14.5%, to
close at $298.30 per share on March 31, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

                        What You Can Do

If you purchased Ubiquiti securities between January 11, 2021 and
March 30, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana Swartz
at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is July 19, 2021.

                    About Scott+Scott Attorneys

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


Contacts
Rhiana Swartz
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
(844) 818-6980
rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Farhat Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA FARHAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQUE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a AFC
URGENT CARE PINELLAS PARK, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01319 (M.D.
Fla., May 29, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text message
solicitations to the Plaintiff's 1111 Number on or about April 8,
2020, April 20, 2020, and May 1, 2020 in an attempt to advertise
and promote its COVID-19 testing for which the Defendant typically
charges $130.00. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior
express written consent to be contacted on her 1111 Number using
automated text message solicitations. Additionally, the Defendant
failed to honor or abide by the Plaintiff's opt-out requests and
continued to repeatedly sending text message to the Plaintiff after
she asked for the messages to stop, the suit says.

The Plaintiff claims that she has suffered injuries due to the
Defendant's unsolicited calls, including annoyance and disruption
of her daily life. Not to mention that she has wasted approximately
10-15 seconds reviewing and attempting to stop the Defendant's text
messages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated individuals seeking an injunction requiring the
Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity, and
prohibiting the Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing
system without obtaining the recipient's consent to receive calls
made with such equipment. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory and
treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Unique Healthcare Systems, LLC d/b/a AFC Urgent Care Pinellas Park
offers COVID-19 related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

UNITED INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 21, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK AGUILAR, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. UNITED
INDUSTRIES CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-01564-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   -- Pleading Amendment Deadline:               July 23, 2021

   -- Discovery Deadlines:

         Initial Disclosures:                    June 18, 2021

         Non-Expert (Class Issues):              April 1, 2022

   -- Mid-Discovery Status Conference:           Dec. 3, 2021

   -- Class Certification Motion Deadlines:

         Filing:                                 Jan. 21, 2022

         Opposition:                             March 11, 2022

         Reply brief:                            April 1, 2022

         Hearing:                                April 26, 2022

United Industries manufactures and markets chemicals for the
consumer lawn and garden care and insect control markets.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pb3Vv0 at no extra charge.[CC]


UPS GROUND: Mish Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONYEISHA MISH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UPS GROUND FREIGHT, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG21091722, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on May 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04094 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition.

UPS Ground Freight, Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation
services, headquartered in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Brian D. Berry, Esq.
         J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 442-4810
         Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
         E-mail: brian.berry@ogletree.com
                 john.schreiber@ogletree.com

VENEZUELA: Regime Reportedly Negotiating Oil Tax with China
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Latin American Herald reports that China may be "kind" to the
regime led by leftist incumbent Nicolas Maduro as to the unexpected
tax it plans to implement to oil exports from Venezuela as the
South American nation may be negotiating a total exemption with its
longtime Asian partner for the harsh consequences that would
entail, said Andres Rojas Jimenez, head of Venezuela-based oil news
website Petroguia, in a radio interview.

Most exports from state-run oil company Petroleos de Venezuela
(PDVSA) end up in Shandong, the second-most populous province of
China, where independent refineries are readying a new tax as high
as $30 per barrel of diluted bitumen, the product category under
which PDVSA's 16 API Merey blend is imported, according to The
Latin American Herald.

According to independent media organization Argus Media, the tax
would take most of PDVSA's sales margin and intermediaries through
which it operates, the report notes.

Rojas Jimenez explained that this new tax is not related to the oil
sanctions imposed by several countries on Venezuela, but to the
"irregularities that China claims to have," the report notes  He
also recalled that Venezuela's main exports end up in China, the
report discloses.

"Exports are made with the sanctions through intermediaries, then
cross Malaysia and then make it look like they are produced there,"
he added.

Rojas Jimenez insisted that the sanctions have made Venezuelan
export only reach Asian countries, the report relays.  In this
regard, he pointed out that should taxes come into force oil
stockpiles would start to accumulate. "If this happens, we would
have to say goodbye to exports," the report adds.

                       Venezuela

Venezuela, officially the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is a
country on the northern coast of South America, consisting of a
continental landmass and a large number of small islands and islets
in the Caribbean sea.  The capital is the city of Caracas.

Hugo Chavez was president to Venezuela from 1999 to 2013.  The
Chavez presidency was plagued with challenges, which included a
2002 coup d'etat, a 2002 national strike and a 2004 recall
referendum.  Nicolas Maduro was elected president in 2013 after the
death of Chavez.  Maduro won a second term at the May 2018
Venezuela elections, but this result has been challenged by
countries including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Canada,
Germany, France and the United States who deemed it fraudulent and
moved to recognize Juan Guaido as president.

The presidencies of Chavez and Maduro have challenged Venezuela
with a socioeconomic and political crisis.  It is marked by
hyperinflation, climbing hunger, poverty, disease, crime and death
rates, social unrest, corruption and emigration from the country.

S&P Global Ratings, in May 2019, removed its long- and short-term
local currency sovereign credit ratings on Venezuela from
CreditWatch with negative implications and affirmed them at
'CCC-/C'. The outlook on the long-term local currency rating is
negative. At the same time, S&P affirmed its 'SD/D' long- and
short-term foreign currency sovereign credit ratings on Venezuela.

Moody's credit rating (long term foreign and domestic issuer
ratings) for Venezuela was last set at C with stable outlook in
March 2018.  Meanwhile, Fitch's long term issuer default rating for
Venezuela was last in 2017 at RD and country ceiling was CC.
Fitch, on June 27, 2019, affirmed then withdrew the ratings due to
the imposition of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela.


VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Response to Class Cert. Extended to June 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shiflett v. Viagogo
Entertainment Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01880 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge James S. Moody, Jr. entered an endorsed order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time.

The Defendant's deadline to respond to plaintiff's motion for class
certification is extended to June 8, 2021, says Judge Moody.

The nature of suit states contract -- other contract  involving
Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices.

Viagogo provides internet based services. The Company operates as
an online platform for live sport, music, and entertainment
tickets.[CC]

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin
Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPCE) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
21-cv-03070, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Virgin Galactic securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30,
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 Virgin Galactic securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 27, 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.

Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops
human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the
U.S.

On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed via a
business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and
the Company's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its
name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to
"SPCE" (the "Business Combination").

On April 12, 2021, the SEC issued guidance advising that SPAC
warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy
additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as
liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which
had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) for accounting purposes, SCH's
warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than
equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii)
as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that
were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced "that it
has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the
first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on
Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference
call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day
at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company
is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by
the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of
warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the 'SEC
Statement')." The press release further advised that "following its
review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its advisors, the
Company will restate its consolidated financial statements included
in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely to the accounting
treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the Company's business
combination on October 25, 2019. The Company expects to file the
restated financials prior to the new conference call date and
estimates that it will recognize incremental non-operating,
non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended December 31,
2020 and December 31, 2019."

On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share,
or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 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]

VITAMIN SHOPPE: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walters v. Vitamin Shoppe
Industries, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01173 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Jolie A. Russo entered an order granting the parties' joint motion
for extension of time as follows:

   -- Fact Discovery is to be completed by Aug. 23, 2021.

   -- Initial expert reports to be exchanged by Sept. 30, 2021.

   -- Rebuttal expert reports to be exchanged by Nov. 15, 2021.

   -- Expert Discovery to be completed by Dec. 13, 2021.

   -- Class certification motion/dispositive motions due by Jan
31,
      2022.

   -- Response to class certification motion/dispositive motions
      due by March 10, 2022.

   -- Replies to class certification motion/dispositive motions due

      by March 28, 2022.

The nature of suit involves diversity--breach of contract issues.

Vitamin Shoppe operates as retailer and direct marketer of
nutritional products.[CC]

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Volkswagen AG. Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Volkswagen AG (OTC: VWAGY)
Class Period: March 29, 2021 - March 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2021

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.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you 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 rule.

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Noriega Sues Over Unlawful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Renee Noriega, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. RG21099613 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 20, 2021),
is brought against the Defendant who summarily terminated the
Plaintiff on the pretextual reason that she violated store policy.

According to the complaint, amongst Claims Supervisor's duties, a
Claims Supervisor is expected to maintain the claims and hazardous
waste storage area in accordance with company policies and
procedures by properly handling claims and returns; zoning the
area; arranging and organizing merchandise/supplies; identifying
shrink and damages; and ensuring a safe work environment. Along
with the regular duties as listed in the "Job Description" document
as provided by the Defendants, on Mondays Plaintiff would come in
to work at 5:00 am and go straight to the "Clearance Aisle". At the
clearance Aisle the Plaintiff would "Zone" and make sure that
everything was priced correctly. This task was expected to be
completed by 8:00 am, no later than 9:00 am, when my supervisors
did their "tour". By Wednesday, the Plaintiff would be able to go
in and Zone then CVP (Customer Value Program) items that needed to
be reviewed. Plaintiff would make sure that she was able to have
CVP done by 9:00 am every day. CVP was the process of marking down
items that had possible damage to the packaging and/or were
returned.

In late 2020, the Plaintiff was accused of violating the CVP and
summarily terminated. The Plaintiff does not believe that she
violated the CVP program, and in any event, violating the CVP is
not grounds for dismissal by Wal-Mart and rather is treated as a
coachable offense. The Plaintiff believes that she was terminated
for her age. As Plaintiff was one of the highest paid hourly
employees at her store due to her tenure, she believes that the
violation of the CVP policy was pretextual and instead was based on
the discriminatory basis of her age. The Plaintiff believes that
documents and witnesses will attest that she was an outstanding
employee and was terminated for being older than other employees,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a Claims Supervisor.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          THE WESTRICK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2219 Main St., Ste. 463
          Santa Monica, California 90405
          Phone: (310) 746-5303
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3373


WESLEY HOWELL: Payton Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wesley Howell. The
case is styled as Justin Payton and Craig Beck each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wesley Howell,
Case No. CV-2021-1141 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., May 18,
2021).

The case type is stated as "FOREIGN JUDGMENT."


WINNFIELD, LA: Class Certification Order in Sanders Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK SANDERS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED LOUISIANA RESIDENTS, Appellees v. CITY OF
WINNFIELD, Appellants, Case No. 53,872-CA (La. App.), the Court of
Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, reversed the trial court's
judgment certifying a putative class action filed by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons
residing in southwest Winn Parish in April 2017.

The civil suit is from the 8th Judicial District Court, Winn
Parish, Louisiana, Judge Jacque Derr presiding.  On June 5, 2017,
Mr. Sanders individually and on behalf of the residents of
southwest Winn Parish instituted the action with the filing of a
class action petition for damages against the City.

The initial petition named Mr. Sanders as an individual who
purported to represent a class of persons similarly situated, i.e.,
those persons within a residential neighborhood in southwest Winn
Parish who sustained damage as a result of flood waters.  On behalf
of the putative class, Mr. Sanders alleged that the City of
Winnfield failed to uphold its duties as a Louisiana municipality
to properly design, construct, and maintain the drainage facilities
within its jurisdictional limits; particularly, those facilities in
and throughout this area.

According to Mr. Sanders, he and the residents sustained severe
damage from floodwaters after a rainstorm on April 30, 2017, as a
direct result of the City's failure to adequately maintain the
drainage facility in this neighborhood.  The petition listed the
sustained damages suffered as damage to property, loss of use,
inconvenience, aggravation and distress, and health hazard(s).  Mr.
Sanders sought further damages pursuant to the Equal Protection
Clause, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and the La. Constitution, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  He maintained that the City systematically and
intentionally discriminated against him and the residents in this
area because its drainage and land use policies did not protect the
property or provide adequate drainage throughout this area . In
particular, the City's drainage practices resulted in varying
degrees of quality of municipal services and facilities throughout
the residences, prioritizing predominately white neighborhoods to
the detriment of his own neighborhood, which was predominately
African American.

The City removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana.  The federal court dismissed,
without prejudice, Mr. Sanders's federal claims of equal protection
violations, finding that he failed to adequately allege an
unconstitutional policy of the City or that he, as a member of the
protected class, was treated differently than other similarly
situated persons outside of the class.  The remaining negligence
claims under state tort law were remanded to the district court.  


The petition was subsequently amended to exclusively assert a claim
of negligence against the City for failure to adequately design,
construct, and maintain its drainage facilities. The petition
stated that the class' geographic area, or "area of flooding," was
located "on the west side of Highway 34 and south of West Court
Street, east of Pine Ridge Country Club, and north of Country Club
Road."  Regarding the location, function, and condition of the
drainage system after the City installed culverts and catch basins,
and prior to the rainstorm on April 30th, Mr. Sanders attached the
opinion of engineer, Kevin C. Vanderbrook.   Mr. Sanders further
alleged that the City's negligence in the construction,
maintenance, and repair of the drainage system was a direct cause
of the continual flooding in the area and the damage sustained to
the land and property of those persons who lived, worked, and owned
property in the area.

In support of these allegations, Mr. Sanders relied on Mr.
Vanderbrook's opinion after the drainage system was inspected on
Oct. 7, 2017.  Mr. Vaderbrook opined, in brevi, that the flooding
on April 30, 2017, was caused by the City's "widespread neglect."
Particularly, that the deterioration of the drainage system and
underground culvert pipes reduced drainage capacity, causing
significant safety hazards throughout, and that overgrown
vegetation significantly restricted runoff, elevating the water
level and flooding nearby homes.

On March 9, 2018, Mr. Sanders filed a motion for class
certification, requesting that the trial court certifies the class
for prosecution of claims against the City.

On March 2, 2020, a contradictory hearing was held in the trial
court on the motion to certify the class action.  The trial court
granted the motion to certify the class action on March 17, 2020,
and issued supplemental written findings of fact and reasons for
judgment on June 24, 2020.

The Class Area is defined as those properties located in the City
of Winnfield, Winn Parish, Louisiana, bounded on the North by the
railroad tracks; on the East by Highway 34; on the South by West
Jones Street; and on the West by Patton Street.  The class will be
those persons residing or owning property within the Class Area on
or about April 30, 2017, who suffered property damage as a result
of flooding which occurred in the Class Area on or about April 30,
2017.

The City now appeals.  On appeal, the City argues that the trial
court erred in certifying the class in the matter because Mr.
Sanders and the residents failed to satisfy any of the requirements
to certify a class of mass tort plaintiffs as set forth in La. C.
C. P. art. 591.

The Court of Appeal finds merit in this assignment of error.
First, it opines that the trial court erred in finding that there
were common questions of law and fact in the matter sufficient to
certify the class action.  All five prerequisites of La. C.C.P. art
591(A) must be satisfied to certify a class action.  Thus, the
failure to satisfy the commonality requirement precludes class
certification.

Among other things, the Court of Appeals finds that the report
indicated that while there was soil erosion around some culverts,
others were deteriorated or blocked by debris or vegetation; that
some catch basins were overgrown with vegetation, others at
different locations were blocked with debris, while still some
other were blocked by both debris and an overgrowth of vegetation.
Moreover, Mr. Sanders acknowledged that there were multiple causes
for the flooding: "deteriorated drain system, all catch basins
being overgrown and blocked with debris, erosion reducing drainage
capacity, overgrown vegetation in the stream on the east side of
Highway 34, etc."  Based on the information provided in the
reports, the Court of Appeal concludes that there are simply too
many different factors and causes which impact this system to
determine that there is only one single common cause.

Second, the Court of Appeal concludes that Mr. Sanders failed to
establish that the class was sufficiently numerous to satisfy the
requirements of class certification.  Mr. Sanders stated that he
was able to garner a list of impacted individuals from simply
walking around the neighborhood, or either driving through the
area, yet, despite the ease in with which these individuals could
be contacted or identified, Mr. Sanders never testified that any of
these individuals were ever interested in filing a claim against
the City, or that any claims had ever been filed in relation to
this matter.  Although his counsel attested that he sought to
represent at least twenty other individuals in the matter, neither
the names of these individuals were produced, nor did they join him
in the filing of the action.  Moreover, Mr. Sanders argued that
because a single household could contain multiple claims for
damage, even referencing his own as an example, we note that of the
several members of his household, none have joined him as a
plaintiff.  Therefore, it cannot be said that a sufficient number
of potential claimants existed to establish numerosity in this
action.

Because it finds that Mr. Sanders failed to satisfy the numerosity
requirement of La. C. C. P. art 591, the Court of Appeal holds that
there is no need to address the remaining requirements for class
certification because the consideration of numerosity alone is
sufficient to establish that class action certification should be
denied."  Thus, whether the remaining criteria for class
certification are met is rendered moot.

For the reasons it stated, the Court of Appeal finds that the trial
court erred in determining that the prerequisites for class
certification under La. C. C. P. art. 591 were satisfied.  The
judgment of the trial court is reversed.  Costs in the matter are
assessed to the Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/25hfrpwm from Leagle.com.

PETTIETTE, ARMAND, DUNKELMAN, WOODLEY, BYRD & CROMWELL, L.L.P., By:
Edwin H. Byrd, III -- ebyrd@padwbc.com -- Marshall L. Perkins --
mperkins@padwbc.com -- Counsel for Appellants, City of Winnfield
and, The Charter Oak Fire, Insurance Company.

LAW OFFICES OF HALES & STRICKLAND, By: Myrt T. Hales, Jr. --
myrt@haleslawoffice.net -- Joshua L. Strickland, Counsel for
Appellees.


[*] 47% of Consumers Likely to Join Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Help Net Security reports that an overwhelming 90% of security
leaders are concerned about group legal settlements following a
serious data breach, compared to 85% who are worried about
regulatory fines, Egress reveals.

Launched to commemorate three years of GDPR, the research also
found that 47% of consumers would likely join a class-action
lawsuit against an organization that had leaked their data, proving
security leaders' fears to be accurate.

In response, 91% of security leaders are turning to cyber insurance
to protect themselves from financial exposure by either taking out
new policies or increasing their cover because of GDPR.

The survey, independently conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Egress,
interviewed 250 security leaders and DPOs in the UK and 2,000 UK
consumers.

Security leaders concerned about data breach legal settlements

   -- 90% of security leaders are concerned about class action by
data subjects in the event of a serious data breach, whereas 85%
are concerned about regulatory fines
   -- 47% of UK consumers say they'd join a class-action lawsuit
against an organization that had leaked their data
   -- 91% of security leaders reported taking out cyber insurance,
or upgrading their policy, as a result of GDPR
   -- 67% of UK consumers are aware that they have the right to
take legal action against an organization that suffers a breach
that exposes their personal data

Egress CEO Tony Pepper comments: "The financial cost of data breach
has always driven discussion around GDPR -- and initially, it was
thought hefty regulatory fines would do the most damage. But the
widely unforeseen consequences of class action lawsuits and
independent litigation are now dominating conversation.
Organizations can challenge the ICO's intention to fine to reduce
the price tag, and over the last year, the ICO has shown leniency
towards pandemic-hit businesses, such as British Airways, letting
them off with greatly reduced fines that have been seen by many as
merely a slap on the wrist.

"With data subjects highly aware of their rights and lawsuits
potentially becoming 'opt-out' for those affected in future,
security leaders are right to be nervous about the financial
impacts of litigation."

Lisa Forte, Partner at Red Goat Cyber Security, comments: "The
greatest financial risk post breach no longer sits with the
regulatory fines that could be issued. Lawsuits are now common
place and could equal the writing of a blank cheque if your data is
compromised.

Companies will need deeper pockets to cover the lawsuits
European countries haven't typically subscribed to a litigious way
of regulating the behaviour of companies. That is now changing and
without explicit Government intervention companies will need to
accept they need deeper pockets to cover the lawsuit gold rush we
are starting to see.

The recent Google case that currently sits with the UK Supreme
Court could make group claims "opt out" instead of "opt in". That
will inevitably mean that every single customer affected would be
entered into the group action. That should be a huge worry for
companies.

Companies need to really prioritise preventative measures both
technical and human and have a tested incident plan in place.

If in the United States, under CCPA, we have seen many actions, in
Europe this is not (yet) widely used. However, I predict that this
will grow as this right to take legal action becomes more popular
-- especially knowing that the ICO publishes a web page to provide
guidance for data subjects taking such action. As a firm this is a
risk you want to consider, maybe more than regulatory fines, in my
view.

Cyber insurance won't help recover reputational damage
Edina Csics, GDPR & Data Protection Consultant at GIS-Consulting,
comments: "While cyber insurance might cover the financial damage
caused by a data breach, it won't help recover any reputational
damage done. I hope that the 91% of respondents that have changed
their cyber-insurance policies in response to GDPR have also
considered doing the right thing by putting more serious measures
in place than click-through employee security training and
remediating their loosely implemented security technologies in
addition to, and not instead of, taking out cyber-insurance. Data
breaches do occur, and it's a matter of when and not if, but in
many cases these could be prevented.

But whatever their motivation, be it fearing collective lawsuits or
regulatory fines, in taking steps to avoid financial damage, their
actions may play in favor of consumers and the protection of their
data.

Having said that, looking at the past activity of the ICO and its
enforcement habits, I am inclined to understand why security
leaders are more worried about the actions of those who are
directly impacted -- the data subjects whose personal data is
subject to their not-quite watertight security measures -- and
those data protection activists that have an even higher drive to
prove that there is more organizations can do to guard personal
data." [GN]


[*] Illinois College Athletes Can Profit From Likeness Under Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Barbic, writing for The News-Gazette, reports that college
athletes in Illinois would be able to independently profit from
their image or likeness under a bill passed on May 29 in the
Illinois House.

It's the latest development in a decades-old debate regarding
policies overseen by the NCAA, which is the governing body of most
intercollegiate athletics. It still needs approval from the state
Senate and the governor to become law.

Senate Bill 2338, sponsored by state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago,
allows college athletes in Illinois to be paid for the use of their
name, image and likeness, or voice while enrolled at a
post-secondary education institution.

It also gives college athletes the ability to obtain an agent or
legal counsel. It would take effect July 1 or immediately upon the
governor's signature if it is after that date.

Buckner said the measure was personal to him as a former football
player at the University of Illinois. He said he and UI athletic
director Josh Whitman have partnered on passing the change.

The issue of allowing college athletes to be paid has been a topic
of much debate in the sports world for decades as the NCAA has
barred college athletes from profiting from brand endorsements on
the basis of amateurism.

The bill does not allow for salary payments for college players,
but rather allows athletes to monetize their likeness, such as
participating in autograph signings at local businesses or
appearing in video games.

"This is really putting Illinois in the right position to be the
tip of the spear and lead when it comes to making sure that our
young people have autonomy over their name and likeness and image
and they're no longer subject to not having the ability to control
that," Buckner said on May 29 on the House floor.

In 2013, CBS News reported that a group of college athletes sued
the NCAA and EA Sports for using their likenesses in EA's "NCAA
Football" video games. The lawsuit was eventually settled with the
group for $60 million.

Buckner was a party to the class-action lawsuit against EA Sports
for using his likeness without compensation, which was another
motivation for this legislation, he said.

"We've seen that the NCAA has recognized this as an issue, but they
have refused to actually move on it and they've had some ceremonial
votes about it, but they have not done anything," Buckner said.

The NCAA was preparing to revise its policy on the matter in
January but indefinitely delayed the vote after recommendations
from the U.S. Justice Department to hold off on making a decision.
A revised policy could come by the end of the year, and advocates
for bills like the one passed on May 29 have said such measures
could force nationwide action.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case
challenging the NCAA's ban as a violation of antitrust laws. A
decision in that case is still pending.

Several states across the nation have moved forward with similar
bills, including California, as well as some Southeastern
Conference schools such as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi
and Louisiana. Buckner said schools from the Big Ten are also
coming on board with the initiative.

A bill similar to Buckner's was initially introduced by then-state
Rep. Emanuel "Chris" Welch, D-Hillside, in 2019. Welch, who is now
House speaker, formerly played baseball for Northwestern.

Welch's proposal received pushback for its inadequate protections
of athletes and lack of restrictions on unseemly endorsements. His
effort to passed the House but was voted down in the Senate.

Buckner's bill includes limits on products student athletes can
endorse, resolving some of the opposition that led to the failure
of the 2019 bill. He said there are about nine prohibited
categories in the bill, including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis,
sports betting and gambling.

The bill saw broad bipartisan support, passing out of the House on
a 95-18 vote. State Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, R-Elmhurst, who voted in
favor, said she still had some lingering concerns about athlete
protections.

"The reason why I'm concerned about that is . . . the fact that
we're invoking the federal law and relating to sports agents, that
doesn't necessarily create a true fiduciary duty to protect the
long term financial needs of the student," Mazzochi said.

Mazzochi suggested adding a provision to increase legal protections
for the college athletes through the creation of trust funds.

"Students in this type of area are very easily financially
exploited and the lawyers and the agents won't necessarily have
their best interests at heart," she added.

SB 2338 will now advance to the Senate for further consideration.
[GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***