/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210621.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 117

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: MacDonell Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: McDade Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Pelletier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Rossignol Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams

ABBVIE INC: Deadline for Filing Class Status Bid Set for July 12
ABM INDUSTRIES: Hearing on Bid to Decertify Classes Set for June 28
AETNA LIFE: Wolff Class Certification Deposition Due July 2
AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Seeks to Certify Class

AMERICAN FIRST: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for April 4, 2022
AMERICAN WATER: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Talbert Suit
ARTLIST INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSURED IMAGING: Amended Travis Suit Over Ransomware Attack Tossed
AUSTRALIA: Court Approves $1.8-Bil. Robodebt Class Settlement

AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Victims Say Settlement Won't Compensate Pain
BANK OF AMERICA: Mosson Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Oosthuizen Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.
BANK OF AMERICA: Rodriguez Class Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.
BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.

BANK OF AMERICA: Yick Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
BANK OF NEW YORK: Judgment on Pleadings in Maddox Suit Affirmed
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Canjar Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Carlson Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Flaten Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Handwerk Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pfaff Consumer Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Piper Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Ryan Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.

BEAUVINCE JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOCK.ONE: Settles Class Action Over EOS ICO for $27.5 Million
BOBBLEHEADS.COM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOUNKIT JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Suros Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices

CANADA: Court Hears Arguments in First Nations Class Action
CHELSEA JEWISH: Dee Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CIGNA HEALTH: August 11 Deadline to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
CLIENT SERVICES: Evans Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina

COFFEE HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Brodsky & Diamond Suit Pending
COFFEE HOLDING: Continues to Defend Cohen Putative Class Suit
COHERENT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Proposed Merger
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Cortes Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Seeks to Certify 4 Classes

CONGRESS COLLECTION: Echols Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
COOTEK CAYMAN: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Class Action
CREDIT PROS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Warren Suit
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Cal.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class

DEBTSY INC: Hollingsworth Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
DOLLAR TREE: Magpali Files Suit in California Superior Court
EL TORO LOCO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Alleges
ENSITE USA: Faces Brown Suit Over Chief Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
ENSITE USA: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Kentucky

ENSITE USA: Fleming Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors
ENSITE USA: Improperly Pays Inspectors, Groves Suit Alleges
ENSITE USA: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' Overtime
ENSITE USA: Underpays Utility and Chief Inspectors, Cunningham Says
ENSITE USA: Wells Sues Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' Overtime

ENSITE USA: Zingg Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Gas Inspectors
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Michalowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Solomon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST NATIONAL: Kulakevich Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington

FLAWLESS JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOREST LABORATORIES: Antitrust Claims in Namenda Will Go To Trial
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Related Bids Due December 14
GERBER PRODUCTS: Kelly Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
GO NEW YORK: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Balderramo Suit

GREAT LAKES: Bardsley May Reargue Denial of Class Certification
GUARDIAN NATIONAL: Roux Sues over Unpaid Compensations
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Junk Snarr's Public Injunctive Relief Pending
H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
HEALTH IQ INSURANCE: Tyner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma

HEALTHY HERBAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Davis Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
HENDRICK HONDA: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Beylerian Suit Returns to State Court
HOCKEY CANADA: Court Grants Motion to Strike Class Action Claim

HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
HUDSON VALLEY: Wins Bid to Stay Zachman Class Suit Pending Appeal
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Genesis GV8 Vibrations

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Pact Reached in Tchatchou Consolidated Suit
J&L CABLE TV: $1.85MM Class Deal in Jean-Pierre Suit Has Prelim. OK
JACKSON LABORATORY: Salas-Keen Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
JINGLEBELLS LLC: Chong Sues to Recover Rightfully Earned Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Won't Hear Appeal in Ingham Talcum Case

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ill. District Alleges
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, S.C. County School Says
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement in Spack Suit
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Terms Reached in Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions
KATERRA: Former Employees File Class Action Over Abrupt Closure

KDVH ENTERPRISES: Cooley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
KENETREK LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KING'S HAWAIIAN: Hodges Files Suit in N.D. California
KROGER CO: Womick Consumer Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
KROGER COMPANY: Seeks July 8 Extension to File Class Cert. Response

LANDMARK BANK: Pace Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
LEGG MASON: Barbieri Sues Over Unpaid Wages, ERISA Violations
LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Files Amended Bid for Conditional Cert.
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Actions Over Excessive Robocalls Pending
MARCO DESTIN: Ramos FFCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Class

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Seeks July 6 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bedford County Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2543: S.D. New York Receives Letter in GM Ignition Switch Suit
MICHIGAN DOC: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass

MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Reached in Former Employees' Suits
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gilmore Seeks Approval of Settlement Deal
NCAA: Ede Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Penson Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Testani Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana

NCAA: Wolff Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NEW YORK STATE DOCCS: Crichlow Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Mass. Court Tosses Chong & Bahrani Suits
NORTHERN MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 2
NUIX LTD: Class Action Law Firms Investigate Disclosure Breaches

ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Faces Granados Suit Over Account's Stolen Funds
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PEROUTKA MILLER: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Hoog Suit Seeks Class Certification

PINTEREST INC: Faces Klein Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PLANTATION PEANUTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POLITICS AND PROSE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POND5 INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE MARATHON: Mencl Files Suit in W.D. Michigan

PROHEALTH: Gonzalez Files Suit in C.D. California
PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Ramos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PURECYCLE TECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 12 Deadline
QUALITY HUTS: Strohmenger Files ADA Suit in S.D. Indiana

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Metzner Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 29
RANGERS ENTERPRISE: Stipulation to Dismiss Bridges FLSA Suit OK'd
REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 3
REVCO SOLUTIONS: Matthews Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RLX TECH: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline

SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Response Due June 29
SAINT PAUL, MN: FLL Files Suit in Minnesota Judicial District
SAMCART INC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SANTA RITA, CA: Must Face Inmates' Medical Care Class Action
SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: 9th Circuit Rules in Wage-and-House Suit

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Warwick Class Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing in New York
SKILLZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline
SOCIAL STUDIES: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SPLUNK INC: Putative Securities Class Suit in California Underway
SPOTIFY USA: New York Court Modifies Final Judgment in Ferrick Suit
STATE COLLECTION: McGaughey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending
SUPERFLY MEDIA: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Judge Set to Rule in Parkensbursg Fire Class Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders
TEAM HEALTH: Sanchez Seeks to Certify Class of Emergency Physicians
TECHPRECISION CORP: Settlement in Suit vs. Ranor Granted Final OK
TEVA BRANDED: Butkus Files Suit in D. New Jersey

TEVA BRANDED: Weber Files Suit in District of New Jersey
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
TILLY'S INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
ULTA SALON: Bailey Suit Remanded to Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Seeks to Certify Class

UNITED KINGDOM: Entrepreneur Urged Travel Industry to Back Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Lambro Suit Transferred to Court of Federal Claims
VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Appeals Portions of Ruling in Tel Aviv Suit
VOLTARI CORP: Motions to Dismiss Franchi Stockholder Suit Granted
WASHINGTON PRIME: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 23 Deadline

WEBCOLLEX LLC: Morrison Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
WEST BEND MUTUAL: S.D. Illinois Refuses to Toss Treo Class Suit
WILDE BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZENB US: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZERO GROCERY: Randall Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages


                            *********

3M COMPANY: MacDonell Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Cameron MacDonell, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01737-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: McDade Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kiffin McDade, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01739-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denzil Miller, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01738-RMG (D.S.C., June 10,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Pelletier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert William Pelletier, and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01740-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Rossignol Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Harold Rossignol, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01741-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ABBVIE INC: Deadline for Filing Class Status Bid Set for July 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL DOBBINS, et al., v.
ABBVIE INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-20978-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge
Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order that the Plaintiffs, Sheryl
Dobbins and Kenneth Dobbins's Opposed Motion to Extend Certain
Deadlines and Amend Order Setting Trial and Pre-Trial Schedule is
denied. Nevertheless, the Court will grant a 14-day extension of
all remaining deadlines.

The deadlines contained in the March 22, 2021 Scheduling Order are
amended as follows:

   -- July 12, 2021:       Deadline for filing motion for class
                           certification.

   -- November 29, 2021    Parties exchange expert witness
                           summaries or reports.

   -- December 13, 2021    Parties exchange rebuttal expert
witness
                           summaries or reports.

   -- December 27, 2021    All discovery, including expert
                           discovery, is completed.

   -- January 11, 2022     All pre-trial motions and Daubert
                           motions(which include motions to strike

                           experts) are filed. Each party is
                           limited to filing one Daubert motion. If

                           all evidentiary issues cannot be
                           addressed in a 20-page memorandum, leave

                           to exceed the page limit will be
                           granted. The parties are reminded that
                           Daubert motions must contain the Local
                           Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

   -- February 8, 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). No extensions of time will be

                           given for response and reply memoranda
                           to motions in limine. Each party is
                           limited to filing one motion in limine
                           which may exceed the page limits allowed

                           by the Rules. The parties are reminded
                           that motions in limine must contain the

                           Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2StlR8t at no extra charge.[CC]

ABM INDUSTRIES: Hearing on Bid to Decertify Classes Set for June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the hearing on the
company's motion to decertify the classes in the Consolidated Cases
of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7,
2006, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, is set on June 28, 2021.

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges the company failed to provide legally required
meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal
periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors
for travel expenses.

There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which
was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues.
The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision
in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California,
First Appellate District (the "Court of Appeal"), heard oral
arguments on November 7, 2017.

On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter
for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement,
and split shift class. The case was remitted to the trial court for
further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive
motions, and trial.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged
previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the
trial court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims
allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would be stayed until after
the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 had been
tried. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2019, which did not
result in settlement of the case.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to certify additional classes based on an alleged
failure to maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal
and rest breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was
re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020. ABM filed motions
for summary adjudication as to certain of plaintiffs' class claims,
and the trial court denied those motions in November 2020. The
parties engaged in another mediation in January 2021, which did not
result in a settlement of the case. Plaintiffs filed motions for
summary adjudication and/or summary judgment on some claims in
December 2020.

In February and March 2021, the parties engaged in expert discovery
which provided detailed information regarding the plaintiffs'
damage calculations on the class claims. On February 25, 2021, the
California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Donohue v. AMN
Services, which addresses the standard for adjudicating meal period
claims under California law and the company believes is supportive
of ABM's legal position in the Bucio case.

On May 5, 2021, the trial court denied all of the plaintiffs'
December 2020 motions for summary adjudication and/or summary
judgment and the case was assigned to a new judge. On May 5, 2021,
the trial court ordered the parties to attend a mandatory
settlement conference before a separate judge on June 11, 2021. The
Company filed a motion to decertify the classes on May 24, 2021,
which is set for a hearing on June 28, 2021.

The current trial date is July 12, 2021.

The Company denies that it has liability to the plaintiffs in this
case and it believe it had strong legal arguments as to liability,
damages, and to decertification of the classes. However, to the
extent trial proceeds, and the plaintiffs are successful on all
certified class claims, ABM estimates that, based on the
plaintiffs' theories and damages model (with which the Company does
not agree), the class claims damages award could range up to $160
million. That said, if plaintiffs' most aggressive damages models
and theories are credited, the class damages award could be
significantly in excess of $160 million.

The PAGA claims and the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees are
not currently estimable, but an award of penalties under PAGA could
be material as the statute provides for penalties per class member
per pay period in which a violation of the California Labor Code
has been proven, and Plaintiffs are seeking multiple PAGA penalties
per class member per pay period. There is a wide range of potential
exposure in this case in the event of an adverse verdict. Based on
the expert discovery described above, the recent court rulings, and
the range of potential exposure, the Company recorded a reserve of
$30 million for the quarter. ended April 30, 2021.

ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The
Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial,
lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services
to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across
North America. The company is based in New York, New York.


AETNA LIFE: Wolff Class Certification Deposition Due July 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE WOLFF, individually
and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01596-MWB (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Rule 26 disclosures shall be resent to
      defense counsel today, June 11, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiff's motion requesting additional time to conduct

      the deposition of Plaintiff Joanne Wolff is granted. Ms.
      Wolff's deposition shall take place on or before July 2,
      2021.

   3. The parties shall meet and confer on any discovery issues
      arising out of Ms. Wolff's deposition by July 9, 2021.

   4. The Plaintiff's brief in support of Doc. 80 shall be due on
      or before June 18, 2021.

   5. The Defendant's brief in opposition to Doc. 80 shall be due
      on or before June 25, 2021.

   6. The Court's previous Order on the class-certification
      deadline is vacated. The class-certification deadline shall
      be rescheduled following the Court's ruling on Doc. 80.

Aetna is the brand name used for products and services provided by
one or more of the Aetna group of companies, including Aetna Life
Insurance Company and its affiliates.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35n0wQK at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled B.H., a minor, by and through his guardian ANGELA
HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2021-CH-02330, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on June 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-03169 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act by: (a) not properly
developing a publicly available written policy governing the
retention of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric
identifiers and information; (b) collecting their biometric
information without providing the requisite notice and obtaining
their written release; and (c) profiting from their biometric
identifiers and information.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
       Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq.
       Gregory T. Fouts, Esq.
       Tyler Zmick, Esq.
       Alborz Hassani, Esq.
       MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP  
       101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
       Chicago, IL 60606-1511
       Telephone: (312) 324-1445
       Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
       E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
               gregory.fouts@morganlewis.com
               tyler.zmick@morganlewis.com
               al.hassani@morganlewis.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katherine M. Cleary, et
al., Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00184-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

"all persons who purchased a ticket for air travel on American
Airlines ("AA") subject to AA's promises in the (1) Checked Baggage
Policy, (2) E-ticket Confirmation Email, (3) booking confirmation
screen, (4) point of purchase, and/or (5) credit card
advertisements that their ticket would allow the passenger to check
a specified number of bags for free, who were required to pay to
check one or more such bags, during the period September 16, 2013,
to the present, and to appoint Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP,
and Mark A. Alexander, P.C. as counsel for the class pursuant to
Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

American Airlines, major American airline serving nearly 50
countries across the globe and a founding member of the one world
global alliance.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGu47O
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF &
          ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 964-9610
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Mark Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A. ALEXANDER, P.C
          5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 544-6968
          Facsimile: (972) 421-1500
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
          680 South Santa Fe Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (310) 575-9955
          Facsimile: (310) 575-9919
          E-mail: deblase@dbelegal.com
                  eyerly@dbelegal.com

AMERICAN FIRST: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for April 4, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrade, et al., v.
American First Finance, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06743 (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting
stipulation to adjust case schedule.

The Class Certification Motion Hearing is set for April 4, 2022
09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor before
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

The suit alleges violation of the Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act
involving consumer credit.

American First is a consumer financial technology company.[CC]

AMERICAN WATER: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Talbert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled ERIC H. TALBERT and JONATHAN BURDZY,
On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05010-JMG (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Jonathan Burdzy, a customer of New Jersey American Water
Company (NJAWC), discovered contaminants in the water supply of his
New Jersey home. So too did Plaintiff Eric Talbert, a Pennsylvania
resident and customer of Pennsylvania-American Water Company
(PAWC). Both now bring claims on behalf of themselves and a
putative nationwide class against NJAWC, PAWC, the holding company,
American Water Works Company, Inc. (AWWC), and its Tennessee
subsidiary, Tennessee American Water Company (TAWC). Talbert also
brings claims against all entities because of a house flood that he
suffered at the hands of a "water hammer"--a surge in water
pressure that can occur when, for example, a fire department shuts
down a nearby hydrant too quickly.

Before the Court are the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The
Defendants seek dismissal on several grounds, most of which the
Court finds persuasive. For the reasons explained in this
Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that: (1) the Plaintiffs lack
standing to sue TAWC; (2) the Plaintiffs also lack standing to
represent a nationwide class; (3) the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over NJAWC and AWWC; (4) the primary jurisdiction
doctrine warrants abstention on Count III; (5) Talbert's "water
hammer" claims are properly before the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission (PUC) in the first instance; and (6) Counts I and II do
not set forth cognizable claims. Accordingly, the Defendants'
motions are granted in part and denied in part.

Mr. Talbert's claims (specifically, Counts IV-V) also implicate the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC). PAWC initiated a
proceeding before the PUC during the pendency of this suit (the
"PUC Proceeding"). PAWC's petition asks the PUC to declare "that
[PAWC] complied with [the] Public Utility Code, PUC regulations and
orders, and the PAWC Tariff with respect to Mr. Talbert's
allegations in Counts Four and Five."

Discussion

Each community water system must provide to its customers an annual
report that details, among other things, the presence of
contaminants in the system. The data in these "Consumer Confidence
Reports" (CCRs) is collected according to certain standards.

Messrs. Talbert and Burdzy allege that the Defendants violated the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) by publishing misleading
CCRs. They also assert breach of contract and negligence claims
against all the Defendants.

In broad strokes, the Defendants respond that: (1) the Plaintiffs
lack standing; (2) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over NJAWC
and AWWC; (3) the Court should refer the Plaintiffs' claims to the
PADEP, NJDEP, or PUC on primary jurisdiction grounds; (4) the
Plaintiffs fail to state cognizable claims; and (5) the Court
should strike the class allegations.

The Defendants argue, among other things, that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to bring claims on behalf of a class against any entity
other than PAWC or NJAWC under the laws of any State other than
Pennsylvania or New Jersey." The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs
cannot assert claims under the laws of any state other than
Pennsylvania or New Jersey. The Plaintiffs respond that this issue
will have to wait until class certification.

But this proposal "would allow named plaintiffs in a proposed class
action, with no injuries in relation to the laws of certain states
referenced in their complaint, to embark on lengthy class discovery
with respect to injuries in potentially every state in the Union. .
. . That would present the precise problem that the limitations of
standing seek to avoid," District Judge John M. Gallagher opines,
citing In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., 260 F.R.D. 143, 155
(E.D. Pa. 2009).

The Court, therefore, declines to table this issue until class
certification. The Plaintiffs have suffered alleged injuries under
Pennsylvania and New Jersey law, so they do not have standing to
assert state law claims under the laws of any other states, Judge
Gallagher holds.

On the issue of personal jurisdiction, Judge Gallagher states that
the Defendants correctly argue that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over NJAWC. The Court cannot exercise general personal
jurisdiction over NJAWC because it is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business in New Jersey. Mr. Burdzy is the
only plaintiff with any connection to NJAWC, and his allegations
center on conduct that occurred entirely in New Jersey.

In sum, there is no indication that NJAWC directed any activities
toward Pennsylvania, Judge Gallagher notes. Rather, NJAWC does not
manufacture, distribute, sell, supply, or install any products in
Pennsylvania, and does not provide any other relevant services
within Pennsylvania. For this reason, Judge Gallagher dismisses
(without prejudice) all claims against NJAWC for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Similar logic compels dismissal of the claims against AWWC, Judge
Gallagher holds. The Court cannot exercise general personal
jurisdiction over AWWC because it is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in New Jersey. The Court also
cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over AWWC because it
does not perform any services in Pennsylvania; negotiate, enter
into, or perform contracts in Pennsylvania; manufacture,
distribute, sell, supply, or install any products in Pennsylvania;
or own, use, or possess any real property in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs' bare allegations--that AWWC is "an active
participant" in its Pennsylvania subsidiary's decision to omit from
water quality reports both regulated and unregulated
contaminants--do not pass muster, Judge Gallagher holds. He opines
that the Plaintiffs have not met this burden, so the Court
dismisses (without prejudice) all claims against AWWC for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

All that remain are the Plaintiffs' claims against PAWC. PAWC asks
that the Court dismisses or stays all of these claims on primary
jurisdiction grounds.

Four factors--called Baykeeper factors--determine whether the Court
should refer a matter to an administrative agency: (1) Whether the
question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges
or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within
the agency's particular field of expertise; (2) Whether the
question at issue is particularly within the agency's discretion;
(3) Whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent
rulings; and (4) Whether a prior application to the agency has been
made (Baykeeper v. NL Indus., 660 F.3d 686, 691 (3d Cir. 2011)).

On balance, the Baykeeper factors--particularly, the weighty first
and second factors--indicate that the Court should defer to the
primary jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on Count III. Counts I and II do
not require the PADEP's input.

PAWC contends that Counts IV and V should be stayed pending
resolution of the PUC Proceeding. The Court agrees. The Baykeeper
factors clearly support that conclusion. Accordingly, the first two
Baykeeper factors support application of the primary jurisdiction
doctrine.

The remaining Baykeeper factors point to the same outcome, Judge
Gallagher finds. PAWC has already applied to the PUC, and any
rulings the Court renders may conflict with those issued in the PUC
Proceeding. As a result, the third and fourth Baykeeper factors
weigh heavily in favor of applying the primary jurisdiction
doctrine. Overall, the Baykeeper factors indicate that the Court
should defer to the primary jurisdiction of the PUC on Counts IV
and V.

As to Counts I and II (as against PAWC), both fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, Judge Gallagher concludes.

As the Defendants correctly state, the complaint does not attach
any contract or identify any essential terms of a contract.
Instead, it alleges that the Plaintiffs entered into contracts in
the possession of the Defendants and that the Defendants owe the
duty of care under those contracts.

Judge Gallagher holds that these conclusory allegations do not
point to any specific and definite contract terms that were
violated in this case. For that reason, the Court cannot draw a
plausible inference that PAWC is liable for breach of contract.
Thus, the Court will dismiss Count II.

Given the Court's decision to stay the remainder of this case under
the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the Court will deny the
Defendants' request to strike the class allegations without
prejudice for the Defendants to renew the request once the stay is
lifted.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in
part and denied in part. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/h3span5v from
Leagle.com.


ARTLIST INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artlist, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Artlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05193
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

ArtList Inc. -- https://artlist.io/ -- provides online sale of fine
art. The Company offers film, style, hair, make up, and photography
arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSURED IMAGING: Amended Travis Suit Over Ransomware Attack Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants without
prejudice, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit titled Angela T
Travis, et al., Plaintiffs v. Assured Imaging LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CV-20-00390-TUC-JCH (D. Ariz.).

The case arises from a ransomware attack. On May 15, 2020, a
cyberattack launched from an Assured employee's email inbox allowed
malignant software to infect Assured's computer networks. From May
15 to May 17, 2020, Assured was unaware that its system was
compromised and the cyberthieves exfiltrated patient and other data
from Assured's system. On May 19, 2020, the Defendant realized that
its computer system was compromised when the nonparty actors
launched a targeted ransomware attack. The ransomware attack
disrupted Assured's computer network, leaving patient data stored
on its network encrypted and inaccessible for multiple days.

In August 2020, Assured notified potentially affected persons and
governmental agencies of the ransomware attack through a Notice of
Data Incident or a Notice of Data Breach.

Plaintiffs Angela T. Travis, Kerri G. Peters, Geraldine Pineda and
Rebecca Dawn Kelly-Hartnett all received medical services from
Assured. Each alleges providing Assured with personal identifying
information such as their name, address, phone number, email
address, medical history, demographic information, and insurance
information in the course of receiving services from Assured.

Each named Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach similar to
the Notice of Data Incident. The Notice of Data Breach sent to each
named Plaintiff states that their personal information was
"potentially accessed by the unknown actor." The words "and
acquired" contained in the Notice of Data Incident are not
contained in the Notice of Data Breach.

On Sept. 11, 2020, three Plaintiffs filed suit. On Oct. 30, 2020,
Assured filed a motion to dismiss. Instead of responding to
Assured's motion to dismiss, the three initial Plaintiffs and one
new plaintiff filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Thereafter, Assured filed the instant (second) motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges claims
of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of two
state laws. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons
whose personal information was compromised in the ransomware attack
and two subclasses of persons (one of Washington state residents
and one of New Mexico state residents) whose personal information
was compromised. The Plaintiffs claim damages as a result of: (1)
being placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased
risk of harm from fraud and identity theft; (2) facing substantial
risk of out-of-pocket fraud losses such as loans being opened in
their names, medical services billed in their names, tax return
fraud, utility bills opened in their names, credit card fraud, and
similar identity theft; (3) facing substantial risk of being
targeted for future phishing, data intrusion, and other illegal
schemes based on their Private Information as potential fraudsters
could use that information to target such schemes more effectively
to Plaintiffs and Class Members; (4) maybe also incurring
out-of-pocket costs for protective measures such as credit
monitoring fees, credit report fees, credit freeze fees, and
similar costs directly or indirectly related to the Ransomware
Attack; (5) suffering a loss of value of their Private Information
when it was acquired by cyberthieves in the Ransomware Attack; and
(6) overpaying for a service that was intended to be accompanied by
adequate data security but was not.

In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs
have failed to adequately allege an injury in fact for Article III
standing purposes. Assured contends that the Plaintiffs' claims are
replete with allegations about potential injuries that they or any
other putative class member might have suffered. It argues a
claimed risk of future identity fraud resulting from the ransomware
attack is insufficient to establish standing. It asserts that the
Plaintiffs' claimed mitigation and emotional distress injuries are
also insufficient to establish Article III standing. The Defendant
also argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pleading
standards.

District Judge John C. Hinderaker notes that the Plaintiffs' injury
in fact allegations can be separated into five categories: (1) an
increased risk of identity theft as a result of the ransomware
attack; (2) time and money spent on increased credit monitoring
post ransomware attack; (3) a loss of value in their private
information; (4) overpayment for Assured's services; and (5)
emotional distress and anxiety suffered after learning of the
ransomware attack.

The personal information potentially accessed was the Plaintiffs'
full name, address, date of birth, patient ID, facility, treating
clinician, medical history, service performed, and assessment of
service performed.

The Court is unconvinced that the Plaintiffs are at risk of a
certainly impending identity theft or fraud injury because their
full name, address, date of birth (along with the other identified
information) was potentially accessed in the ransomware attack. The
Court is not persuaded by the cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs.
For instance, the Plaintiffs rely upon In re Adobe Sys., Inc.
Privacy Litig., pointing out that case is similar to the instant
case on the grounds that the hackers stole the customer data.

While that was true in In re Adobe, that is not the case here based
on the Notice of Data Breach that each Plaintiff received, Judge
Hinderaker holds. Furthermore, the data in In re Adobe Sys., Inc.
Privacy Litig. included "names, login IDs, passwords, credit and
debit card numbers, expiration dates, and mailing and e-mail
addresses." The potentially accessed data here does not include
social security numbers, debit or credit card numbers, expiration
dates, attendant security codes or email addresses and passwords.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged that their personal information was stolen in the
ransomware attack. And, even if their personal information was
stolen, they have not shown that the personal information at issue
is sufficiently sensitive to give rise to an imminent or certainly
impending injury in fact for Article III standing purposes in data
breach cases.

As explained, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have failed
to sufficiently allege they are at an imminent risk of future harm
as a result of the ransomware attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
claimed injury from incurring mitigation costs is insufficient as a
matter of law to establish Article III standing.

Judge Hinderaker also finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
any facts explaining how their personal information became less
valuable as a result of the ransomware attack or that they
attempted to sell their personal information and could not because
of the ransomware attack.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are overpaying for a service that
was intended to be accompanied by adequate data security but was
not. Judge Hinderaker opines that they do not explain how the
ransomware attack impacted the value of the services they received
from Assured. Nor do they allege facts establishing that the price
they paid for the medical services they received incorporated an
amount that they understood to be allocated towards the cost of
protecting their personal information.

Plaintiffs Travis and Kelly-Hartnett contend the emotional
distress, anxiety and "lack of privacy" they allegedly suffered as
a result of the ransomware attack constitutes sufficient
injury-in-fact to confer standing. They rely on Shqeirat v. U.S.
Airways Group, Inc., 515 F.Supp.2d 984, 998 (D. Minn. 2007). The
Court finds Shqeirat distinguishable.

As pointed out by the Defendant, Shqeirat did not address Article
III standing, Judge Hinderaker notes. Rather, that case involved
individuals of Middle Eastern descent, who were ordered to deboard
a plane and subsequently arrested. They sued alleging they were
arrested in violation of their constitutional rights. One plaintiff
further alleged that his social security number, contained in a
police report, was publicly posted on the internet in violation of
a Minnesota state law and this event caused him to suffer fear and
anxiety that he may fall victim to identity fraud. The district
court held that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a
claim for damages under the Minnesota state law at issue.

This Court is not persuaded by Shqeirat and finds it
distinguishable.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to
sue because they have not satisfied the injury in fact requirement.
As such, the Court need not consider the Defendant's other
arguments for dismissal based on Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards.

The Court will grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice with leave to amend. Although the Court finds the
Plaintiffs do not have standing as currently pleaded, the Court
will permit amendment.

In permitting amendment, the Court points out that time passing
without harm actually occurring further undermines the claim that
the threat of harm is immediate, impending, or otherwise
substantial, see In re Zappos.com, Inc., 888 F.3d 958 (9th Cir.
2018). In this same vein, the Plaintiffs' allegations that there
may be a substantial lag measured in years between when harm occurs
versus when it is discovered, that stolen data may be held for up
to a year or more before being used to commit identity theft, and
that they are at an increased risk of fraud and identity theft for
many years into the future tends to relegate their claim that they
are at an imminent and immediate risk of future injury into the
realm of speculation.

For these reasons, the Court issued an order granting Assured
Imaging, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed
on Dec. 11, 2020, dismissing without prejudice the First Amended
Class Action Complaint, and denying as moot Assured Imaging, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss filed on Oct. 30, 2020. The Plaintiffs may file a
second amended complaint in accordance with the applicable Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fn3ubars from Leagle.com.

AUSTRALIA: Court Approves $1.8-Bil. Robodebt Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Jenkins, writing for The Mandarin, reports that federal
court judge Justice Bernard Murphy has slammed the commonwealth's
robodebt scheme, describing it as a 'massive failure of public
administration'.

Murphy on June 11 approved a settlement worth $1.8 billion for
hundreds of thousands of people who were wrongly issued with
Centrelink debts.

He found the commonwealth 'unlawfully asserted' at least $1.763
billion in debts against roughly 433,000 Australians between July
2015 and November 2019.

"Then, including through private debt collection agencies, the
commonwealth pursued people to repay these wrongly asserted debts,
and recovered approximately $751 million from about 381,000 of
them," Murphy said in his judgement.

"The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the
administration of the commonwealth social security system and a
massive failure of public administration."

He said the fact that many welfare recipients don't earn constant
income or work set hours 'should have been obvious' to the senior
public servants and ministers running the scheme.

"Where a social security recipient does not earn a constant
fortnightly wage, does not earn income every fortnight, or only
works for intermittent periods in a year, their notional or assumed
fortnightly income based on income averaging is unlikely to be the
same as their actual fortnightly income," he noted.

"It should have been plain that in such circumstances the automated
robodebt system may indicate an overpayment of social security
benefits when that was not in fact the case. Yet, in the absence of
further information from social security recipients, that is the
basis upon which the automated robodebt system raised and recovered
debts for asserted overpayments of social security benefits."

The class action has been led by Gordon Legal. As a result, the
commonwealth will -- without admission of liability -- pay $112
million in compensation to roughly 394,000 people, and refund more
than $751 million in debts.

More than $1.7 billion in financial benefit will have been provided
to approximately 430,000 group members since the class action
began, Gordon Legal noted.

The government has also agreed to drop claims for repayment of
hundreds of thousands of dollars in invalid debts.

The Community and Public Sector Union and the Australian Council of
Social Service have backed the federal court judgement.

CPSU national secretary Melissa Donnelly said union members working
in Centrelink were raising concerns about the scheme with the
department before it was rolled out.

"Had the department and the ministers responsible respected the
expertise and experience of their own workers and listened to what
they were saying, this 'shameful chapter' would never have
occurred," she said.

"Our members are experts; they are on the frontline of this work
every day. Had they been listened to at the outset, hundreds of
thousands of Australians would have been spared untold financial
and emotional stress.

"With the government continuing to initiate new schemes targeting
welfare recipients, like the recently launched employer dob-in
line, it is vital that it learns lessons from robodebt and takes
welfare policy seriously."

Gordon Legal and its clients were 'delighted' by the approved
settlement, according to Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech.

"We hope that this outcome brings peace of mind and some certainty
to all class action members and acts as a strong deterrent against
similar callous welfare practices for both present and future
governments," he said in a statement.

Shadow minister for the NDIS and government services Bill Shorten
said the settlement was the 'second-best option' for the victims of
the scheme.

"I think for the hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians
who were living on the edge in the margins and were unlawfully sued
by the government, I think what they really wanted is that the
government never behaved unlawfully to begin with," he told ABC
News. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Victims Say Settlement Won't Compensate Pain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Holmes, writing for The Examiner, reports that a family member
of a Tasmanian man who was hit with a $4000 robo-debt with little
explanation says the class action settlement in the matter would
not go far in compensating for the "hardship and anguish" suffered
by victims.

The Federal Court approved the $1.8 billion settlement, which makes
the government's agreement to repay $750 million to 381,000 people,
and to wipe all debts, legally binding.

It added $112 million in interest to share between 394,000 victims,
while 200,000 people from the class action would not receive
benefit from the settlement as their debts had been substantiated.

The government did not admit liability as part of the process.

Those who objected to the settlement have the power to opt-out and
pursue their own claims.

The interest amount comes to about $280-per-person, which has
attracted criticism from welfare advocates.

Linda Hannah, of Greens Beach, whose son-in-law experienced severe
mental health issues when he received a robo-debt notice - with the
amount changing several times - said it was difficult to put a
dollar amount on the pain that was caused.

"He just gave up with them, and has been paying it back for years.
He just said, 'if you're saying I owe it, then I must owe it'," she
said.

"How do you put a monetary figure on the anguish caused by this? It
doesn't in any way compensate for the hardship and anguish that it
caused."

His debt was raised as a result of work as a relief teacher when
his income varied widely week to week - a situation faced by many
robo-debt victims.

In approving the settlement, Justice Bernard Murphy described the
robo-debt scheme as a "shameful chapter" in the Commonwealth's
social security system as "a massive failure of public
administration".

Figures from Gordon Legal -- which ran the class action -- showed
about 15,000 Tasmanians were victims of the scheme, representing
3.75 per cent of the total. Tasmania has about 2 per cent of
Australia's population. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Mosson Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER MOSSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
3:21-cv-00743, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01095-LAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
contract, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the Electric Funds
Transfer Act by its failure to prevent criminals from breaching its
systems and stealing unemployment benefits of Employment
Development Department (EDD) cardholders.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association, with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         P. Terry Anderlini, Esq.
         Joseph M. Goethals, Esq.
         Jackson D. Morgus, Esq.
         ANDERLINI & MCSWEENEY LLP
         66 Bovet Road, Suite 285
         San Mateo, CA 94402
         Telephone: (650) 212-0001
         Facsimile: (650) 212-0081
         E-mail: jmorgus@amlawoffice.com
                 tanderlini@amlawoffice.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Oosthuizen Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN and ROSEMARY MATHEWS, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A. and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00615, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01088-LAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, and the
California Consumer Records Act by its failure to prevent
fraudulent access to the debit card accounts of Employment
Development Department (EDD) cardholders. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated EDD cardholders
suffered financial losses.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association, with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
          
         Michael Rubin, Esq.
         Matthew Murray, Esq.
         Connie Chan, Esq.
         ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
         177 Post St., Ste. 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 421-7151
         Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
         E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                 mmurray@altber.com
                 cchan@altber.com

                - and –

         Adam McNeile, Esq.
         Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
         KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
         42 Miller Ave., 3rd Floor
         Mill Valley, CA 94941
         Telephone: (415) 632-1900
         Facsimile: (415) 632-1901
         E-mail: adam@kbklegal.com
                 kristin@kbklegal.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Rodriguez Class Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
3:21-cv-00494, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01090-LAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
Consumer Privacy Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by its
failure to prevent fraudulent access to the debit card accounts of
Employment Development Department (EDD) cardholders. As a result,
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated EDD cardholders
suffered financial losses, the suit alleges.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association, with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         David. S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
         Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
         Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
         P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
         Catherine M. McBain, Esq.
         CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
         110 Laurel Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 238-1811
         Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
         E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                 gmb@cglaw.com
                 jrobinson@cglaw.com
                 camille@cglaw.com
                 kmcbain@cglaw.com

                - and –

         Jean S. Martin, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         E-mail: jmartin@ForThePeople.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT L. WILSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00699, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01087-LAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligent
performance of contract, negligent failure to warn, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy
Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by its failure to
prevent fraudulent access to the debit card accounts of Employment
Development Department (EDD) cardholders. As a result, the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated EDD cardholders
suffered financial losses.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association, with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Thomas E. Fraysse, Esq.
         Maisie C. Sokolove, Esq.
         Amanda M. Plowman, Esq.
         KNOX RICKSEN LLP
         2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 433-2500
         Facsimile: (925) 433-2505

BANK OF AMERICA: Yick Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER YICK, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00376, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01092-LAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligent
performance of contract, negligent failure to warn, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy
Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by its failure to
prevent fraudulent access to the debit card accounts of Employment
Development Department (EDD) cardholders. As a result, the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated EDD cardholders
suffered financial losses.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association, with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Brian Danitz, Esq.
         Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
         Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
         Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
                 nrahman@cpmlegal.com
                 akirtley@cpmlegal.com
                 jpeng@cpmlegal.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Judgment on Pleadings in Maddox Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SANDRA MADDOX, TOMETTA MADDOX HOLLEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
N.A., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 19-1774 (2d Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and remands the case for further proceedings.

Circuit Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Susan L. Carney wrote the
Opinion. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company ("BNY Mellon" or "the
Bank") appeals from an order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York (Richard Joseph Arcara, J.)
denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district
court held that Plaintiffs Sandra Maddox and Tometta Maddox Holley
(the "Maddoxes") have Article III standing to seek the statutory
damages from the Bank for its violations of New York's
mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes, N.Y. Real P. Law
("R.P.L.") Section 275, N.Y. Real P. Actions & Proc. L.
("R.P.A.P.L.") Section 1921.

The statutes require mortgage lenders to record satisfactions of
mortgage (also known as "certificates of discharge") within 30 days
of the borrower's repayment; a failure renders the lender "liable
to the mortgagor" for increasing statutory damages in amounts
dependent on the tardiness of the ultimate filing.

Here, the Bank did not record the satisfaction of the Maddoxes'
mortgage, in an amount of over $50,000, until almost eleven months
after full payment was received--almost ten months after the law
requires. The statutes make the lender liable to the mortgagor for
$1,500 upon a filing of satisfaction that is presented for filing
over 90 days after discharge. The Maddoxes sued to collect that
penalty and to represent a class of similarly wronged borrowers.

On review of the question certified for interlocutory
appeal--whether the Maddoxes have Article III standing to sue the
Bank for the statutory damages and other relief--the Appellate
Court holds, first, that the invasion of interests protected by
state law can support Article III standing, an issue that the Court
has not yet formally addressed.

Although not every state law violation may give rise to an Article
III injury in fact, the Supreme Court's teachings lead the Panel to
conclude that a state legislature, like Congress, may recognize
legal interests whose violation resembles wrongs traditionally
cognizable at common law such as to allow their vindication by
wronged persons in federal court, provided other requisites of
federal jurisdiction are met, Judges Pooler and Carney opine.

Next, the Appellate Court decides that the Maddoxes' complaint
supports a plausible inference that the Bank's violation both (1)
harmed their financial reputations during the nearly 10-month
period of the Bank's noncompliance with the 30-day filing deadline,
and, relatedly, (2) created a material risk of particularized harm
to them during that period by impairing their credit and limiting
their borrowing capacity.

According to the Opinion, these interests are protected by the
state's statutory timely filing requirements and its imposition of
a penalty payment obligation on the noncompliant bank to the
wronged borrower. They reflect the state legislature's judgment
that the interests are worthy of protection. The interests are
similar to those traditionally actionable at common law, where
defamation actions and slander of title suits gave victims
recourse.

Judges Pooler and Carney think these are most appropriately viewed
as substantive wrongs to the borrower and that no more than the
Bank's noncompliance is needed to support the Maddoxes' claim of
injury in fact.

But even if more is required for the Maddoxes to establish
standing, the Bank's failure to record the mortgage discharge also
posed a real risk of material harm to the Maddoxes because the
public record showed them for an extended time, falsely, as owing
more than $50,000 that they did not owe, which can reasonably be
inferred to have substantially restricted the Maddoxes' borrowing
capacity, Judges Pooler and Carney hold.

In sum, considering these particularized actual harms and risks of
harm and their general recognition in the common law, the Maddoxes
have Article III standing to pursue their claims. Accordingly, the
Appellate Court remands the case for further proceedings.

Background

On Oct. 6, 2000, sisters Sandra Maddox and Tometta Maddox Holley
entered into a mortgage loan with Aegis Mortgage Corporation ("the
Loan"). The mortgage and assignment were recorded with the Erie
County Clerk's Office. The mortgage encumbered the Maddoxes'
property at 149 Hampshire Street, in Buffalo, New York 14213 (the
"Property"). The Loan was later assigned to BNY Mellon. In
September 2014, the Maddoxes sold the Property to two individuals,
who are not parties to this suit.

On Oct. 5, 2014, the Loan was paid off and the debt discharged.
However, BNY Mellon failed to file a satisfaction of mortgage with
the Erie County Clerk's Office until nearly one year later on Sept.
22, 2015.

By its failure to record the discharge within 30 days of payment,
BNY Mellon violated New York's mortgage-satisfaction-recording
statutes, which require the mortgage lender, within 30 days of the
full repayment of the debt, to present a certificate of discharge
to the county clerk for filing.

On Dec. 15, 2015, approximately three months after BNY Mellon had
recorded the satisfaction, the Maddoxes brought a class action suit
against BNY Mellon for violation of New York's
mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes.

In late 2016, after the Supreme Court issued its decision Spokeo
Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), BNY Mellon moved to dismiss
on the pleadings for lack of standing. It argued--among other
things--that the Maddoxes lack Article III standing to pursue the
stated claim, asserting that the Maddoxes "suffered no actual
damages in relation to the alleged failure to record the
satisfaction" and therefore "failed to plead a concrete harm" under
Spokeo. Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., No. 15-cv-01053,
2017 WL 449962, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017) (Report and
Recommendation ("R&R")) (citing Bank's Memorandum). The Bank did
not dispute that the discharge was untimely filed.

The Maddoxes countered that the Bank's ten-month period of
noncompliance with the statute impaired access to accurate
financial information about them and created a false impression
about their credit status during this period. Because the right to
be free of these harms was recognized by the state legislature and
bears a strong relationship to harms traditionally actionable at
common law, the violations cause substantive harms and otherwise
create concrete injuries that endow the Maddoxes with standing to
seek remedies in federal court, they urged. The Maddoxes further
argued that the Bank's violation of the
mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes for an almost eleven-month
period (ten months later than the statutes permit without penalty)
caused them a sufficiently real risk of other concrete and
particularized harms--failure to obtain financing for other
properties and damage to personal credit, for example--that those
risks too gave rise to an injury in fact supporting their Article
III standing to sue.

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting
that the district court deny the motion to dismiss. The district
court accepted the recommendation and denied BNY Mellon's motion
for judgment on the pleadings (Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr.
Co., No. 15-cv-01053, 2018 WL 3544943, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 24,
2018)). It held that the Bank's violation was a "procedural
violation," and because the Bank's violation of the
mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes created a "material risk
of harm" to them, the Maddoxes' allegations of noncompliance by the
bank satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III
standing. Id. The district court reasoned that failure to timely
record a mortgage satisfaction could cloud title to real property,
inhibit sale of the property, and affect the mortgagor's credit.

At the same time, the district court took note of the Eleventh
Circuit's contrary decision in Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839
F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2017), reh'g en banc denied, 855 F.3d 1265
(2017), and a footnote in the Appellate Court's decision in Strubel
v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181, 194 n.15 (2d Cir. 2016), that cites
Nicklaw with apparent approval. It, accordingly, identified the
question as a close one and on that basis certified the question
for interlocutory appeal.

Discussion

Article III standing requires plaintiffs to show (1) an "injury in
fact," (2) a "causal connection" between that injury and the
conduct at issue, and (3) a likelihood "that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision," see Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The central question on appeal is
whether the Maddoxes have met the injury-in-fact requirement.

Judges Pooler and Carney find that state legislatures can create
"legally protected interests" whose violation satisfies Article
III's injury-in-fact requirement, and that the Maddoxes have
alleged injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III. They also
hold that the Bank's factual objections and counterarguments are
not persuasive.

BNY Mellon does not challenge the district court's conclusion that
violation of the New York mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes
exposes a mortgagor to harms, such as clouding title, which can
encumber the property or hinder the mortgagor's ability to sell it,
or by adversely affecting the mortgagor's credit, which can make it
difficult for the mortgagor to obtain financing. Rather, BNY Mellon
contends that the Maddoxes neither suffered actual harm nor faced a
material risk of harm because the procedural violations at issue
were remedied months before the Maddoxes brought suit and the
Maddoxes sold their property while the mortgage still encumbered
it. As such, BNY Mellon argues that the Maddoxes have alleged
nothing more than a bare procedural violation, which is
insufficient on its own. Its arguments fail to persuade us, Judges
Pooler and Carney opine.

Judges Pooler and Carney also hold, among other things, that the
Maddoxes have satisfied the requirement that in addition to a
concrete injury, to support their Article III standing the Maddoxes
must also allege that they have suffered a harm that is particular
to themselves, and not just that the Bank has harmed the public
interest. The shadow that BNY Mellon's failure to record cast on
the Maddoxes' credit record created a real risk of financial harm
that affected the Maddoxes "in a personal and individual way" is
sufficient to establish a "particularized" injury.

Because the Maddoxes have satisfactorily alleged that they suffered
an injury to a legally protected interest that is both concrete and
particularized to them and actual, not speculative, they have
established an injury in fact sufficient to support Article III
standing, Judges Pooler and Carney conclude.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Judges Pooler and Carney affirmed the district
court's order denying BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and remand the case for further proceedings.

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented. He notes that the single
claim in this case is for the $1,500 penalty that New York allows
an individual to collect from a bank if it delays the filing of a
satisfaction of mortgage. The Plaintiffs are claiming that such a
delay ensued after they paid off their mortgage at the time they
sold their house. He states that he respectfully dissents because
the claim does not support the jurisdictional requisite of concrete
injury.

Judge Jacobs writes that he agrees with the majority opinion to the
extent that a state legislature can create a legal interest that
would support Article III standing when violated, but only if a
plaintiff's resulting harm or risk of harm would amount to a
concrete injury. Here, he adds, among other things, the New York
legislature has not done so: the harm of late filing befalls the
system of recordation. The majority glides over this point, as well
as the obvious point that sellers Sandra Maddox and Tometta Maddox
Holley suffered neither the harm nor risk of harm required for
concrete injury. In doing so, the majority concededly creates a
circuit split, he opines citing Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 839
F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016).

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sjxk9mpu from Leagle.com.

SETH R. LESSER, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, in Rye Brook, New York,
for Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox, et al.

ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Maddox, et al.

CHARLES MARSHALL DELBAUM -- cdelbaum@nclc.org -- National Consumer
Law Center, in Boston, Massachusetts (on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox, et al.

William Alvarado Rivera -- warivera@aarp.org -- Julie Nepveu --
jnepveu@aarp.org -- AARP Foundation, in Washington, D.C., and Brian
L. Bromberg , Joshua Tarrant-Windt , Bromberg Law Office, P.C., in
New York City, for AARP, AARP Foundation, and National Association
for Consumer Advocates, amici curiae in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox et al.

JONATHAN M. ROBBIN -- JRobbin@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, in
New York City, for Defendant-Appellant Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Canjar Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON J. CANJAR D/B/A YEDINAK REGISTERED HOLSTEINS,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER
CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL
INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD
SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES
LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT
AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00181, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00669-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially
high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject
to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Robert L. King, Esq.
         Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
         Jamie Boyer, Esq.
         Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
         505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 241-4844
         Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
         E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
                 stillery@koreintillery.com
                 jboyer@koreintillery.com
                 cokeefe@koreintillery.com

                 - and –

         George A. Zelcs, Esq.
         John Libra, Esq.
         Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
         Jonathon Byrer, Esq.
         Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
         205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 641-9750
         Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
         E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                 jlibra@koreintillery.com
                 rewing@koreintillery.com
                 jbyrer@koreintillery.com
                 rcortazar@koreintillery.com

                 - and –

         Marc Edelson, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         E-mail: Medelson@edelson-law.com

                 - and –

         Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
         CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
         730 Main Street
         Moosic, PA, 18507
         Telephone: (570) 342-9999
         Facsimile: (570) 457-1533
         E-mail: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Carlson Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled B. CARLSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00475, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00666-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially
high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject
to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                 brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                 alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com

                 - and –

         Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
         Scottsdale, AZ 85254
         Telephone: (480) 348-6415
         E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JSB FARMS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CARGILL
INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD
SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO- OPERATIVES
LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK
FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-01333 (D. Minn., July 3, 2021) alleges violation
of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
artificially increase and fix the price of Crop Inputs, ranging
from seeds to crop protection chemicals such as pesticides (e.g.,
herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) used by farmers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants established a secretive
distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at
supracompetitive levels. In furtherance of their conspiracy,
Defendants also denied farmers access to relevant market
information, including transparent pricing terms, that would allow
comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions, as
well as information about seed relabeling practices that would
enable farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or
identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a
higher price.

Beginning at least as early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales
platforms offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to view
what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs, increasing
price transparency. These online sales platforms, including Farmers
Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., were successful and in
high demand with farmers. Viewing this success and the ability of
such online sales platforms to impact the market position and price
control of the traditional agricultural wholesale and retail
distribution, Defendants conspired and coordinated to boycott these
online Crop Inputs sales platforms, the suit added.

The Defendants' boycott succeeded. As a result of the Defendants'
alleged anticompetitive conduct, online Crop Inputs sales
platforms, such as FBN and AgVend, were unable to purchase
Defendants' Crop Inputs to sell them on their platforms. Because
Defendants are the dominant manufactures and sellers of Crop
Inputs, this was a devastating blow to these sales platforms and
directly harmed farmers in taking away a lower cost option for
purchasing these Crop Inputs.

Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The
Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides,
traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               -and-

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Anna-Patrice Makeba Harris, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  aharris@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Flaten Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAN FLATEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00404, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00663-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially
high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject
to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

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

                 - and –

         Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
         Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
         PAUL LLP
         601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (816) 984-8100
         Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
         E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Handwerk Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RANDI HANDWERK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00351, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00662-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially
high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject
to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, says the suit.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

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

                 - and –

         Anne T. Regan, Esq.
         Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
         HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
         8050 West 78th Street
         Edina, MN 55439
         Telephone: (952) 941-4005
         Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
         E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                 nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
         Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
         Karin B. Swope, Esq.
         Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
         James G.B. Dallal, Esq.
         Reid W. Gaa, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 kswope@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 jdallal@cpmlegal.com
                 rgaa@cpmlegal.com

                 - and –

         Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
         Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
         Frank T. Davis, Esq.
         Josh B. Ewing, Esq.
         FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
         20 First Plaza, Suite 700
         Albuquerque, NM 87102
         Telephone: (505) 305-1263
         E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com
                 vwj@fbdlaw.com
                 ftd@fbdlaw.com
                 jbe@fbdlaw.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pfaff Consumer Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEON PFAFF, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00462, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00665-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are allegedly forced to continue paying
artificially high prices for crop inputs purchased from local
retailers subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

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

                 - and –

         Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
         Samantha L. Greenberg, Esq.
         KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 2110
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 784-1442
         E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com
                 sgreenberg@kmllp.com

                 - and –

         Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
         Mark R. Miller, Esq.
         Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
         WEXLER WALLACE LLP
         55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 346-2222
         E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                 mjm@wexlerwallace.com

                 - and –

         Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
         Christopher V. Le, Esq.
         STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
         4041 University Drive, Suite 500
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (703) 764-8700
         E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
                 cle@straus-boies.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Piper Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARBARA PIPER, as Executrix of the Estate of
MICHAEL PIPER, Deceased, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00021, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00668-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. They have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
         Jamie Boyer, Esq.
         Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
         505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 241-4844
         Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
         E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                 jboyer@koreintillery.com
                 cokeefe@koreintillery.com

                 - and –

         George A. Zelcs, Esq.
         John Libra, Esq.
         Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
         Jonathon Byrer, Esq.
         Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
         205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 641-9750
         Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
         E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                 jlibra@koreintillery.com
                 rewing@koreintillery.com
                 jbyrer@koreintillery.com
                 rcortazar@koreintillery.com

                 - and –

         Vincent Briganti, Esq.
         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
         44 South Broadway
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
         E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com
                 rstlouis@lowey.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Ryan Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN BROS., INC., and MICHAEL J. RYAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE
LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED;
BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC;
UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.;
NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT
AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00433, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00664-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially
high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject
to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
          
         Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
         Anne T. Regan, Esq.
         Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
         HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
         8050 West 78th Street
         Edina, MN 55439
         Telephone: (952) 941-4005
         Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
         E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
                 aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                 nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Drew R. Ball, Esq.
         Steve McCann, Esq.
         BALL & McCANN, P.C.
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (872) 205-6556
         E-mail: Drew@BallMcCannLaw.com
                 Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com

BEAUVINCE JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauvince Jewelry
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Beauvince Jewelry Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05276 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Beauvince Jewelry -- https://beauvince.com/ -- caters to diamond
aficionados aiming to create and deliver bespoke and custom fine
diamond jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLOCK.ONE: Settles Class Action Over EOS ICO for $27.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnab Shome, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that Block.one,
the issuer of the EOS token, announced that the company has agreed
to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against its initial coin
offering (ICO) by paying $27.5 million.

The lawsuit was brought against the blockchain company by the
Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund.

"Block.one believes this lawsuit was without merit and filled with
numerous inaccuracies. However, accepting this settlement allows us
to focus more time and energy on running our business and
delivering new products," Block.one said in its official
statement.

Both the parties are now awaiting court approval to initiate the
payments for the settlement.

The Largest ICO
Block.one raised around $4 billion in its year-long ICO that
spanned between June 2017 and June 2018. In addition, it has become
one of the largest ICOs for the development of a blockchain
project.

However, the project's token sale attracted many controversies as
it faced multiple class-action lawsuits with allegations of selling
unregistered securities and also for artificially inflating the
token price.

The US court last year combined all such class-action lawsuits
against Block.one, making Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund the lead
plaintiff.

Moreover, the blockchain company faced the wrath of the US
regulators as it faced an investigation by the US securities market
regulator for its token being a potential unregistered security.
However, those charges were settled last year against a fine of $24
million.

The latest settlement between Block.one and the lead plaintiff was
driven to 'avoid the distraction, costs and risks of further
litigation. Nonetheless, the two parties are still reportedly in
disagreement over the extent of liability and damages for the
recoverable amount. [GN]

BOBBLEHEADS.COM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bobbleheads.com. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bobbleheads.com, Case No. 1:21-cv-05249
(S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Bobbleheads -- https://www.bobbleheads.com/ -- offers premium
quality bobblehead collectibles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOUNKIT JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bounkit Jewelry
Design, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Bounkit Jewelry Design,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05275 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Bounkit -- https://bounkit.com/ -- is a jewelry brand based in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Suros Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Jones Suros, and similarly situated persons v. CALIFORNIA
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV20589 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2021), is brought to redress
Defendants' unlawful employment practices, including the
Defendants' unlawful sexual harassment of the Plaintiff, failure to
prevent and remedy such unlawful harassment, in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), retaliation
against the Plaintiff for raising complaints regarding workplace
harassment, safety concerns, and pay discrimination issues, and for
violations of the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, between early 2019 and the end of the
Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff experienced repeated
harassment and intimidation from a female employee by the name of
Marcy Deleon. This included, but was not limited to, Ms. Deleon
violently approaching Plaintiff in the workplace, Ms. Deleon
rubbing up against the Plaintiff in the workplace without
Plaintiff's consent, Ms. Deleon following the Plaintiff around in
her workplace, and Ms. Deleon threatening to physically attack the
Plaintiff. This occurred in the presence of the Defendants'
supervisory officials, including a man by the name of Larry, and
made the Plaintiff feel extremely unsafe and uncomfortable in her
workplace. The Plaintiff raised her safety and harassment concerns
to Defendants' managerial officials on multiple occasions,
including in the days preceding the termination of her employment
in June 2019, with no corrective action being taken.

In addition, the Plaintiff raised complaints about a less
experienced and less senior male employee (who she personally
trained) by the name of William Serpas receiving more compensation
than her, with no apparent explanation other than her gender for
the pay disparity. Ultimately, after the Plaintiff raised her
various concerns about illegal workplace activity to the
Defendants' supervisory and managerial officials, the Defendants
terminated the Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for her doing
so. The Defendants' conduct was knowing, malicious, willful and
wanton and/or showed a reckless disregard for the Plaintiff, which
has caused and continues to cause the Plaintiff to suffer
substantial economic and non-economic damages, permanent harms to
her professional and personal reputations, and severe mental
anguish and emotional distress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former hourly employee of Defendants from August
2013 to June 21, 2019 and most recently held a funeral services
assistant director position.

California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          SMITH & BENOWITZ
          4515 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 302
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818)839-7800
          Facsimile: (818)839-9700
          Email: Louis@SmithBenowitz.com


CANADA: Court Hears Arguments in First Nations Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that lawyers arguing on behalf of First
Nations children and youth unnecessarily taken from their families
by an underfunded and discriminatory child-welfare system say
Canada harmed these kids, but is "shamefully" trying to avoid
paying for its wrongs.

But even while federal officials insist they believe these children
should be compensated, their lawyers argue the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal's decision was based on "seriously flawed
reasoning" when it awarded $40,000 to each Indigenous child and
their parents and grandparents after being separated by the foster
system.

Opposing arguments were heard in Federal Court on June 14 on the
first of five days of hearings in the case, which are taking place
virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government's lawyer, Robert Frater, told Federal Court
Justice Paul Favel the government contends the tribunal's award was
far too broad and sweeping.

Frater argues the tribunal did not have the authority to award
individual damages because it did not hear any evidence or
testimony from children or their families to justify individual
compensation.

"The compensation decision was inconsistent with the nature of the
complaint, the particulars to that complaint and the evidence, and
thus exceeded the tribunal's limited statutory jurisdiction," he
told the court.

"There are many examples of irrationality in the tribunal's
reasoning process. Seriously flawed reasoning led to unreasonable
outcomes."

He also argues the tribunal's decision to award its maximum amount
possible does not take into account that some children may have
suffered more harm than others.

But Sarah Clarke, one of a team of lawyers representing the First
Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which filed the original
complaint over 14 years ago, focused her arguments on the children
at the heart of the case and on policies and practices the tribunal
has ruled were highly discriminatory -- an argument Ottawa does not
contest.

In a 2016 CHRT ruling on the merits of the case, the tribunal noted
that Canada's funding formula for Indigenous child-welfare
"provided an incentive to remove children from their homes as a
first resort rather than a last resort," Clarke said.

Agencies did not allow workers to deliver actual services based on
needs of First Nations families and were provided with insufficient
funding to do their work, the CHRT found in 2016.

"While this underfunding has massive and complicated impacts on the
entire system, which again the tribunal did an excellent job of
articulating, at the level of the child … Canada's discriminatory
conduct meant that they were denied services that could have kept
them safely at home," Clarke told the court.

"Instead, they were removed and they were never given that
chance."

Clarke argues it was the systemic discrimination of the policies
and practices themselves, based on the fact these children were of
a different race, that warranted the tribunal's award — not the
individual harms suffered by each child.

The tribunal's September 2019 ruling said Ottawa "wilfully and
recklessly" discriminated against Indigenous children living
on-reserve by not properly funding child and family services.

As a result, children were sent away from their homes, families and
reserves because if they lived off-reserve, they would be covered
by better-funded provincial systems. Others were removed from their
families because authorities couldn't provide supports to help keep
them together.

Another of Ottawa's arguments is that the human-rights tribunal
"erred in law" by "improperly" turning the case into a class action
by awarding individual compensation. Frater argues the tribunal did
not have the authority to award individual damages.

Clarke disputes this, saying the tribunal's ruling was grounded in
solid legal principles and human rights law.

"There is no legal foundation or policy reason to deny the
tribunal's jurisdiction to award compensation to the children in
this case. Canada's arguments in this regard are not about
advancing the rights of First Nations children, or protecting the
rights of victims," she said.

"Instead, these arguments reflect a shameful strategy aimed at
saving money at the expense of First Nations children and families
across the country."

Ottawa instead wants to compensate these children and their
families through a settlement in two separate but related
class-action lawsuits, which Indigenous Services Minister Marc
Miller says could lead to higher compensation paid to those who
suffered the greatest harms.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said the human rights tribunal's rulings
are a bare minimum when it comes to rectifying the damages
inflicted on Indigenous children.

"The fact that the Liberal government wants to fight the bare
minimum, wants to spend millions of dollars fighting a decision
from one of the highest tribunals respecting human rights in
Canada, really shows their lack of commitment," he told reporters
in Ottawa on June 14.

He is calling on to government comply with the tribunal's orders,
and if additional damages are warranted -- as Ottawa has argued --
the government can cover them later.

Further arguments were set be heard on June 15 from the Caring
Society and from the Assembly of First Nations, which is one of a
large group of Indigenous and human rights organization
participating on the case. [GN]

CHELSEA JEWISH: Dee Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Barbara Dee, by and through her Durable Power of
Attorney, George Dee, and on behalf of Ms. Dee and all others
similarly situated v. Chelsea Jewish North Shore Assisted Living,
Inc., Case No. 19-03982 was removed from the Suffolk Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on June 11, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-10980-NMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Chelsea Jewish Lifecare -- https://chelseajewish.org/ --
consistently provides high-quality, compassionate care, while
focusing on the development of innovative programs and services
that enable individuals to live as independently as possible.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Paul F.X. Yasi, Esq.
          YASI & YASI, P.C.
          Two Salem Green
          Salem, MA 01970
          Phone: (978) 741-0400
          Email: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com
                 paul@yasiandyasi.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph M. Desmond, Esq.
          Kevin W. Buono, Esq.
          MORRISON MAHONEY LLP
          250 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 439-7500
          Fax: (617) 342-4935
          Email: jdesmond@morrisonmahoney.com
                 kbuono@morrisonmahoney.com


CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 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 Northern District
of Alabama against Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE: CCIV) ("CCIV")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired CCIV securities
between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
CCIV securities 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/churchill-capital-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill

CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose
acquisition company. Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid") is
an American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of
2020, Lucid's first car, Lucid Air, is in development.

The Class Period commences on January 11, 2021, when Bloomberg News
reported that Lucid "is in talks to go public through a merger with
one of Michael Klein's special purpose acquisition companies,
according to people familiar with the matter." Michael Klein
launched CCIV in April 2020 and raised $2,070,000,000 in CCIV's
initial public offering. It was rumored that Lucid was merging with
CCIV. On February 16, 2021, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer, Peter
Rawlinson, appeared on Fox Business News with Neil Cavuto touting
that Lucid was aiming for a spring delivery of its first vehicles.

On Monday, February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement
between CCIV and Lucid was announced. CCIV and Lucid's transaction
equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. However, at 6:22 p.m.
that same night, Ed Ludlow of Bloomberg News reported that Mr.
Rawlinson announced that production of its debut car will be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle.

Following this news, CCIV's stock price fell from a close of $57.37
per share on February 22, 2021, to a close of $35.21 per share on
February 23, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of CCIV's
business, operations and financial condition.

CCIV 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 [GN]

CIGNA HEALTH: August 11 Deadline to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY NEUFELD, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-01693-KAD
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
resetting the deadline for them to file their Reply Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to August 11,
2021.

The Plaintiffs say that the current deadline for them to file their
Reply Memorandum in Support Class Certification is July 8, 2021,
which is 31 days after the Opposition was filed. The Plaintiffs
have conferred with the Defendant about deposing Dr. Kessler and Dr
May and have been informed that they are available to be deposed on
June 29 and July 1 respectively.

The Plaintiffs contend that they need to work with their experts to
review the May and Kessler reports and respond to their analyses
and opinions, they request that the Court extend the deadline to
submit the Reply by 34 days -- moving the deadline from July 8,
2021 to August 11, 2021, which is 65 days after the opposition was
filed. Because the Defendant had had 84 days to prepare its
Opposition and because they need additional time to review and
analyze the reports and potentially depose Dr. Kessler and Dr. May.
They believe there is good cause for this extension, the Plaintiffs
add.

This case concerns a putative class action in which Plaintiffs
assert claims under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) related to healthcare services provided through Defendant
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company's arrangement with
CareCentrix, Inc.

On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.

Cigna, a global health service company, offers health, pharmacy,
dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare plans to individuals,
families, and businesses.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gB95N3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Meghan Oliver, Esq.
          Charlotte Loper, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9492
          E-mail: moliver@motleyrice.com
                  cloper@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Evans Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Margaret Evans, Tonya Allison, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Client Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00477 (M.D.N.C., June 11, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: sharris@milberg.com


COFFEE HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Brodsky & Diamond Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Eileen Brodsky
and Rhonda Diamond, is pending.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on or about December 21, 2020.

The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond, purporting to
represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products at
Aldi, Inc., a supermarket chain, generally allege that Aldi sold
private label coffee products manufactured by the Company and
another coffee roasting company, which falsely described the number
of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product
purchased. Aldi and Pan American are also named as defendants in
the action.

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under New York and
California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other
forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient,
and the company intends to vigorously defend the action.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff has
sought leave to file an amended complaint.

Coffee Holding said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."

Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.


COFFEE HOLDING: Continues to Defend Cohen Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company's customer
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by David
Cohen, of which the company agreed to indemnify.

A significant customer of the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 2,
2021, concerning the labeling on private label coffee productions
the company sold to the customer.

The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a class of
individuals who purchased coffee products from our customer,
generally allege that the customer sold private label coffee
products manufactured by the Company which falsely described the
number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of
product purchased.

The Company is not named as a defendant in the action, but has
agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses
incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability the
customer may suffer as a result.

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts
consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as
well as other forms of relief including class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient,
and intends to vigorously support the customer in defending the
action.

Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.


COHERENT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COHERENT, INC., JAY T. FLATLEY, PAMELA
FLETCHER, ANDREAS W. MATTES, BEVERLY KAY MATTHEWS, MICHAEL R.
MCMULLEN, GARRY W. ROGERSON, STEVE SKAGGS, and SANDEEP VIJ,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-04505 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false
and misleading proxy statement, which recommends Coherent
stockholders to approve the proposed acquisition of Coherent by
II-VI Incorporated through II-VI's subsidiary Watson Merger Sub
Inc., with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
proxy statement is materially deficient and misleading because,
inter alia, it allegedly fails to disclose material information
regarding: (i) Coherent's and II-VI's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by the board's financial advisors,
BofA Securities, Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; and
(ii) BofA's and Credit Suisse's potential conflicts of interest.
The omissions and false and misleading statements in the proxy are
material in that a reasonable stockholder would consider them
important in deciding how to vote on the proposed transaction or
seek to exercise their appraisal rights.

Coherent, Inc. is a company that manufactures and supports laser
equipment and components, with its principal executive offices
located at 5100 Patrick Henry Drive, Santa Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 208-2800
         Facsimile: (310) 209-2348

                 - and –

         Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 682-3025
         Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

                 - and –

         Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
         BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
         810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 860-9158
         Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
         E-mail: raymond@bespc.com

COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Cortes Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YAZMIN CORTES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC. and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2108718, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04771 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages each period, failure to
timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to provide safe and healthful working
conditions, and unfair and unlawful competition.

Communications Test Design, Inc. is a provider of telecommunication
solutions, headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         James E. Hart, Esq.
         Leah E. Peterson, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 705-3000
         Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
         E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                 lwhitehead@littler.com

CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE PASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CONCENTRA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-02559-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on August 20, 2021, to enter an order
certifying the following Classes which are derived from Concentra's
alleged sources of contact information:

   -- Class One: All persons who subscribed to a cellular
telephone
      number contained in the Messages Tab in Concentra's Textedly

      Call Log and whose cellular telephone number is contained on

      a Healthy Recruiting List.

   -- Class Two: All persons in Class One plus all persons who
      subscribed to a cellular telephone number contained in the
      Messages Tab in Concentra's Textedly Call Log and whose
      cellular telephone numbers are contained on the files of
      Concentra.

   -- Class Three: All persons in Class One and Class Two plus all

      persons who subscribed to a cellular telephone number
      contained in the Messages Tab in Concentra's Textedly Call
      Log and whose cellular telephone numbers are contained on the

      files of Concentra.

      Class Four: All persons who subscribed to a cellular
      telephone number contained in the Messages Tab in
Concentra’s
      Textedly Call Log.

Concentra is a nationwide provider of occupational health and
physical therapy services. For recruiting purposes, Concentra used
a telecommunications platform called Textedly to send text messages
intended for thousands of healthcare professionals.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cJ8Tub at no extra
charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated, are:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          Javitch Law Office
          480 S. Ellsworth Ave
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

CONGRESS COLLECTION: Echols Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Congress Collection, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Tracey Echols, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Congress Collection, LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-11402-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., June 14,
2021).

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

Congress Collection -- https://www.congresscollection.com/ -- is a
collection agency located in Farmington Hills, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


COOTEK CAYMAN: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
CooTek (Cayman) Inc. ("CooTek" or the "Company") (NYSE: CTK). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

In September 2018, CooTek conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), issuing 4.35 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
priced at $12.00 per ADS.  

Then, on December 15, 2020, CooTek announced its unaudited
financial results for the third quarter of 2020.  CooTek disclosed
an operating loss of $1.1 million, which the Company stated "mainly
relates to compensation payment to victims of alleged misconducts
of certain third-party advertisers perpetrated on the Group's
platform that the Group deposited to an escrow account controlled
by a local authority conducting investigation on the advertisers."


On this news, CooTek's ADS price fell $1.99 per ADS, or 31.44%, to
close at $4.34 per ADS on December 15, 2020.

Then, on June 3, 2021, CooTek announced its unaudited financial
results for the first quarter of 2021.  CooTek disclosed, among
other results, non-GAAP earnings per share of –$0.18, missing
consensus estimates by $0.02.

On this news, CooTek's ADS price fell $0.28 cents per share, or
13.59%, to close at $1.78 per share on June 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]

CREDIT PROS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Warren Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA WARREN, v. THE
CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No.
3:20-cv-00763-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge Timothy J.
Corrigan entered an order that:

   1. Defendant Credit Pros' motion to dismiss for lack of subject
      matter jurisdiction is denied.

   2. The Plaintiff Warren's Motion to Amend Case Management and
      Scheduling Order is granted in part and denied in part:

      a. The parties' deadline for completing discovery shall be
         extended by ninety days to October 28, 2021.

      b. Plaintiff Warren shall file a motion for class
         certification no later than November 19, 2021. Defendant
         Credit Pros shall file its response no later than December

         17, 2021.

      c. The remaining deadlines set in the case management and
         scheduling order are vacated. The Court will reset those
         deadlines in a subsequent order.

   3. The Plaintiff Warren's First Amended Class Action Complaint
      is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. No later

      than June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Warren shall file a second
      amended complaint. No later than July 9, 2021, Defendant
      Credit Pros shall file its Answer or a motion to dismiss. If

      Credit Pros files a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff Warren
      shall file a response no later than July 23, 2021.

This case came before the Court on June 9, 2021 for a telephone
hearing on Defendant The Credit Pros International Corporation's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff Victoria Warren's First Amended Class
Action Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
Plaintiff Warren's Motion to Amend Case Management and Scheduling
Order, the record of which is incorporated by reference.

A copy of the Court's orderdated June 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vudgzM at no extra charge.[CC]


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CrossCountry
Mortgage, LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing
Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-04531-DMR (N.D.
Cal., June 11, 2021).

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

CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC -- https://crosscountrymortgage.com/ --
is a full service mortgage lender headquartered in Brecksville,
Ohio and licensed in 50 states..[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: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY SALONE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S.,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00414-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
      action under Section 216(b) against the Defendants;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      FLSA claims is sent by U.S. mail and email to:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt maintenance
      employees of any Cushman & Wakefield entity who worked at
      least 40 hours in any workweek and had a meal deduction
      applied to their compensable hours worked during the three
      years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing
      through the final disposition of this case."

   3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;

   4. directing the Defendants to provide, within 14 days of an
      order granting conditional certification, a Roster of all
      persons who fit the definition of the class that includes
      their full names, their dates of employment, their locations

      worked, job titles, their last known home addresses, and
      their personal email addresses; and

   5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to Join

      forms be sent to such present and former employees within 14

      days of receipt of the Roster using the Putative Class
      Members' home and email addresses.

Cushman & Wakefield plc is a global commercial real estate services
firm.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gzylmN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

DEBTSY INC: Hollingsworth Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debtsy, Inc. The case
is styled as Jacquelyn Hollingsworth, Jeffrey Eubanks, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Debtsy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00479 (M.D.N.C., June 11,
2021).

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

Debtsy -- https://www.debtsy.com/ -- develops a data-driven
platform offers end-to-end resolution services for your delinquent
and charged-off consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: sharris@milberg.com


DOLLAR TREE: Magpali Files Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores.
The case is styled as Misty Magpali, on behalf of Herself and all
other similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, a Virginia
Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
June 14, 2021).

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

Dollar Tree -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- formerly known as
Only $1.00 is an American chain of discount variety stores that
sells items for $1 or less.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun A. Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway Fl. 19
          San Diego, CA 92101-5047
          Phone: 619-325-0492
          Fax: 619-325-0496
          Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


EL TORO LOCO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL TORO LOCO CHURRASCARIA 8ST.
LLC; EL TORO LOCO CHURRASCARIA LLC; MARA ESPINOSA; JESSICA
GONZALEZ; and ALDO ESPINOSA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-22062-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2021) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Gutierrez was employed by the Defendants as takeout
dispatcher.

EL TORO LOCO CHURRASCARIA 8ST. LLC owns and operates a restaurant
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
          JARA LAW FIRM
          13876 SW 56 Street, Suite 262
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (305) 372-0290
          E-mail: Franklin@JaraLaw.com

ENSITE USA: Faces Brown Suit Over Chief Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA GIVENS BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00380-BJB (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated chief inspectors
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Ms. Brown has been employed by EnSite as a chief inspector from in
or around January 2014 through the present in Louisville,
Kentucky.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00386-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated utility inspectors,
chief inspectors, and materials coordinators overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Townsend was employed by EnSite as a utility inspector, chief
inspector and/or materials coordinator from in or around April 2016
through December 2016 in Louisville, Kentucky.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Fleming Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD FLEMING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00382-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated general, senior
welding, and/or gas inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Fleming has been employed by EnSite as a general inspector,
senior welding inspector, and/or gas inspector from in or around
May 2015 through the present in Louisville, Kentucky and West
Virginia.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Improperly Pays Inspectors, Groves Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROGER DALE GROVES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00383-GNS (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated utility, senior,
gas inspectors and/or general inspectors overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Groves has been employed by EnSite as a utility inspector,
senior inspector, gas inspector and/or general inspector from in or
around April 2015 through the present in Louisville, Kentucky as
well as locations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP RAY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00384-GNS (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pipeline and gas
inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

Mr. Miller was employed by EnSite as a pipeline inspector and/or
gas inspector from in or around November 2017 through December 2019
in Louisville, Kentucky and Texas.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Underpays Utility and Chief Inspectors, Cunningham Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00381-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated utility and chief
inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

Mr. Cunningham was employed by EnSite as a utility inspector from
in or around July 2018 through December 2019 and a chief inspector
from in or around November 2019 through the present in Louisville,
Kentucky.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Wells Sues Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00387-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated chief inspectors
and lead welding inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Wells was employed by EnSite as a chief inspector and/or lead
welding inspector from in or around April 2016 through October 2016
in Indiana and Kentucky.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENSITE USA: Zingg Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Gas Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD ZINGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00388-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated gas and chief
inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

Mr. Zingg has been employed by EnSite as a gas inspector and/or
chief inspector from in or around April 2016 through the present in
Louisville, Kentucky.

EnSite USA, Inc. is a full-service pipeline management company,
with its principal executive office located at 3100 S. Gessner Ste.
400, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Richard J. Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza #3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and –

         Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
         Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that there are 13 remaining
state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect customers
against Ferrellgas, L.P.

Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a
competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple
jurisdictions.

The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the multidistrict
litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western District of
Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by direct and
indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect
customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied.

An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court
of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and
remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas, L.P. reached a settlement
with the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a
total of $6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the
putative direct purchaser class.

With respect to the indirect customers, the district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion
and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims.

As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a
putative class of indirect customers.

Ferrellgas, L.P. believes it has strong defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims.
Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Michalowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mordechai Michalowitz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:21-cv-04871-VB (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive
coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal
collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive
data security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Solomon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Heather Solomon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-03320 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2021).

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive
coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal
collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive
data security 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


FIRST NATIONAL: Kulakevich Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau Inc., et al. The case is styled as Vadim
Kulakevich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau Inc., LVNV Funding
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-05439 (W.D. Wash., June 11,
2021).

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

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. -- http://www.fncbinc.com/
-- is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of
creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Clark Brubaker, Esq.
          BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC
          Woodinville, WA 98072
          Phone: (206) 335-8746
          Email: michael@brubakerlawgroup.com



FLAWLESS JEWELRY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flawless Jewelry &
Timepieces Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Flawless
Jewelry & Timepieces Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05277 (S.D.N.Y., June
14, 2021).

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

Flawless Jewelry & Timepieces -- https://mrflawless.com/ -- offers
unique and custom jewelry and timepieces created masterfully by Mr.
Flawless.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOREST LABORATORIES: Antitrust Claims in Namenda Will Go To Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon Judge
Colleen McMahon entered an order that:

   -- The motions to exclude the expert reports and testimony of
      Michael Davitz, Jacob Holzer, and Philip Green are denied.

   -- The motions to exclude the expert reports and testimony of
      Susan Marchetti, Thomas McGuire, Lona Fowdur, and Sue
      Robinson are granted in part and denied in part consistent
      with this opinion.

   -- As for the summary judgment motions, the cross-motions for
      summary judgment on Counts I and II -- the antitrust claims
      -- are denied in full. These claims will go to trial as to
      whether the reverse-payment settlements (including the
      Lexapro Amendment) were anti-competitive, and whether they
      caused any delay in generic competition.

   -- Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to Counts III and

      IV are granted in part and denied in part consistent with
      this opinion.

Judge McMahon said, "If we are still on centralized trial
scheduling due to the COVID pandemic in late 2021, the Court will
be applying for a trial date for this case during the first quarter
of 2022. If I am back in control of my own trial calendar, I will
be assigning a first quarter trial date as soon as I am authorized
to do so."

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund commenced
this antitrust lawsuit on behalf of itself and a class of similarly
situated indirect purchasers of the brand and generic versions of
Namenda -- a drug used to treat Alzheimer's disease. The Plaintiff
accuses Defendants -- Forest Laboratories and Merz Pharmaceuticals
– of taking actions designed to limit generic competition for
Namenda. Plaintiff originally advanced two theories of antitrust
liability: (1) that Defendants' entered into several
reverse-payment ("pay for delay") settlements with generic
manufacturers of Namenda, which unlawfully delayed the market entry
of generic competitors; and (2) Defendants' conduct in effectuating
a "hard switch" for consumers between two versions of Namenda.

On February 11, 2021, this Court certified a class of indirect
purchasers (or "end payors") of Namenda.

However, the decision certified only the "pay for delay" theory for
class treatment, and "den[ied] the motion insofar as it seeks to
certify the same class (or any subclass) pursuant to the hard
switch theory." In re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
No. 15-cv-6549 (CM), 2021 WL 509988 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2021)."

A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gAaZxq at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Related Bids Due December 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Napoli-Bosse, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01720 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order granting in part and denying
in part as follows:

   1. All fact and expert discovery will be completed (not
      propounded) by October 29, 2021.

   2. A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a
      claim or counter claim for damages by July 13, 2021.

   3. The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they bear

      the burden of proof will be due July 13, 2021.Depositions of

      such experts will be completed by August 13, 2021.

   4. The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they do
      not bear the burden of proof will be due September 12, 2021.

      Depositions of such experts will be completed by October 12,
      2021.

   5. Dispositive motions are due December 14, 2021. The parties
      shall file response and reply briefs within the time limits
      set forth in the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

   6. Any motion for class certification is due December 14, 2021.

   7. The Joint Trial Memorandum is due January 28, 2022, or 45
      days from the Court's ruling on dispositive motions if any
      are filed, whichever is later.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's
Renaissance Center.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.[CC]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Kelly Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Andrea Kelly, Cole Millican,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Gerber
Products Company, Case No. 0:21-cv-60602, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 14,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-12504-CCC-MF to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Gerber Products Company -- http://www.gerber.com/-- is an American
purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham
Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington,
Virginia.[BN]


GO NEW YORK: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Balderramo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VICTOR H. ALVARADO BALDERRAMO,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
et al., Plaintiffs v. GO NEW YORK TOURS INC., and ASEN KOSTADINOV,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 2326 (ER)
(S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, or
alternatively, to stay the action pending resolution of a New York
State Department of Labor investigation pursuant to the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.

Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo ("Alvarado") brings this FLSA
collective action and class action lawsuit against Go New York
Tours Inc. and its president and owner, Asen Kostadinov
(collectively "Defendants"). The Plaintiffs have alleged violations
of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and related violations of New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

The Plaintiff first brought this action on March 27, 2015. Alvarado
is a former tour bus driver for Go New York, which provides guided
bus tours of New York City. Alvarado has alleged that Defendants
failed to provide appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation, failed to provide "spread of hours" pay as required
under 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") Section 142-2.4, did
not provide uniform maintenance pay under 12 NYCRR Section
142-2.5(c), did not make timely payment of wages as required by
NYLL Section 191(d), and did not provide wage statements or wage
notices as required by NYLL Sections 195(1)-(3). Alvarado alleges
that he worked between 70 and 87 hours per week, often for more
than ten hours per day.

After filing an amended complaint, which added Luis Falquez as a
plaintiff, the Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify this
matter as a FLSA collective action on January 22, 2016. Following
the Defendants' consent to this conditional certification, the
Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion on April 29, 2016. The Court
issued an order and notice conditionally certifying this case as a
collective action on May 9, 2016. The order covered "all employees
of the defendants who worked as tour bus drivers and who were
employed at any time since March 27, 2012." Twenty-two individuals
consented to become party plaintiffs in the following months.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion seeking to certify a class under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as
to conditionally certify a collective action for tour guides (in
addition to the bus drivers who were covered by the Court's May 9,
2016 order). On June 28, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification but denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a class encompassing tour guides. Following a
subsequent request by the parties, the Court issued an order on
January 29, 2020, clarifying the scope of the classes. The Court
noted that the "Rule 23 class is composed of bus drivers employed
from March 27, 2009 on--the end of the class period will be subject
to an opt-out deadline."

Following the Court's June 2017 class certification decision, there
was no activity in this case for about 22 months. However, after
the Court sua sponte dismissed this case for failure to prosecute
in April 2019, the Plaintiffs wrote that they had been pursuing
settlement negotiations and requested that the case be re-opened.
The Court granted the request to re-open the case. The Defendants
thereafter moved to dismiss on the basis of the Plaintiffs' failure
to prosecute. The Court denied this motion on November 1, 2019. The
parties have since been engaged in discovery.

The NYSDOL Investigations

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that this
action must be dismissed or stayed due to overlapping
investigations by the New York State Department of Labor
investigation ("NYSDOL"). The record reflects that the NYSDOL has
conducted three investigations into the Defendants' labor
practices, though two have been consolidated: Investigation 1185,
and Investigations 7786 and 1502.

At an unidentified date, the NYSDOL began investigation number
LS012012011185 ("Investigation 1185"), which examined the
Defendants' treatment of several employees during the time period
of March 19, 2012, to April 6, 2014. This investigation resulted in
a settlement on March 24, 2017, in which the Defendants paid
$18,066.89 to nine employees, three of whom--Michael Ray, Rory
Friday, and Erick Espinosa--were bus drivers. A fourth driver, Juan
Peralta, was identified as part of the investigation, but does not
appear to have been included in the ultimate settlement. The four
bus drivers included in the NYSDOL investigation are also included
in the instant collective action.

On undisclosed dates in 2014 and 2015, the NYSDOL instituted two
additional investigations of the Defendants, investigation numbers
LS202014007786 ("Investigation 7786") and LS20215001502
("Investigation 1502"). The investigations covered violations of
minimum wage and overtime laws, unlawful deductions, the denial of
meal breaks and failure to furnish pay statements, and were
eventually consolidated. Following several site visits and
inspection of the Defendants' records, the NYSDOL issued a Notice
of Labor Law Violation on June 17, 2016. As part of this Notice,
the NYSDOL sought to impose $6,062,890.74 in unpaid wages and other
damages for violations incurred during a March 2012 to March 2015
audit period.

On August 21, 2019, the NYSDOL issued a letter notifying the
Defendants of a change in the NYSDOL's calculations of the amount
due. As amended, the NYSDOL sought $2,903,875.45 in restitution
through Investigation 7786 and $2,963,384.53 for Investigation
1502, for a total penalty of $5,867,259.98. This amount was
delineated in amended recapitulation sheets, which provide
calculations for damages incurred during the March 2012-March 2015
audit period. The Defendants state that they are waiting for the
NYSDOL to issue an Order to Comply. The record reveals no further
activity in this investigation since the NYSDOL's August 21, 2019
letter.

Overlap and Similarities Between the Investigations and this Case

There is some overlap between the subject matter of the NYSDOL
investigations and the claims in this case. Regarding Investigation
1185, three of the class members were involved in a NYSDOL
settlement for claims arising at various times between June 4,
2012, and April 3, 2014. These included minimum wage and overtime
claims, as well as penalties for violations of NYLL Section 661 and
failure to furnish a wage statement pursuant to 12 NYCRR Section
142-2.7. Investigation 1185 does not appear to have addressed any
of the Plaintiffs' spread of hours claims or claims for uniform
maintenance pay, nor does the settlement cover other individuals or
time periods. Because Investigation 1185 resulted in a settlement,
the NYSDOL never issued an Order to Comply regarding this
investigation; thus, there was also no IBA or Article 78
proceeding.

The degree of overlap between this case and investigations 7786 and
1502 is less clear, and is vigorously disputed by the parties. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims largely overlap with
these NYSDOL investigations, which related to (1) alleged
violations of New York minimum wage and overtime law, (2)
violations of NYLL Section 162, requiring prescribed meal periods;
(3) violations of NYLL Section 193.1, prohibiting unlawful
deductions; (4) violations of NYLL Section 661, requiring records
to be kept and made available for inspection; and (5) failure to
furnish each employee a statement with every payment of wages, in
violation of 12 NYCRR Section 142-2.7.

While the Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have also brought
minimum wage and overtime claims, they emphasize that they are
pursuing several claims not encompassed by the NYSDOL
investigation, including: (1) potential "spread of hours" claims,
for which Plaintiffs would be owed an additional hour's pay at
minimum wage for each day in which their hours worked exceeded 10
hours, in violation of 12 NYCRR Section 142-2.4; (2) claims for
failure to provide uniform maintenance pay in violation of 12 NYCRR
Section 142-2.5(c); (3) failure to timely pay wages in violation of
NYLL Section 1916; and (4) wage statement and wage notice
violations pursuant to NYLL Section 195(1) and Section 195(3). The
Plaintiffs also note that their minimum wage allegations include
hours for which they were allegedly not paid at all, in contrast to
the NYSDOL investigation, which they allege was limited to
underpayment of applicable overtime rates. The Plaintiffs further
note that the NYSDOL has not sought prejudgment interest.

The parties also dispute the status of the numerous individuals,
who were employed by the Defendants at some point during the audit
period, but were not included in the NYSDOL's recapitulation
sheets. The Plaintiffs argue that such individuals were not subject
to investigation by the NYSDOL, while the Defendants have argued
that the NYSDOL's investigation considered such claims, but simply
made a determination not to bring charges. This question impacts a
significant portion of the class, as the Plaintiffs have submitted
an affirmation stating that, out of the 243 individuals included in
the NYSDOL's recapitulation sheets, only approximately 46 are class
members.

According to the Plaintiffs, this leaves approximately 90 class
members hired before May 13, 2016, who were excluded from the
NYSDOL investigation. There is little direct record evidence
regarding whether all of these individuals had their claims
investigated, although a July 13, 2016 email from the Defendants'
former counsel to an NYSDOL investigator states that the NYSDOL had
"requested, and has received, time and payroll records for all
individuals employed by Go NY Tours, for all job classifications,
for the relevant time period."

In addition to these disagreements, the parties further dispute the
relevant timeframe of alleged violations covered by the NYSDOL
investigations. The NYSDOL's recapitulation sheets, which include
damages calculations for 243 employees, cover an audit period from
March 4, 2012, to March 1, 2015. The Plaintiffs, thus, argue that
any violations occurring after March 1, 2015, the end of the audit
period, are not covered by the NYSDOL investigation, and thus at
least 253 drivers who were hired after the end of the audit period
have completely non-overlapping claims. In their December 30, 2020
letter, the Defendants argue that the NYSDOL decided not to bring
additional charges against them after reviewing its changed
employment practices and conducting a "review of samples of
Defendants' records to satisfy itself that Defendants [sic] new
procedures were satisfactory."

Finally, there is evidence throughout the record that that the
NYSDOL may have excluded some individuals from the investigation
due to their involvement in this or other lawsuits. For example, on
May 12, 2015, former counsel for Defendants requested that several
employees, including class representative Alvarado, be excluded
from the investigations "as their claims have been resolved, or are
being handled in separate DOL audits or in private litigations."

Application of the Four-Factor Test

The Defendants' position is that all of the Plaintiffs' class
claims should be dismissed or stayed pending the resolution of the
NYSDOL investigation, as their theory is that the NYSDOL's
investigations were sufficiently wide-ranging and comprehensive as
to cover all the claims at issue in this case. The four factors
considered are: (i) Conventional Experience of Judges and the
Agency's Expertise, (ii) The Scope of the Agency's Discretion,
(iii) The Risk of Inconsistent Rulings, and (iv) Prior Application
to the Agency.

For the reasons discussed in this Opinion and Order, the Court will
deny relief based on this theory. While the parties do not discuss
the possibility of dismissing or staying the claims in part, the
Court will also decline to do so at this stage.

District Judge Edgardo Ramos finds that the first factor weighs
heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. He explains that despite the
Defendants' invocation of the need for agency expertise, they have
not identified any specific technical or policy considerations that
make this case uniquely suited to agency resolution. Rather, the
resolution of this action will hinge on the application of
well-established statutory law to the Defendants' labor practices,
as is the case in the numerous FLSA and NYLL cases regularly
adjudicated by the Court.

The Defendants have also argued that Plaintiffs' claims are
"particularly within the NYSDOL's discretion." However, this second
factor is typically met when a regulatory scheme places certain
issues into the specialized discretion of an agency in the first
instance, often to utilize its expertise and assist judicial
decision-making, Judge Ramos notes. Here, he opines, while the
NYSDOL is authorized to investigate violations of NYLL, the overall
regulatory scheme weighs against applying the primary jurisdiction
doctrine.

The Defendants argue that continuing to permit Plaintiffs to
prosecute this case will create an impermissible risk of
contradictory rulings. While they are correct that the unusual
posture of both this case and the NYSDOL investigation does create
some such risk, the risk is ultimately speculative and applies only
to a subset of the claims at issue, for only a subset of the class,
Judge Ramos holds. He opines that despite the existence of such
risk, on the whole the advantages of retaining jurisdiction over
the class claims in this case outweigh the disadvantages.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the
Court cannot find on this record that the NYSDOL investigation
sufficiently covered claims arising after the audit period. Thus,
the multiple disputes about the extent of overlap between this case
and the NYSDOL investigation counsel against dismissing this case,
even if doing so might avoid some risk of inconsistent rulings,
Judge Ramos holds. He explains that this is because dismissal would
leave the majority of the class with no opportunity to pursue
claims outside of those clearly captured by the NYSDOL's
investigation, without any definitive statement from the NYSDOL
regarding why those claims may or may not be without merit. This
result would not meet the primary jurisdiction doctrine's goal of
"materially aid[ing]" the resolution of threshold issues, citing
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51, 58
(2d Cir. 1994).

Thus, while there is some risk of inconsistent rulings regarding a
subset of claims in this case, the Court finds that the benefits of
retaining jurisdiction outweigh the potential costs.

Judge Ramos notes that the existence of a prior application to the
agency typically weighs in favor of applying the primary
jurisdiction doctrine. The Plaintiffs concede that an application
was made to the NYSDOL, though they note that it was not made by
the named Plaintiffs, and that the initial complainants in
Investigation 1502 are not class members in this case. The
Defendants have not shown that the prior applications to the NYSDOL
cover several claims in this case.

Because overlapping applications to the NYSDOL have been made, this
factor favors primary jurisdiction, Judge Ramos holds. However, the
Court gives it reduced weight, because the Defendants have not
shown that the existing application to the NYSDOL will sufficiently
aid the resolution of claims in this case.

The Totality of the Circumstances

According to Judge Ramos, the totality of the four factor test
weighs against application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Although there is some risk of inconsistent rulings based on an
existing investigation, the Court finds that the benefits of
retaining complete jurisdiction over this case outweigh the costs,
and would better comport with the FLSA and NYLL's statutory
design.

The Court acknowledges that this decision imposes some burden on
the Defendants, who will continue to face litigation and an agency
investigation. Under the best of circumstances, this would be
avoided. However, on the available record, the Court cannot be
assured that staying or dismissing the case will adequately aid the
resolution of claims in this case, which have already been pending
for more than six years, nor would a partial stay or dismissal
sufficiently narrow their scope.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion,
Doc. 186. The next case management conference will be held on Oct.
6, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/zyc5kvn4 from
Leagle.com.


GREAT LAKES: Bardsley May Reargue Denial of Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DINA BARDSLEY and MICHAEL BARDSLEY, HER
HUSBAND, INDIVIDUALLY and AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, Plaintiffs v.
GREAT LAKES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC and INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS
RECYCLING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 814857/2019 (N.Y. Sup.), the
New York Supreme Court, Erie County, grants the Plaintiffs'
application for leave to reargue and renew the denial of their
original application for class certification and to amend their
complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2021, the Court issued a Decision and Order (the
"Decision and Order"), denying the Plaintiffs' application,
pursuant to Section 901 of the New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules (CPLR 601), for class (and subclass) certification and to
amend the complaint to add representative plaintiffs (the "Original
Application").

The Plaintiffs have applied, pursuant to CPLR 2221, for leave to
reargue and renew the denial of the Original Application. The
Defendant, Great Lakes Industrial Development, LLC ("Great Lakes
Industrial"), has cross-applied for leave to reargue that aspect of
the Decision and Order in which the Court determined that the
Plaintiffs likely satisfied the commonality and typicality
requirements of CPLR 901, and Defendant Industrial Materials
Recycling, LLC ("Industrial Materials"), has cross-applied for
leave to reargue that aspect of the Decision and Order in which the
Court determined that the Plaintiffs likely satisfied the
commonality requirement of CPLR 901.

On April 6, 2021, the Court heard virtual oral argument (via
Microsoft TEAMS) of all applications.

The Plaintiffs' Application

In determining the Original Application, the Court evaluated the
facts and circumstances of this matter against the criteria to
obtain class certification, as set forth in CPLR 901.

Section 901 requires that Plaintiffs establish the following by
submitting "competent evidence in admissible form" (Weinstein v.
Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 546, 547 [1st Dept 2016]):
(i) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether
otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable; (ii) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members; (iii) the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class; (iv) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (v) a
class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

In denying the Original Application, the Court held that the
Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the first and fifth criteria.

With respect to the numerosity requirement, the Court held, in
relevant part, that the class does not consist of the in excess of
over two thousand (2,000) residences within the Affected Area.
Rather, and by the Plaintiffs' own admission, only six (6) people
responded affirmatively to the Plaintiffs' mass mailing and
door-to-door canvassing, meaning the potential class would likely
consist of approximately eight (8) members.

In the pending application, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court
erred by concluding that there were only eight (8) persons
interested in asserting claims against the Defendants as a result
of a fire incident, such persons consisting of the two (2) existing
Plaintiffs and six (6) additional persons identified in the
Original Application. The Plaintiffs are represented by Vinal and
Vinal, P.C. (the "Vinal Firm"). The Plaintiffs contend that there
are in excess of seventy (70) persons whom have sought to be
represented by the Vinal Firm as claimants for injuries related to
their person and/or property, allegedly arising out of the Fire.

On Jan. 21, 2021, a mere two (2) days after the Court issued the
Decision and Order, the Vinal Firm commenced an action entitled
Torres v. Great Lakes Industrial (Sup. Ct., Erie County, Index No.
800789/21), which asserts claims on behalf of thirty-eight (38)
persons, allegedly arising out of the Fire, which are similar to
the claims asserted in the instant matter (see Index No. 800789/21,
Doc. 1) (the "Torres Action"). On March 3, 2021, the Vinal Firm
amended the Complaint in the Torres Action for the purpose of
adding additional plaintiffs, bringing the number of plaintiffs in
that matter to in excess of eighty (80) (see Index No. 800789/21,
Doc. 3).

At the time the Court issued the Decision and Order on Jan. 19,
2021, the court was aware of Mr. and Mrs. Bardsley, who are the
sole plaintiffs in this action, and the six (6) additional persons
Plaintiffs sought to add to it. While the Vinal Firm was aware of
the in excess of seventy (70) additional individuals, who are now
named as plaintiffs in the Torres Action (as amended), for an
inexplicable reason unknown to this Court, the Vinal Firm did not
apprise the Court of the identity (or existence) of these other
individuals. The Plaintiffs' Original Application sought, in part,
to add six (6) people to this action as party plaintiffs and
neither identified, nor otherwise referred to the additional
individuals named in the Torres Action just two (2) days after the
court issued the Decision and Order.

The Plaintiffs contend that in opposing the Original Application,
Industrial Materials misled the Court by failing to identify the
parties, who would later be named in the Torres Action. However, it
is unclear that counsel for Industrial Materials was aware of these
people and that they intended to bring claims against it (and Great
Lakes Industrial) in connection with the Fire. In addition, the
Plaintiffs filed a reply submission in connection with the Original
Application, in which they failed to identify the (then) known
parties to the soon-to-be-filed Torres Action.

Under these circumstances, the Plaintiffs are left with the record
they created and failed to correct prior to the issuance of the
Decision and Order.

Justice Timothy J. Walker opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to
provide a reasonable (let alone, any) justification for their
failure to apprise the Court of the persons known to them at the
time the Decision and Order was issued, who were immediately
thereafter named as plaintiffs in the Torres Action (Chiappone v.
William Penn Life Ins. Co. of New York, 96 A.D.3d 1627, 1627-28
[4th Dept 2012]). Thus, the Court will not consider them for
purposes of the numerosity requirement, and the Plaintiffs'
application for renewal is denied for having failed to comply with
CPLR 901(a)(1).

With respect to reargument, the number of putative class members
remains not so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, Justice Walker finds. The Court held as follows with
respect to the superiority requirement: In light of the fact that
only six persons responded to Plaintiffs' counsel's canvas of the
Affected Area, it is clear to the Court that the best way to
proceed is not via a class action. Having held that the Plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement, they are unable to
satisfy the superiority requirement.

The Defendants' Cross-Applications

Great Lakes Industrial has cross-applied for leave to reargue that
portion of the Decision and Order holding that the Plaintiffs
likely satisfied the commonality and typicality requirements of
CPLR 901. Industrial Materials has similarly cross-applied, but
limited to the commonality requirement.

The Commonality Requirement; CPLR 901(a)(2)

The Court relied on DeLuca v. Tonawanda Coke Corp. (134 A.D.3d 1534
[4th Dept 2015]), a toxic tort case, in holding that the Plaintiffs
satisfied the commonality requirement. The lower court in DeLuca
granted those aspects of the application to certify the property
damage/property stigma and loss of quality of life subclasses, but
denied the request to certify the medical monitoring subclass, and
the Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed.

Upon reconsideration, the Court determines that it properly relied
on DeLuca in finding that the Plaintiffs likely satisfied the
commonality requirement regarding property damage claims, but that
it erred in holding that DeLuca supports a finding that the
Plaintiffs satisfied such requirement relative to personal injury
claims.

Considering the additional plaintiffs in the Torres Action, there
are even more disparate and wide-ranging alleged injuries and
damages, including "stroke-like symptoms," neurological injuries,
throat cancer, death, expenses from evacuating, infections,
aggravation of various pre-existing conditions, need for oxygen,
and "zone of danger damages."

The facts and circumstances of the instant matter are
distinguishable from those in Canestaro v. Raymour and Flanigan
Furniture Co. (Sup Ct, Erie Cnty, Index No. 803450/2013) and
Robinson v. The Buffalo News, Inc. (Sup Ct, Erie Cnty, Index No.
801427/2019), both assigned to this Court, where class
certification was deemed appropriate, Justice Walker holds. He
opines that the simplicity and commonality of the claims in
Canestaro and Robinson stand in stark contrast to the highly
individualized claims of personal injury in the instant matter,
which will require individualized depositions, not suited for a
class action.

For these reasons, the commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2)
cannot be met.

The Typicality Requirement; CPLR 901(a)(3)

The Court held that the Plaintiffs met the typicality requirement,
because their claims arise out of the same course of conduct,
namely, the Fire. There are no bases to disturb this holding.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' application for
leave for renewal is granted, and upon renewal, the Original
Application is denied. The Plaintiffs' application for leave for
reargument is granted, and upon reargument, the Original
Application is denied.

Great Lakes Industrial's cross-application for leave to reargue the
portion of the Decision and Order that found the Plaintiffs likely
satisfied the commonality and typicality requirements of CPLR 901
is granted and, upon reargument, the cross-application is granted,
in part, in that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the
commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) relative to personal
injury claims. However, the cross-application is denied to the
extent that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality
requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) relative to property damage claims,
and they have satisfied the typicality requirement of CPLR
901(a)(3) relative to all claims.

Industrial Material's cross-application for leave to reargue the
portion of the Decision and Order that found Plaintiffs likely
satisfied the commonality requirement of CPLR 901 is granted and,
upon reargument, the cross-application is granted, in part, in that
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of
CPLR 901(a)(2) relative to personal injury claims. However, the
cross-application is denied to the extent that Plaintiffs have
satisfied the commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) relative to
property damage claims.

Upon the Torres Action being assigned to this Court as related to
the instant matter, the Court will join it and the instant matter
for purposes of discovery and a joint trial limited to the issue of
liability.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Submission of
an order by the parties is not necessary. The delivery of a copy of
this Decision and Order by this Court will not constitute notice of
entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4m6j39t8 from
Leagle.com.

VINAL & VINAL, P.C., Jeanne M. Vinal, Esq. -- vinalsesq@aol.com --
Of Counsel, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

NIXON PEABODY LLP, Kevin T. Saunders, Esq. --
ksaunders@nixonpeabody.com -- Of Counsel, Attorneys for Defendant,
Great Lakes Industrial Development, LLC.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, Meghan M. Brown, Esq. --
mbrown@goldbergsegalla.com -- Of Counsel, Attorneys for Defendant,
Industrial Materials Recycling, LLC.


GUARDIAN NATIONAL: Roux Sues over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Roux, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GUARDIAN NATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 21STCV20739 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., June 2, 2021), arises from the Defendant's violations
of the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 and the California
Labor Code by failing to pay minimum, regular, overtime and
double-time wages.

According to the complaint, this action is commenced by Plaintiff
on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees of Defendant in
California, who, during the relevant time period were: not paid by
Defendant minimum, regular, overtime and double-time wages for time
that aggrieved employees spent waiting for their relief to arrive;
not provided timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods in
violation of California Labor Code, and the applicable Industrial
Wage Order; not paid one hour of pay at the regular rate of
compensation for each instance that the Defendant failed to provide
statutorily mandated rest periods and timely off-duty meal periods
in violation of California Labor Code; not furnished timely and
accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code; not
paid all wages due upon termination of employment in violation of
California Labor Code; and not paid all wages—specifically, meal
and rest break premium wages and overtime wages to employees within
the time period specified in Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and worked in Palmdale,
California from September 11, 2019 to April 1, 2020, as a
non-exempt, hourly-paid security guard.

The Defendant provides security guard services, which includes fire
watch, lock up and alarm, mobile vehicle patrol, foot patrol, bike
patrol, private parking enforcement, event security, logistics, and
standing guard services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          8910 University Center Lane, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                 mrealin@markham-law.com
                 lbrevardfd@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Phone: (310) 234-5678
          Fax: (310) 652-2242
          Email: walter@whaines.com


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Junk Snarr's Public Injunctive Relief Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claim for public injunctive relief filed in Snarr v.
HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., is pending.

On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093).

The case is styled Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No.
3:19-cv-03610-SK). The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
August 9, 2019, dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent classes
of all persons, between May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid
to file one or more federal tax returns through H&R Block's
internet-based filing system, (2) were eligible to file those tax
returns for free through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS
Free File Program, and (3) resided in and were citizens of
California at the time of the payments.

The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which were denied. The company's appeal of the court's
order on the motion to compel arbitration was denied; the company
filed a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court.

The company filed an answer to the amended complaint. The company
filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the court
denied on May 13, 2021.

The company  also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim
for public injunctive relief, which is pending. A trial date is set
for June 6, 2023.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2021, that the putative class action suit
entitled, Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. has been stayed,
pending arbitration.

On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and
Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v.
H&R Block, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a
California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File
Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax
return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff
generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive
business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File
Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False
Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., in addition
to breach of contract and fraud.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Free File,
Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the
company's  motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending
the outcome of arbitration.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


HEALTH IQ INSURANCE: Tyner Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health IQ Insurance
Services. The case is styled as Maki Tyner, Tara Armado, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Health IQ Insurance Services,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00608-F (W.D. Okla., June 14, 2020).

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

Health IQ Insurance Services, Inc. -- https://www.healthiq.com/ --
operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ignacio J Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (786) 496-4469
          Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


HEALTHY HERBAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Herbal Care
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthy Herbal
Care Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-04810
(C.D. Cal., June 14, 2021).

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

Healthy Herbal Care -- https://hhccollective.com/ -- is a cannabis
dispensary located in the Van Nuys, California area.[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


HEIDI WASHINGTON: Davis Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Washington, et al.
The case is styled as Chris Davis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; 15 other plaintiffs named but did
not sign complaint v. Heidi Washington, in her Official capacity as
Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections; Mike Brown, in
his Official capacity as Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility;
Michigan Department of Corrections, in their official capacities;
State of Michigan, in their official capacities; Case No.
2:21-cv-00129-PLM-MV (W.D. Mich., June 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner: Prison Condition for
Prisoner Civil Rights.

Heidi E. Washington --
https://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,4551,7-119-68886_68887-00.html
-- has served as the director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections since July 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Chris Davis #368425
          4533 W Industrial Park Drive
          Kincheloe, MI 49786
          Kinross (MSP)
          Kinross Correctional Facility


HENDRICK HONDA: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hendrick Honda, Inc.
The case is styled as Frances Rogers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hendrick Honda, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00281 (W.D.N.C., June 14, 2021).

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

Hendrick Honda -- https://www.hendrickhonda.com/ -- is a retail
company specializing in new and used Honda cars in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 7376
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Phone: (828) 258-2991
          Fax: (828) 257-2767
          Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com


HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Beylerian Suit Returns to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SEROP J. BEYLERIAN and AVEDIS SHANLIAN, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-11580-ODW
(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued an order:

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand;
   -- denying motion to dismiss;
   -- denying motion to strike; and
   -- denying motion for relief.

Plaintiffs Serop J. Beylerian and Avedis Shanlian initiated this
putative class action in state court against Defendant Hillstone
Restaurant Group, Inc. ("Hillstone").

The Plaintiffs are patrons of Hillstone's restaurants, namely South
Beverly Grill in Beverly Hills, California, and Houston's in
Pasadena, California. The Plaintiffs allege that Hillstone raised
the cost of take-out food items at its restaurants and "added a 10%
to 15% . . . 'service and packaging fee' to its takeout sales"
during the COVID-19 state of emergency. As a result, Beylerian and
Shanlian claim they were unlawfully overcharged $22.30 at South
Beverly Grill and $23.50 at Houston's, respectively.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs commenced this putative
class action against Hillstone for: (1) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions
Code section 17200, et seq.; (2) negligence; and (3) unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of monetary
damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and attorney fees and costs.

Hillstone removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The Plaintiffs now
move to remand on the grounds that Hillstone has not met its burden
to establish an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Hillstone invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a) as the basis for removal. For this reason, the Court says
traditional diversity jurisdiction requirements of Section 1332(a)
apply, citing ARCO Env't Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Health &
Env't Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000). The
parties do not dispute complete diversity. Accordingly, the only
issue before the Court is whether the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.

The Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy is met in two
ways. First, Hillstone contends that the Plaintiffs' request for
disgorgement of "ill-gotten" surcharge fees exceeds $75,000 across
its California restaurants. Second, Hillstone claims the cost of
compliance with the Plaintiffs' requested injunction requiring
Hillstone to "permanently cease" the alleged price gouging also
exceeds $75,000. The Plaintiffs argue that neither of Hillstone's
contentions has merit.

District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, holds that the Plaintiffs are
correct.

Hillstone asserts that disgorgement of the surcharge profits meets
the jurisdictional minimum because, when aggregated across its
California restaurants, "the actual fees recovered . . . are well
above" $75,000. Hillstone supports this vague statement with only
the conclusory assertion of R. Scott Ashby, Hillstone's Executive
Vice President, Judge Wright notes. Hillstone does not substantiate
this figure with any records or financial statements, and expressly
declines to provide specific numbers.

Without corroborating support, Ashby's declaration is speculative
and self-serving, and falls short of the type of evidence required
to establish the jurisdictional amount on removal, Judge Wright
holds. The Judge opines that as Hillstone's disgorgement argument
relies entirely on aggregation of its total surcharge profits,
Hillstone fails to establish that disgorgement satisfies the
jurisdictional amount requirement.

Hillstone next argues that the cost to Hillstone of complying with
the Plaintiffs' requested injunction to "permanently cease" the
alleged price gouging exceeds $75,000. Hillstone contends
compliance with the requested injunction will require it to create
new menus and reduce prices across all its California restaurants,
thereby, causing lost revenue and possibly closure of restaurant
locations.

Hillstone's argument here suffers from the same evidentiary
deficiency as to the disgorgement issue, Judge Wright finds.
Hillstone again relies solely on Ashby's declaration, which
provides that if Hillstone decides to continue the take-out food
program, it would need to recreate its menus, and the combined
costs of the changes across Hillstone's operational California
locations would easily exceed $75,000.

Again, however, Hillstone does not substantiate any of these
speculative costs, Judge Wright finds. Ashby's speculative and
self-serving declaration again falls short, Judge Wright holds.
Moreover, similar to disgorgement, Hillstone may not aggregate the
cost of injunctive compliance.

In sum, Hillstone fails to meet its burden to establish that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court, therefore, grants
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand. In light of the Court's conclusion that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the pending Motion to Dismiss, Motion to
Strike, and Motion for Relief are not for this Court to decide and
are, therefore, denied without prejudice.

The Court remands this action to the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, at 111 North Hill
Street, in Los Angeles, California 90012. All dates and deadlines
are vacated. The Clerk of the Court will close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/purhfza3 from Leagle.com.


HOCKEY CANADA: Court Grants Motion to Strike Class Action Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Halladay, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault, disclosed that on May
27, 2021, Chief Justice Crampton of the Federal Court of Canada
granted a motion brought by McCarthy Tetrault on behalf of our
client, Hockey Canada, striking out a class action claim and
denying the plaintiff's motion to amend. As described further
below, the decision establishes important new law concerning the
criminal cartel provisions of the Competition Act.

Mohr v. National Hockey League et al. involved a class action claim
brought in Federal Court alleging a vast conspiracy among all of
the major hockey leagues in North America -- the NHL, AHL, ECHL,
CHL (and its member leagues, the WHL, OHL, and QMJHL) -- and Hockey
Canada to deny junior hockey players career opportunities and
compensation. The suit sought $825 million in damages, and received
extensive national media coverage. If successful, the claim would
have represented an existential threat to the future of major
junior hockey in Canada.

Within days of the first case management conference, Hockey Canada
and the CHL defendants brought a motion to strike the claim in its
entirety, arguing that:

The plaintiff errantly pleaded a violation of section 48 of the
Competition Act, governing conspiracies relating to professional
sport, as that provision applies only to agreements between teams
and clubs within the same league, and not to an inter-league
conspiracy as alleged by the plaintiff in his claim; and

The general conspiracy offence in section 45 of the Act did not
apply to the conduct alleged, as the defendants were not
"competitors" for the product or service at issue and, in any
event, section 45 does not apply to agreements among buyers for the
purchase of a product or service.

The Court accepted both of these arguments, acknowledging them to
be "an insurmountable hurdle for the plaintiff". Notably, the Mohr
decision represents the first substantive analysis of section 48 of
the Competition Act by a Canadian court. Among other things, Chief
Justice Crampton confirmed that:

The section 48 offence applies only to intra-league, not
inter-league, conspiracies, finding that the "words, that scheme
and the legislative history are all more consistent with the
narrower interpretation advanced by the Responding Defendants, who
maintain that the purview of subsection 48(1) is limited to the
intra-league agreements described in subsection 48(3)."

As stipulated by section 48(3), any impugned agreement must also
"relate exclusively" to the matters set out in section 48(1), that
is: (1) agreements "to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any
other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in
professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on
those persons who so participate"; or (2) agreements to "limit
unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with
and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his
choice in a professional league." To the extent that an alleged
agreement extends to other matters or conduct, it must necessarily
fall outside the scope of section 48.

The decision is also the first to expressly recognize what cartel
defence practitioners have long maintained, and the Competition
Bureau has recently expressly acknowledged, that section 45 of the
Competition Act does not apply to agreements between buyers of a
product or service. Our motion to strike dealt at length with the
history and evolution of the offence, with much of this detail
included in the Court's decision, culminating in the Court's
conclusion that sections 45(1)(a)-(c) "do not apply to the purchase
or other acquisition of a product ".

Interestingly, Chief Justice Crampton left a sliver of room for
potential future buy-side agreement enforcement under section 45,
noting that "I do not exclude the possibility that paragraph
45(1)(c) may apply to a supplier boycott or other 'hard core
cartel' agreement among competitors in a downstream market to fix,
maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or
supply of the product in respect of which they compete", while
acknowledging that "[t]he agreements alleged in the Amended
Statement of Claim are plainly not of this type." Although this
statement was clearly obiter dicta in the reasons for decision, one
expects that any such agreement would need to result in some
restrictions of output at the upstream level to even potentially
engage section 45.

This decision represents a resounding victory for Hockey Canada and
the CHL defendants, and stands as an important reminder to would-be
plaintiffs that the cartel offences in the Competition Act are
penal provisions and, consistent with longstanding jurisprudence,
are to be narrowly construed.

McCarthy Tétrault LLP represented Hockey Canada, with a team led
by Casey Halladay, including Isabelle Vendette, Dominic Thérien,
Akiva Stern, and Stéphanie St-Jean. [GN]

HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
PH LODGING TOMBALL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING,
LLC; SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS
GROUP; and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-01803 (S.D. Tex., July 3, 2021) seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' unlawful, abusive, fraudulent, anticompetitive and
unconscionable practices designed solely to benefit and to enrich
the Defendants and to do so at the expense and to the detriment of
the Plaintiff and the class.

The Plaintiff contends in the complaint that the Defendants forced
exclusive use of certain chosen vendors and suppliers imposes well
above-market procurement costs on franchisees which include, but
are not limited to, those associated with its onerous and
exorbitant Property Improvement Plan ("PIP").

Under the guise of improving the franchisees' hotels to maintain
"brand standards," the Defendants allegedly force its franchisees
to frequently undertake expensive renovations, remodeling and
construction as part of the PIP, and in so doing manipulates and
shortens the warranty periods on mandated products the franchisees
must purchase, then disingenuously uses this to justify PIP
requirements as purportedly necessary to meet "brand standards"
when, in reality, the Defendants' sole purpose is to maximize its
kickbacks and unjustifiably run up costs on their franchisees in
bad faith.

The Defendants deceitfully represent to their franchisees that they
select vendors with the laudable goal of using the franchisees'
collective bargaining power to secure a group discount and to
ensure adequate quality and supply of products and services, and
refer to these procurement programs as the "IHG Marketplace." In
fact, however, the Defendants' primary goal in negotiating with
vendors has little to nothing to do with the best interests of
franchisees but rather is to secure the largest possible kickback
for itself, which vendors finance through the above-market rates
charged to franchisees in collusion with the Defendants, says the
suit.

HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC owns and operates a portfolio
of hotel businesses. The Group's portfolio is comprised primarily
of various franchised hotels from an established and diverse group
of brands. InterContinental Hotels manages hotel loyalty and
priority club rewards programs. The Group operates hotels in
countries and territories all over the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002-3207
          Telephone: (713) 730-5001
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com


HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HoneyLove Sculptwear,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. HoneyLove Sculptwear,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-03291 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

Honeylove -- https://www.honeylove.com/ -- is a San Francisco
fashion startup that designs and manufactures next-generation
shapewear garments called "Sculptwear."[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Seeks Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCrobie v. Houslanger &
Associates et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00018-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   -- extending the time to oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification to July 5, 2021; and

   -- adjourning the July 13, 2021 oral argument on the Motion.
      Both the Plaintiff and Defendants Todd Houslanger and
      Houslanger & Associates, PLLC have consented to this
request.

The Defendants contend that the current schedule only allows three
weeks to prepare an opposition, after which there are only two
business days between the date in which Plaintiff's reply is due
and the oral argument date of July 13, 2021. Palisades and Asta
will need at least 30 days from the date of the Motion to prepare
an adequate response.

Therefore, the parties request a new opposition deadline of July 5,
2021, which would also apply to the Houslanger Defendants.
Plaintiff would then file its reply brief by July 26, 2021. The
parties lastly request that the Motion hearing be scheduled on or
after August 9, 2021 to allow time for the parties to prepare for
arguments.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iJaLqp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William L. Purtell, Esq.
          BLANKROME
          Cincinnati, OH
          Telephone: (513) 362-8750
          E-mail: wpurtell@blankrome.com

HUDSON VALLEY: Wins Bid to Stay Zachman Class Suit Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Defendant's motion requesting a stay of proceedings
pending the outcome of an appeal in the lawsuit titled NICHOLE
ZACHMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 20 CV 1579 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.).

By Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2021, the Court denied the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On April 21, 2021, the
Defendant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal pursuant to
Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a).

When a party appeals an order denying a motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to Section 16(a), the underlying case is not
automatically stayed, according to the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order. Rather, the determination of whether to enter a stay
pending an appeal is "an exercise of judicial discretion" (Nken v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)). In exercising its discretion,
the Court considers these factors: (1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)
where the public interest lies.

The first two factors are considered the most critical, District
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti holds. Applying these factors here, the
Court concludes a stay is warranted.

The first factor--whether the movant has shown a likelihood of
success on the merits--may be satisfied by showing there are
"serious questions" going to the merits of the dispute and the
balance of hardships tips "decidedly" in the movant's favor, Judge
Briccetti opines. Applying the "serious questions" standard is
particularly appropriate when a movant asks the district court to
find that its own opinion is likely to be overturned.

Although, for the reasons stated in its March 22 Opinion and Order,
the Court finds that the Defendant has not demonstrated it is
likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the appeal
nevertheless does raise serious questions going to the merits of
the dispute and the balance of hardships tips decidedly in the
Defendant's favor, Judge Briccetti holds.

In Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., the court stayed proceedings
pending the defendant's appeal of an order denying the defendant's
motion to compel arbitration. 2017 WL 11504834 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15,
2017). The court concluded that the appeal--which challenged the
court's determination that a hyperlink in an email was insufficient
to provide reasonable notice of an arbitration provision--presented
a serious question going to the merits. In so concluding, the court
recognized that cases dealing with online contracts involve
"fact-intensive question[s] in an evolving area of the law."

The Defendant here similarly contests the Court's conclusion that
the Defendant's method of providing notice of an arbitration
provision in its account agreement is insufficient to put its users
on inquiry notice of such modified terms, Judge Briccetti notes. As
in Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., this case raises fact-intensive
issues in an evolving area of the law. Therefore, the Court finds
the Defendant's appeal raises serious questions going to the merits
of the dispute.

The second factor--whether the Defendant will be irreparably harmed
absent a stay--weighs decidedly in the Defendant's favor, Judge
Briccetti holds. The Judge opines that the Defendant would be
harmed by the substantial litigation expenses it would incur
defending this putative class action prior to a determination of
its appeal.

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated. Therefore, absent a stay,
discovery would proceed on a class-wide basis, requiring the
Defendant to "compile and analyze its data spanning all overdraft
transactions of all its members," Judge Briccetti explains. Thus,
the Defendant would be irreparably harmed if it were forced to
incur substantial costs that would otherwise be mooted by a
successful appeal of the Court's March 22 Opinion and Order.

Moreover, by authorizing interlocutory appeals from a denial of
arbitration, Section 16 "evidences a congressional determination
that a wrongful denial of the right to have the case sent promptly
to arbitration is a harm that cannot be adequately remedied by an
appeal at the end of the case," Judge Briccetti points out, citing
Meyer v. Kalanick, 203 F.Supp.3d 393, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

As to the third factor--whether issuance of a stay will
"substantially" injure other parties interested in the
proceeding--the Plaintiff argues a stay will inflict substantial
injury on her and the putative class members because they continue
to be shackled with illegal fees and a stay would delay their
ability to recoup those fees. Although the Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant "has extracted millions of dollars from its customers
in the form of unlawfully collected [overdraft] Fees and continues
to unlawfully extract these monies from existing and newly acquired
customers," the Plaintiff alleges the overdraft charge assessed by
the Defendant is $34 per transaction.

If the Plaintiff is ultimately able to demonstrate these fees were
impermissibly obtained, the Defendant will presumably be required
to return such ill-gotten fees, Judge Briccetti states. As such,
any delay in recouping these fees caused by a stay, while
inconvenient, would not inflict substantial injury on the Plaintiff
and the putative class. Thus, the third factor does not cut against
granting a stay.

Finally, the fourth factor--whether a stay would serve the public
interest--favors a stay, albeit slightly. Namely, a stay would
favor the public's interest in judicial economy, Judge Briccetti
holds, citing Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Laver, 2019 WL
2325609, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2019).

On balance, the Court finds a stay is warranted pending resolution
of the Defendant's interlocutory appeal.

Therefore, the motion for a stay pending appeal is granted.

This case is stayed pending further order of the Court.

The Defendant will notify the Court within 10 days of the Second
Circuit's decision on the appeal.

The Clerk is directed to terminate the letter-motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 10, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ntb3zv2 from
Leagle.com.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Genesis GV8 Vibrations
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Genesis GV80 class action lawsuit alleges the SUVs vibrate, shudder
and veer across the road while driving at moderate speeds.

The lawsuit alleges the 2021 Genesis GV80 SUVs suffer from
driveshaft, axle and steering problems. The class action says
consumers have paid more than $70,000 to purchase or more than $900
per month to lease the vehicles.

For that price the SUVs should not suffer from uncontrolled veering
while driving.

Hyundai allegedly knew the Genesis GV80 vehicles shake, shudder and
vibrate and in June 2020 the automaker halted distribution of the
diesel-powered SUVs due to vibration problems from the engines. But
according to the plaintiff who filed the Genesis class action,
Hyundai has never fixed the instability problems.

Maryland plaintiff Dr. Barbara Feinstein leased a 2021 Genesis GV80
in February 2021 for more than $900 per month. The SUV had about
107 miles on it when she leased it, and a few days later the
plaintiff and her husband left for a 1,100-mile trip to their
Florida home.

The class action lawsuit alleges within a few hours of driving, the
Genesis GV80 "began to dangerously shake, shudder, vibrate and pull
to the left, causing a continuous struggle to keep the SUV from
veering off the road."

The plaintiff says she was traveling about 40 mph when the problems
occurred, and once she reached Florida the plaintiff brought the
SUV to a dealer.

According to the GV80 class action, the plaintiff was told there
was something wrong with the SUV and a loaner vehicle would be
provided while the dealership checked out the Genesis vehicle.

The dealer allegedly said Hyundai Corporate had become involved in
the attempted repair to replace an axle, which caused the plaintiff
and her husband to fly back to Maryland without the Genesis GV80.

In Florida, the dealer allegedly repaired the vehicle and told the
plaintiff, "the problem had been solved and the car ran great."

Hyundai arranged for the GV80 to be transported from Florida to
Maryland, but the plaintiff says the vehicle shook, vibrated and
pulled to the left when the GV80 reached about 45 mph. The vehicle
was taken to the Maryland dealer which allegedly said the GV80
needed the driveshaft replaced.

The plaintiff picked up the SUV after the driveshaft was replaced
and the vehicle had been aligned. But the Genesis GV80 allegedly
continued to pull to the left, there was vibration in the steering
wheel and headrest and the SUV shuddered while driving.

On May 15, 2021, the plaintiff left the GV80 at the Maryland
dealership again, and later the plaintiff was told a new tire had
been ordered for the SUV. When the class action lawsuit was filed,
the plaintiff still didn't have possession of the GV80.

"Combined with the prior service periods, Plaintiff has been
without the SUV she leased for over 38 days during her 82 days of
the lease period. To date, Plaintiff remains without her 2021
Genesis GV-80 SUV to her great detriment and inconvenience." --
Genesis GV80 lawsuit

The class action lawsuit alleges Hyundai rushed the Genesis GV80
vehicles to market in an attempt to cure slumping sales.

The Genesis GV80 class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland: Dr. Barbara Feinstein,
v. Hyundai Motor Company, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Corwin Law, of Boca Raton, Florida.
[GN]

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Pact Reached in Tchatchou Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that a preliminary
agreement in principle to settle all pending shareholder litigation
against the company including Tchatchou v. India Globalization
Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03396

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint, Tchatchou v. India
Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03396
(U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
IGC, Ram Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi.

The plaintiff alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements
to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press release
entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space" and
related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had "executed a
distribution and partnership agreement" for the sugar-free energy
drink named Nitro G, as well as through related public statements.


The plaintiff has not publicly disclosed the amount of damages they
seek.

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Gabe Harris-Carr instituted a
shareholder class action complaint, Harris-Carr v. India
Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03408
(U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda, and
Claudia Grimaldi were named as defendants. On February 28, 2019,
all pending shareholder class actions, including the Harris-Carr
litigation, were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation,
described above, was designated as the lead case. On May 13, 2019,
the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an amended
complaint, which becomes the operative complaint for the
consolidated matter and supersedes the Harris-Carr complaint.

On April 6, 2021, after the close of the Company's Fiscal Year
2021, the plaintiffs and the Class Action Defendants reached a
preliminary agreement in principle to settle all pending
shareholder litigation, including the Tchatchou and Harris-Carr
matters described.

The settlement is subject to the agreement and execution of formal
settlement documentation and approval by the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.

India Globalization said, "At present, a significant portion of the
settlement is expected to be paid by the Company's insurance
policy. The Company and the Class Action Defendants are represented
by counsel in the litigation."

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several endpoints of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical
Cannabis-Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in
2005 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland.


J&L CABLE TV: $1.85MM Class Deal in Jean-Pierre Suit Has Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement in the lawsuit entitled ROBENSON
JEAN-PIERRE, JEAN METELUS, BILL McKEE, and MICHAEL GARY FAUNTLEROY,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. J&L CABLE TV SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11499
(D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs have negotiated a gross settlement award of
$1,850,000.

The Plaintiffs have brought a putative class and collective action
against their former employer, Defendant J&L Cable TX Services,
Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and related Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania
wage and hours laws.

On Oct. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement (the "Motion").
The Court held a hearing on the Motion on Feb. 3, 2021. Following
this hearing, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to make supplemental
filings in support of their Motion. They have done so (the
"Supplemental Memorandum").

After considering the Plaintiffs' supplemental filings, and for the
reasons discussed at the Feb. 3, 2021 hearing, the Motion is being
allowed.

As a threshold matter, the Court has questioned whether it could
properly exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law
claims in addition to their FLSA claims. The Court now concludes
that it may and should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state law claims, citing Pueblo Int'l, Inc. v. De
Cardona, 725 F.2d 823, 826 (1st Cir. 1984).

District Judge Mark L. Wolf notes that the Plaintiffs' state and
federal law claims similarly overlap and can be considered a single
case or controversy. The class and collective members were all
employed by the Defendant as technicians over a similar period of
time. Their state law and FLSA claims are based on the same alleged
practices of defendant having technicians work off-the-clock,
reducing their hours reportedly worked, and failing to pay
overtime.

Judge Wolf states that it is also appropriate for the Court to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. This
is not a case where the state law claims raise novel or complex
issues of state law, or where the Court has dismissed all claims
over which it had original jurisdiction. Nor do the state law
claims predominate over the FLSA claims.

In this case, there are approximately 475 anticipated state law
class members and 218 total FLSA collective opt-ins. In addition,
the FLSA action was filed at the outset of this case rather than
added to a more comprehensive state action. Accordingly, the state
law claims do not predominate, Judge Wolf holds.

For these reasons, it is permissible and appropriate for the Court
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state
law claims.

For the reasons discussed at the Feb. 3, 2021 hearing, the Court
concludes for the purposes of preliminary approval that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of numerosity,
commonality, and typicality, and that the action may properly be
maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. After considering the Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Memorandum and supporting documents, the Court also concludes that
the Named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives for the
purposes of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

Because the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure appear to have been met, the Court concludes that it will
likely certify the class of the purposes of judgment.

The Court also concludes that it will likely approve the settlement
under Rule 23(e)(2). The Plaintiffs have negotiated a gross
settlement award of $1,850,000. This award represents approximately
40% of the Defendant's projected total exposure if the class and
collective were to prevail on their claims. The Plaintiffs' counsel
will seek one-third of this gross settlement award, or $616,667.00,
as attorneys' fees, but the Court will have the discretion to award
less.

The parties reached this settlement through mediation and
arms-length negotiation after two years of difficult litigation,
including discovery, and while facing the prospect of lengthy
additional litigation if settlement had not been reached. Under the
proposed agreement, each class member will receive a minimum
payment of $50 and will receive a pro rata portion of the
settlement based on the weeks they worked for the Defendant and the
value of their claims under the applicable state laws. Considering
the risk that the class might have received no recovery if this
case proceeded to trial, the proposed settlement is likely to be
found to be a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of this
case, Judge Wolf holds.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the parties' Settlement Agreement
is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant
to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
grants approval to the terms and conditions contained in the
Settlement Agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

For settlement purposes, the Court certifies the following
Settlement Collective as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), pending final approval of the settlement:

     All current and former Technicians who were employed by J&L
     Cable TV Services, Inc. between July 18, 2015 and August 28,
     2020 who have opted in to Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean
     Metelus, Bill McKee, and Michael Gary Fauntleroy
     individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
     individuals v. J&L Cable TV Services, Inc., Civil Action No
     1:18-cv-11499, currently pending in the United States
     District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Settlement
     Collective Members).

For settlement purposes, the Court preliminarily certifies each of
the following Settlement Classes ("State Law Settlement Classes")
as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and b(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, pending final approval of the
settlement:

   -- Massachusetts State Law Class:

      All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc.
      as a Technician in Massachusetts between July 18, 2015 and
      August 28, 2020;

   -- New Hampshire State Law Class:

      All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc.
      as a Technician in New Hampshire between July 18, 2015 and
      August 28, 2015;

   -- Maine State Law Class:

      All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc.
      as a Technician in Maine between July 18, 2012 and
      August 28, 2020; and

   -- Pennsylvania State Law Class:

      All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc.
      as a Technician in Pennsylvania between July 18, 2015 and
      August 28, 2020.

Plaintiffs Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee, and
Michael Gary Fauntleroy are preliminarily approved as Class
Representatives of the respective State Law Settlement Classes and
of the Collective. Berger Montague PC and Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky, LLP, are preliminarily approved as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class and Collective. The Settlement
Administrator, Angeion, is preliminarily approved as Settlement
Administrator. Greater Boston Legal Services is preliminarily
approved as the cy pres recipient of any monies remaining in the
Settlement Fund.

The Court approves the Notice of Settlement, and finds that the
proposed method of disseminating the Settlement Notice meets the
requirements of due process and is the best notice practicable
under the circumstances, and authorizes dissemination of the Notice
to members of the Settlement Class.

The Court also approves the proposed schedule and procedures for
completing the final approval process as set forth in the parties'
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bj3jzsju from
Leagle.com.


JACKSON LABORATORY: Salas-Keen Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HEATHER SALAS-KEEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE JACKSON LABORATORY dba THE
JACKSON LABORATORY, WEST; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 34-2021-00300105, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on June 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01032-JAM-AC to the proceeding.

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

The Jackson Laboratory, doing business as The Jackson Laboratory,
West, is a non-profit biomedical research institution,
headquartered in Bar Harbor, Maine. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                   
         Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
         Eric Suits, Esq.
         Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com
                 esuits@seyfarth.com
                 jnordlander@seyfarth.com

JINGLEBELLS LLC: Chong Sues to Recover Rightfully Earned Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Chong, an individual, individually, on behalf of the general
public, and all others similarly situated v. JINGLEBELLS LLC, a
California company; JINGLE BELLS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California
company; JINGLEBELLS HOLDING LLC, a California company; and DOES l
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG21100705 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., June 2, 2021), seeks to recover all wages which they
and other employees of the Defendants rightfully earned but have
been denied, as well as any penalties associated with the
Defendants' rampant and willful violations of the law, interest on
the unpaid wage amounts, and attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants did not pay for all wages
due, as the paychecks that the Plaintiff were provided with did not
account for all hours worked. This is because, amongst other
unlawful practices, the Defendants did not provide proper meal and
rest breaks to the Plaintiff, did not pay the appropriate missed
meal and rest break premiums, and, thus, failed to pay the
Plaintiff all wages owed. The Defendants also provided inaccurate
wage statements to the Plaintiff. The wage statements are
inaccurate with respect to the actual hours worked by employees,
the gross wages earned, and the net wages earned, among other
deficiencies. This is due to the Defendants' failure to pay missed
meal and rest period premiums, for failure to pay for all time
worked, including overtime premiums, and thus causing the Plaintiff
to receive inaccurate wage statements that did not reflect all
earned wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 016 through, and
including, the present.

The Defendants operate various restaurant locations in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          KYLE TODD, P.C.
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 315
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (323) 208-9171
          Fax (323) 693-0822
          Email: kyle@kyletodd.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Won't Hear Appeal in Ingham Talcum Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Sasson, writing for Tipranks.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson has found itself in the spotlight due to the talcum powder
litigation. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it will not hear
the company's appeal of the $2.1 billion talcum powder verdict in
the Ingham case, which is already down from the initial $4.7
billion verdict.

With this in mind, JNJ will need to pay the $2.5 billion (including
interest) in the second quarter. It should be noted that this
expense was already reserved last year.

According to Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen, "this verdict
implies a payout of $95 million per claimant," but "precedent from
other large class-action settlements suggests that possible
settlement in the multi-district litigation is more likely in the
$50,000 to $200,000 range." So, if the number of cases reaches
60,000 and the average payout is $150,000 each, the analyst
estimates a total future settlement of $9 billion, on top of the
$2.5 billion.

Despite this, Biegelsen remains optimistic about JNJ's long-term
prospects. "While this is a sizable figure even for a company of
JNJ's size, we believe the amount is manageable, especially as it
will likely be paid out over time," he commented.

This prompted the analyst to reiterate a Buy rating and $190 price
target, which brings the upside potential to 15%.

Biegelsen highlights the fact that 85% of the outstanding talcum
cases are consolidated in the multi-district litigation, and that
the first trial is set to take place in the first half of 2022.
After a consultant weighed in, the analyst doesn't believe that the
Supreme Court's decision will impact the multi-district
litigation.

When it comes to settlement options, Biegelsen said, "Although JNJ
has publicly stated its intention to pursue the talc cases rather
than settlement, we continue to view this as a possibility once
some bellwether trials have progressed. Feedback from our
consultant points to a few possible settlement scenarios based on
precedent."

While one approach would require that 90% to 95% of claimants agree
to settle, JNJ can also settle individual cases or settle with
individual law firms. "JNJ may choose any of these settlement
structures or even a mix of these down the road," Biegelsen
stated.

Based on data from TipRanks, Biegelsen is tracking a 69% success
rate and 21.3% average return per rating. [GN]


JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ill. District Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leyden Community High School District No. 212, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04453 (N.D. Cal., June 10,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.

Leyden Community High School District No. 212 is a unified school
district with its offices located at 3400 Rose Street, Franklin
Park, Illinois.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, S.C. County School Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLLETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04452 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Colleton County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 500 Forest Circle in Walterboro, South
Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement in Spack Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the court approves the
settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Spack v.
Trans World Entertainment Corp.

There are two pending class actions.  

The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017. The Spack Action
alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers ("SMs") as
exempt nationwide.  It also alleges that Trans World improperly
calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers ("SAMs")
nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked "off-the-clock." It
also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law
with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs.  

The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017. The Roper Action also
asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of SMs.  

Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New
York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.

The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for both
store manager class actions, which has received approval from the
court.  

The Company reserved $0.4 million for the settlement as of January
30, 2021.  Notices of the settlement have been issued to class
members, and the settlement claims process is currently ongoing.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.


KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Terms Reached in Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the parties in the
punitive class action suit in Massachusetts state court related to
VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions agreed
on terms to resolve the matter fully and finally, and the appeal
will be dismissed without material impact on the financial results
of the Company

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.  

The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit.  On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed
lawsuit filed a similar putative class action in Massachusetts
state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden
Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to
represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were
charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.  

The Company removed that lawsuit back to federal court on June 12,
2019, and then filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike the
plaintiff's class action allegations on June 28, 2019.  

On February 2, 2021 the court granted the Company's motion, struck
the class action allegations, and dismissed the individual
plaintiffs' claims for lack of jurisdiction.  

Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision on February 24, 2021. The
parties participated in a mandatory court-annexed mediation session
on April 8, 2021.  

The parties agreed on terms to resolve the matter fully and
finally, and the appeal will be dismissed without material impact
on the financial results of the Company.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.


KATERRA: Former Employees File Class Action Over Abrupt Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Brenzel, writing for TheRealDeal, reports that reports
surfaced June 1 that construction startup Katerra was shutting down
its U.S. operations. Three days later, mass layoffs began.

Now, three former employees are pursuing a class-action lawsuit
against the construction startup, alleging it failed to provide
adequate notice of their termination. The lawsuit, which is seeking
to certify a class of some 700 laid off Katerra employees, was
filed as an adversary complaint in Katerra's bankruptcy case.

The employees worked in Seattle, Jersey City and Hayward,
California, according to the lawsuit. Clifford Marvin worked as an
architectural specification writer in Katerra's Seattle office,
while Todd Irving served as a construction superintendent on a
Katerra project in Hayward. Joseph Russomanno was a help desk
technician at the company's Jersey City office.

Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, or WARN, employers with 100 or more employees must provide at
least 60 days' written notice of plant closings and mass layoffs.
There are some exceptions, including "unforeseeable business
circumstances."

But Katerra's financial problems date back many months, and the
lawsuit alleges that Katerra was required to abide by these
notification rules and owes employees unpaid wages and accrued
vacation time.

A representative from Katerra did not immediately respond to a
message seeking comment.

Katerra filed for bankruptcy protection June 6, listing liabilities
between $1 billion and $10 billion and assets of just $500 million
to $1 billion. It recorded losses of $2.78 billion in 2018, 2019
and 2020, according to the filing.

The company, which had a history of financial issues as well as
difficulties completing projects, plans to sell its operations in
India and Saudi Arabia, as well as a number of companies that it
acquired over the years. SoftBank, its largest backer, is providing
a loan of $35 million to help the company unwind its operations and
market its assets. [GN]

KDVH ENTERPRISES: Cooley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KDVH Enterprises LLC.
The case is styled as Tasha Cooley, individuall and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KDVH Enterprises LLC doing
business as: Benton Nissan of Hoover, Case No. 2:21-cv-00802-JHE
(N.D. Ala., June 14, 2021).

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

KDVH Enterprises, which also operates under the name Benton Nissan
of Hoover -- https://www.bentonnissanofhoover.com/ -- is a Nissan
dealer in Hoover, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Richard Cox, Esq.
          JOHN R. COX PLLC
          9786-A Timber Circle
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Phone: (251) 517-4753
          Email: jrc@jrcoxlaw.com


KENETREK LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenetrek, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kenetrek, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05195
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

Kenetrek, LLC -- https://kenetrek.com/ -- manufactures boot. The
Company offers mountain, hiking, and boots, gaiters, performance
insoles, clothing, backpacks, hillberg tents, hats, gloves, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KING'S HAWAIIAN: Hodges Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against King's Hawaiian
Bakery West, Inc. The case is styled as Dieisha Hodges, Roxanne
Colamarino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. King's Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-04541-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

King's Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc. -- https://kingshawaiian.com/ --
provides food products. The Company manufactures and distributes
bread, rolls, and buns.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George Volney Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 939-0070
          Fax: (212) 253-4272
          Email: ggranade@reesellp.com


KROGER CO: Womick Consumer Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY WOMICK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2021L 000578,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
June 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Kroger-brand
ground coffee canisters.

The Kroger Co. is an American retail company based in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Bruce A. McMullen, Esq.
         Mary Wu Tullis, Esq.
         BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, AND BERKOWITZ, PC
         165 Madison Ave., Suite 2000
         Memphis, TN 38103
         Telephone: (901) 526-2000
         E-mail: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com
                 mtullis@bakerdonelson.com

KROGER COMPANY: Seeks July 8 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY KIBLER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation; DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY
MARKET, a Kansas limited Liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-00509-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order for a 10-day extension of time, up to and including
July 8, 2021, within which time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Collective Certification.

On June 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its motion for conditional
collective certification. The Defendants' response to the Motion is
currently due June 28, 2021. The Defendants hereby request a short
extension, of 10 days, to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Collective Certification. The extension is
requested because counsel for Defendants was out of the office last
week, and requires additional time to prepare a response to
Plaintiff's Motion.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retail company
founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the
United States' largest supermarket by revenue, and the
second-largest general retailer. Kroger is the fourth largest
American-owned private employer in the United States

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xypGbd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL LEWIS
          KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
          620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          E-mail: plewis@ll.law
                  aswan@ll.law

LANDMARK BANK: Pace Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Susanne Pace, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Landmark Bank, Case No. 21BA-CV01667
was removed from the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
June 11, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04119-WJE to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Landmark National Bank -- https://www.banklandmark.com/ -- offers
friendly and professional banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Garvey, Jr., Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 725-7700
          Fax: (314) 678-3401
          Email: jgarvey@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph P. Bednar, Jr., Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP-JC
          304 East High Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Phone: (573) 634-8115
          Fax: (573) 634-8140
          Email: jbednar@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Smith, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP-SpfldMO
          2144 E. Republic Road, Ste. B300
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Phone: (417) 888-1013
          Fax: (417) 881-8035
          Email: jcsmith@spencerfane.com


LEGG MASON: Barbieri Sues Over Unpaid Wages, ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
BELINDA BARBIERI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGG MASON, INC., LEGG MASON & CO., LLC,
FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a FRANKLIN TEMPLETON, its successor in
interest, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05231 (S.D.N.Y., June 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful and
improper misclassification of the Plaintiff and Class members to
make them ineligible to participate in employer sponsored benefit
plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
for failure to permit meal breaks and failure to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked with the Defendants' product marketing team
from February 22, 2017 until her discharge in August 2020.

Legg Mason, Inc. is an American investment management and asset
management firm, headquartered in Baltimore Maryland.

Legg Mason & Co., LLC is an affiliate of Legg Mason, Inc.,
headquartered in Baltimore Maryland.

Franklin Resources, Inc., doing business as Franklin Templeton, is
an American multinational holding company headquartered in San
Matteo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Scott A. Weiss, Esq.
         WEISS & WEISS LLC
         50 Main Street, 10th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Telephone: (203) 254-2707
         E-mail: Scott@weissnweiss.com

                 - and –

         David R. Ehrlich, Esq.
         STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP
         401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 812-4518
         E-mail: dehrlich@staggwabnik.com

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Files Amended Bid for Conditional Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Phyllis Headly,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, and Lucia Devivo Catalano, Case No.
3:20-cv-00579-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting his amended motion for conditional
certification.

The Plaintiff relies on the allegations as stated in the unamended
complaint in this matter under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for conditional certification of the following
collective:

   "All employees called Home Health Aides, a/k/a Caregivers who
   worked at least one "live-in" shift for the Defendants, Liberty

   Homecare Options, LLC, and Lucia Devivo Catalano in Connecticut

   during any time between January 15, 2017, until the date of
   final judgment."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Defendants be ordered to
produce information about potential collective action members that
will not otherwise be available without this conditional
certification.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SEcVNk at no extra
charge.[CC]

Phyllis Headly, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals are represented by:

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3007
          Telephone: (860) 249-7180
          Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
          E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com

LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Actions Over Excessive Robocalls Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Giacomo Tognini, writing for Forbes, reports that on a Wednesday
evening in November 2015, Anthony Hsieh was about to dig into a
celebratory dinner in a conference room on the top floor of Morgan
Stanley's midtown Manhattan offices. His then-five-year-old
mortgage lender LoanDepot was set to go public on the New York
Stock Exchange the following day. It would have been a dream come
true for the first-generation Taiwanese-American immigrant who
began his career in the mortgage industry as a commission-based
loan officer. But Hsieh was troubled by the turbulent markets --
Jack Dorsey's Square was forced to price its IPO lower the
following week—and in a last-minute decision, he pulled the
plug.

"It felt like a last meal at the time. I second-guessed myself many
times after that," he says in a Zoom call from New York while on a
business trip in early April, reminiscing on his first attempt at a
public listing. "But looking back now, that was absolutely the
right decision."

That bet paid off. After five years of steady growth, Hsieh, 56,
finally took LoanDepot public this past February in an IPO that
made him a billionaire thanks to his 54% stake in the company, part
of an estimated $2 billion fortune that includes an Orange County
mansion he bought for a record-breaking $61 million in October. But
timing markets is a fool's errand. In an echo of 2015, LoanDepot
again marked down its IPO at the last minute, offering far fewer
shares than it initially expected to, due to low demand and the
potential of higher interest and mortgage rates. (Only 3.2% of its
shares are publicly traded, and Forbes applies a discount to shares
owned in any company with a float smaller than 5%; Hsieh says the
company plans to offer more shares and increase its float in the
future.)

An industry veteran who started -- and sold -- two mortgage lenders
prior to launching LoanDepot in 2010, Hsieh saw an opportunity in
the carnage left behind by the financial crisis and the collapse of
industry giants Countrywide Financial and Ameriquest. With a unique
combination of a tech platform that helps drive down the cost of
securing new customers and a network of more than 2,500 loan
officers spread across the country, LoanDepot has been well
positioned to reap the benefits of a surging mortgage market over
the past decade. Millions of Americans are taking advantage of
rock-bottom interest rates and fueling a housing boom that's sent
home prices to record highs and spurred a wave of refinancings, all
while lining the pockets of billionaire mortgage lenders from Hsieh
to Dan Gilbert of Rocket Companies and Mat Ishbia of United
Wholesale Mortgage.

"LoanDepot has got a best-in-class technology platform and strong
brand awareness," says Ryan Carr, a senior associate at investment
bank Jefferies. "It helps [them] disproportionately capture a
higher share of first-time homebuyers, which is becoming an
increasing percentage of the cohort."

Hsieh likes to quip that LoanDepot is the Lyft to Rocket's Uber,
with the two companies competing over which tech platform can best
appeal to first-time buyers and lock in customer loyalty.
LoanDepot's mello platform uses machine learning to streamline the
mortgage process for customers and its data collection makes it
easier to sell them on refinancing with the company down the line,
an approach that has brought concrete results: 72% of customers who
got their first mortgage with the company also refinance their
loans with LoanDepot, four times the industry average of 18%.

Still, not everyone is enamored with the company's tactics, which
can veer towards the aggressive: LoanDepot is fighting two proposed
class action lawsuits alleging it made excessive robocalls hawking
its mortgages. The company says it "denies the allegations in these
cases and is vigorously defending both matters." Of the four
customers with whom Forbes spoke, three described being enticed by
low rates and an easy-to-use online platform, before later getting
stuck with ill-equipped agents located thousands of miles away to
complete the process or waiting for months to actually close on
their loan. LoanDepot points to its high customer ratings averaging
above 4 stars across a number of online platforms including Google,
LendingTree, Zillow and TrustLink.

In just eleven years, the California-based upstart has grown to
become the seventh-largest mortgage lender in the U.S., according
to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance, with roughly 3% of
the $11 trillion market for new mortgages. LoanDepot's profits rose
by a staggering 5,750% to $2 billion in 2020, while revenues more
than tripled to $4.3 billion.

"We just eclipsed Bank of America, and now we're only behind Rocket
and iconic American banks like Chase and Wells Fargo," says Hsieh.
"We're well-positioned and we're very excited about the next 10
years." [GN]

MARCO DESTIN: Ramos FFCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON RAMOS v. MARCO
DESTIN, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00064-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the following class of similarly situated individuals:

   "All persons employed by Defendants between April 1, 2020 and
   December 31, 2020 who had to take leave due to being under a
   state, federal or local order to quarantine after a diagnosis or

   potential exposure to COVID-19 and/or who were unable to work
   due to experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical
   diagnosis, as set forth in the Families First Coronavirus Relief

   Act (FFCRA), but were not paid at the pay to which they were
   entitled pursuant to that Act."

In her Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted claims
on behalf of a collective class for wages owed by Defendant, Marco
Destin, Inc. to its employees under the FFRCA that were wrongfully
not paid to them.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gDcAT7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          1992 Lewis Turner Blvd, Suite 1023
          Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
          Telephone: (850) 200-4594
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
                  jjackson@jackson-law.net

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Seeks July 6 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FATMA FERJANI, AFIFA
BACCOUCHE, RODELINE HILAIRE, and AYLONN GDAIEM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-60770-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time by
which it must respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed as
Collective Action by 15 days, through and including, July 6, 2021.

The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on April 8, 2021
and effected service upon Defendant on April 12, 2021. The
Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint's on June 2, 2021. The
Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Proceed as Collective Action on May
6, 2021. The Defendant's response to the Motion to Proceed as
Collective Action is currently due on June 21, 2021, which was
extended on consent and Order by the Court from the initial
deadline of May 20, 2021.

The Defendant seeks a brief additional extension of time to respond
to the Motion to Proceed as Collective Action to complete its
investigation and research of possible defenses to Plaintiffs'
claims and the appropriateness of class treatment. Defendant, thus,
seeks this enlargement in good faith and not solely for any
improper purpose.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SDSZu0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert R. Hearn, Esq.
          EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          One Beach Drive, SE, Suite 303
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 346-3767
          Facsimile: (888) 509-0788
          E-mail: RHearn@ebglaw.com

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bedford County Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BEDFORD COUNTY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 276-2021,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on June 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00101-KRG to the proceeding.

In this class suit, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages caused by
the opioid epidemic, including but not limited to (1) costs for
providing medical care, additional therapeutic and prescription
drug purchases, and other treatments for patients suffering from
opioid-related addiction or disease, including overdoses and
deaths; (2) costs for providing treatment, counseling and
rehabilitation services; (3) costs for providing treatment of
infants born with opioid-related medical conditions; (4) costs of
providing care for children whose parents suffer from
opioid-related disability or incapacitation; (5) costs associated
with law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid
epidemic; and (6) costs associated with drug court and other
resources expended through the judicial system.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consulting firm, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         John J. Berry, Esq.
         DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
         Six PPG Pl., Suite 1300
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 281-5000
         Facsimile: (412) 281-5055

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GREEN COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF GREEN
COUNTY; BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF BRECKINRIDGE
COUNTY; HARDIN COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF HARDIN COUNTY;
MEADE COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF MEADE COUNTY; MENIFEE
COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF MENIFEE COUNTY; NELSON COUNTY
FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF NELSON COUNTY; OHIO COUNTY FISCAL COURT,
ON BEHALF OF OHIO COUNTY; WASHINGTON COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY; on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated Kentucky County fiscal courts, and CITY OF
HENDERSON, KENTUCKY, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated Kentucky home rule cities v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.
UNITED STATES, and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00035, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04536-CRB to the proceeding.

In this class suit, the Plaintiffs seek actual damages caused by
the opioid epidemic, including but not limited to (1) costs for
providing medical care, additional therapeutic and prescription
drug purchases, and other treatments for patients suffering from
opioid-related addiction or disease, including overdoses and
deaths; (2) costs for providing treatment, counseling and
rehabilitation services; (3) costs for providing treatment of
infants born with opioid-related medical conditions; (4) costs of
providing care for children whose parents suffer from
opioid-related disability or incapacitation; (5) costs associated
with law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid
epidemic; and (6) costs associated with drug court and other
resources expended through the judicial system.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consulting
firm, with its principal place of business in New York, New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. is a management
consulting firm, with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
          
       William D. Nefzger, Esq.
       BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
       1041 Goss Avenue
       Louisville, KY 40217
       E-mail: will@bccnlaw.com

             - and –

       Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
       Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
       GRABHORN LAW
       2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
       Louisville, KY 40223
       E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
               a.grabhorn@grabhorn.law.com

MDL 2543: S.D. New York Receives Letter in GM Ignition Switch Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order stating that the
Court has received a letter from an alleged member of the
settlement class in the multidistrict litigation captioned as IN
RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION, Case No.
14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Dec. 18, 2020, the Court approved a class action settlement in
this multidistrict litigation. The Court has received a letter,
attached as Exhibit A, from an alleged member of the settlement
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wfzuh62 from Leagle.com.


MICHIGAN DOC: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS DAVIS; TRE WHEAT;
ALLEN MARION; ISHMAEL COLLINS; COREY CREWS; CHARLES ROBERTSON; Paul
L. Maloney - U.S. District Judge TOMMY TIGGS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly Situated, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, in
her Official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections; MIKE BROWN, in his Official capacity as Warden of
Kinross Correctional Facility; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND STATE OF MICHIGAN, in their official capacities, Case No.
2:21-cv-00129-PLM-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the class with the subclass as follows:

      -- The Class ("those the Defendants intentionally and
         deliberately gave COVID-19") is defined as:

         "Those who experience lingering side-effects that impede
         their ability to carry-out normal day-to-day tasks,
         without experiencing pain or mental challenges, etc.;"

      -- The Subclass ("Medically-Vulnerable Subclass") is defined

         as:

         "All members of the prison class who are also over the age

         of 45, or who regardless of age, experience an underlying

         medical condition that places them at a particularly
         greater risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19,
         including but not limited to (a) lung disease, including
         asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g-,
         bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions
         associated with impaired lung function of any kind; (b)
         heart disease, such as congenital heart disease,
         congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease; (c)

         chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and
         dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other Endocrine
         disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised

         immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an
         organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of
         medication, or other auto immune disease); (h) accelerated

         body mass index (B.M.I.); (i) blood disorders (including
         sickle cell disease); (j) inherent metabolic disorders;
         (k) history of stroke; (1) any developmental disability
         from COVID-19, creating unstable mental challenges;" and

   2. appointing competent counsel, like Jeffrey Fieger, as class
      counsel under Rule 23(a)(4) and (g).

The Plaintiffs initiated this complaint in late 2020, due to the
Defendants deliberate indifference to the risk posed by the novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) and its devastating and deadly affect on
Michigan prisoners, specifically, the Defendants have recklessly
disregarded the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
Executive Orders from the Michigan Governor, by intentionally
bringing positive doe staff members into the facility and
transferring, known to be positive prisoners from Marquette Branch
Prison (MBP) to infect the population at Kinross Correctional
Facility (KCF), during a time when, transfers of prisoners or staff
between facilities was not authorized without approval of the
Assistant Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC), or higher.

The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United
States. It has 31 prison facilities, and a Special Alternative
Incarceration program, together composing approximately 41,000
prisoners.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2S9i14c
at no extra charge.[CC]



MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Reached in Former Employees' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Produce, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in both
class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California and the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Ventura, respectively, and the Company agreed
preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to resolve both class
action cases for a total of $0.8 million.

On April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles against the company
alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California,
including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage
violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others.

Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc.
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura against the company
alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws.

The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of
class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus
other consequential and special damages.

While the Company believes that it did not violate any wage or
labor laws, it nevertheless decided to settle these class action
lawsuits.

In May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the
Company agreed preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to
resolve both class action cases for a total of $0.8 million, which
the Company recorded as a loss contingency in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of
comprehensive income (loss) during the three months ended April 30,
2021.

This preliminary settlement is subject to approval by the
applicable courts.

Mission Produce, Inc. is a world leader in sourcing, producing and
distributing fresh avocados, serving retail, wholesale and
foodservice customers. The source, produce, pack and distribute
avocados to its customers and provide value-added services
including ripening, bagging, custom packing and logistical
management. The company is based in Oxnard, California.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Gilmore Seeks Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GILMORE, et al., v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01085-MN (D. Del.), the
Plaintiffs Scott Gilmore, Julio Ezcurra, James Weeks, Amanda
Boyette, Anthony Jewell, Paul Taylor, Sherry Hanna, and Kristy
Williams ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminary approving the proposed Class Action Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. preliminary certifying the proposed Settlement Class for
      purposes of settlement and appointing them and their counsel

      as Class Representatives and Class Counsel, respectively;

   3. approving the Class Notice and Notice Plan; and

   4. setting of a fairness hearing and other necessary dates in
      connection with Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement
      Agreement.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in
Creve Coeur, Missouri. Monsanto's best known product is Roundup, a
glyphosate-based herbicide, developed in the 1970s.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wpMN7E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chandra J. Williams, Esq.
          William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esq.
          RHODUNDA WILLIAMS & KONDRASCHOW
          Brandywine Plaza West
          1521 Concord Pike, Suite 205
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          E-mail: Bill@rawlaw.com
                  Chandra@rawlaw.com

               - and -

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, JACKSON,
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com

NCAA: Ede Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Daniel Ede,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01640-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 10, 2021).

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Penson Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kevin Penson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01695-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2021).

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Testani Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Alexander
Testani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
1:21-cv-01697-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2021).

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Wolff Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jerod Wolff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1:21-cv-01696-TWP-MJD
(S.D. Ind., June 11, 2021).

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NEW YORK STATE DOCCS: Crichlow Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Kevin Damion Crichlow,
individually, on behalf of many John Does, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New York State DOCCS and several prisons;
Comm. Annucci; DSS Waren L. L., Eastern C.F.; John Doe; Dep.
Morris; Dr. Guzman; Nurse (F); Nurse, on behalf of 40 more John
Does & Jane Does et al.; Individually & in His/Her capacity as an
employee of DOCCS; Case No. 1:21-cv-04457, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on June
14, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:21-cv-00692-DNH-TWD to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision -- https://doccs.ny.gov/ -- is the department of the
New York State government that maintains the state prisons and
parole system.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Kevin Damion Crichlow
          Box 338
          Napanoch, NY 12458
          08-A-3511
          Eastern NY Correctional Facility
          PRO SE


NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Mass. Court Tosses Chong & Bahrani Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the lawsuits
captioned MANNY CHONG, THANE GALLO, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY; and MANISHA BAHRANI, DUNCAN
LEGGET, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NORTHEASTERN
UNIVERSITY, Case Nos. 20-10844-RGS, 20-10946-RGS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs Manny Chong and Thane Gallo and Plaintiffs Manisha
Bahrani and Duncan Legget brought putative class actions (Civil
Action Nos. 20-10844 and 20-10946, respectively) against
Northeastern University, alleging that it breached an in-person
teaching contract with its students or, alternatively, unjustly
enriched itself at its students' expense when it retained the full
amount of tuition and fees collected for the Spring semester of
2020, despite ceasing in-person instruction and closing its
on-campus facilities and resources. Northeastern moves for summary
judgment based on language concerning the delivery of educational
services that appears in the handbooks distributed to all
Northeastern students.

Background

Students at Northeastern register for classes through an online
portal called myNortheastern. At the beginning of each academic
schoolyear, Northeastern blocks students' access to the
myNortheastern portal pending the completion of certain enrollment
tasks, one of which is called: "Complete Student Handbook and Code
of Conduct Requirement." To complete this task (and enable access
to myNortheastern), a student must click on a "Take Action" button,
which loads the Portal Block Screen on the student's device.

Students must click the "Accept" button on the Portal Block Screen
to remove the block to myNortheastern. The text immediately above
that button states that, "[b]y selecting the ACCEPT button below
you acknowledge you have been notified of the availability of the
Student Handbook, Northeastern's Code of Student Conduct, and the
Academic Integrity Policy, have read them, understand their meaning
and agree to abide by the policies set forth." The Plaintiffs
concede that they clicked the Accept button on the Portal Block
Screen prior to enrolling for classes in the Spring semester of
2020.

The Portal Block Screen contains a hyperlink to the "Undergraduate
Student Handbook." Clicking on this hyperlink would bring a student
to a page entitled "Code of Student Conduct." The Portal Block
Screen also contains a hyperlink to the "Graduate Handbook."
Clicking on this hyperlink would bring a student to a page entitled
"General Regulations," which was included in the 2019-2020 Graduate
Student Catalog.

Discussion

Northeastern argues that the delivery of services language within
its Undergraduate Student Handbook and Graduate Catalog bars the
Plaintiffs' contract claims. But the argument is premised on a
student having entered a binding contract with the university by
clicking on the Portal Block Screen, a proposition that the
Plaintiffs reject. The court accordingly will turn first to whether
the delivery of services language has contractual force.

District Judge Richard G. Stearns states that as the world of
commerce has undergone a digital revolution, a body of law has
grown up around the phenomenon of the electronic or digitalized
contract formed online without any of the personal interaction or
bargaining with which common-law contracts traditionally were
formed. The Massachusetts courts, for their part, have come to
assess the enforceability of an online contract by using "a
reasonableness standard, focusing on whether the contract
provisions at issue 'were reasonably communicated and accepted.'"
Kauders v. Uber Techs., Inc., 486 Mass. 557, 571-572 (2021),
quoting Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass.App.Ct. 565, 574 (2013).

As applied to the delivery of services provision set out in the
student handbooks, the Court must make the determination (1) that a
student was given fair notice that he or she was entering a binding
contract by clicking the Accept button on the Portal Block Screen
and (2) that he or she reasonably communicated an acceptance of the
delivery of services reservation.

Judge Stearns finds that Northeastern cannot surmount the first
consideration. The Portal Block Screen provides that "[b]y
selecting the ACCEPT button below you acknowledge you have been
notified of the availability of the Student Handbook,
Northeastern's Code of Student Conduct, and the Academic Integrity
Policy, have read them, understand their meaning and agree to abide
by the policies set forth."

The Court does not believe that a reasonable student parsing this
language would understand that, by clicking "accept," he or she was
entering into "a significant contractual relationship"
acknowledging Northeastern's unilateral right to alter the terms
and conditions under which course instruction would be offered
(Kauders, 486 Mass. at 579). First, the language itself is
ambiguous, Judge Stearns holds. Second, even if the language on the
Portal Block Screen could be said to give a student some reason to
anticipate the formation of a formal contract, the contents of the
handbooks themselves negate any such understanding.

Judge Stearns explains that the handbooks expressly disclaim any
intent to form a mutual (or unilateral) contract of an enforceable
nature, a familiar echo of the typical disclaimers found in
employee handbooks, citing Jackson v. Action for Boston Cmty. Dev.,
Inc, 403 Mass. 8, 14-15 (1988). The delivery of services language
at issue in this case, moreover, is buried at the end of the
document assembly.

It is true that the student Plaintiffs certified that they had
reviewed and understood the entire document, but nothing within
earlier portions of the various texts can reasonably be said to
have directed a student's attention specifically to the delivery of
services language, Judge Stearns finds. Under the circumstances,
the Court cannot say that a student would have had reason to know
that by clicking "accept," he or she was contracting permission for
Northeastern to alter or change course offerings at will.

Northeastern alternatively argues that, even if the delivery of
services language is not contractual, it nonetheless weighs heavily
against any reasonable expectation of in-person instruction or
access to on-campus facilities in the face of a pandemic or other
force majeure. The Court finds merit in this contention. The
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they clicked the Accept button on
the Portal Block Screen prior to the start of the Spring semester
of 2020, and the website is clear that, in doing so, they
"acknowledged" having "been notified of the availability of the
Student Handbook, Northeastern's Code of Student Conduct, and the
Academic Integrity Policy," having "read them," and having
"underst[ood] their meaning."

Judge Stearns opines that the Plaintiffs' late-blooming contention
that they did not read the handbooks is unacceptable for reasons
other than litigation opportunism. It has long been the rule, and
for an important purpose, that a person who signs an
acknowledgement that he or she has read and understands the
provisions of a document will be held to their word, however
strenuously they may later profess ignorance of the contents of
that document.

If the rule were otherwise, the value of an acknowledgement as a
tool of commerce would collapse into nothing more than an
unenforceable statement of a party's present intent, an undertaking
to be freely renounced after the fact at a party's whim or in
service of a tactical advantage, Judge Stearns points out.

Judge Stearns points out that the delivery of services provision in
Northeastern's handbooks is unambiguous: it unequivocally reserves
the right of the University to "make changes of any nature in its
programs . . . and academic schedule"--"including, without
limitation, changes in course content and class schedule, the
cancellation of scheduled classes and other academic activities,
and the substitution of alternatives for scheduled classes and
other academic activities"--"whenever necessary or desirable." It
also expressly disclaims liability for any delay or failure to
provide educational or other services or facilities due to causes
beyond its reasonable control.

Given the clarity of this language, the Court does not believe that
any reasonable student, who professed to have read it (as these
Plaintiffs did) could have expected that registering for in-person
classes and executing the Student Financial Responsibility
Agreement would give him or her a contractual right to receive
in-person instruction and/or unrestricted access to on-campus
facilities and resources. Other courts agree; see Burt v. Bd. of
Trs. of Univ. of Rhode Island, 2021 WL 825398, at *5 (D.R.I. Mar.
4, 2021). The Court, accordingly, allows Northeastern's motion for
summary judgment.

For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is allowed. The
Clerk will enter judgment in Northeastern's favor on all claims in
civil actions 20-10844 and 20-10946 and close both cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/r3k29afw from
Leagle.com.


NORTHERN MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarnes v. Northern
Manufacturing, Case No. 3:21-cv-00287 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
James R. Knepp II entered an order granting joint motion for
extension of time until July 2, 2021 to file motion for conditional
class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Northern Manufacturing is a sheet metal fabrication company
specializing in stainless steel fabrications.

NUIX LTD: Class Action Law Firms Investigate Disclosure Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson and Kate McClymont, writing for WAtoday, reports
that Nuix financial chief Stephen Doyle is poised to leave the
forensic data analytics company barely a fortnight after it issued
a second revenue downgrade and following fresh revelations the
corporate regulator is investigating the $1.8 billion float of the
business.

The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age can reveal that Mr Doyle
cleared his desk at Nuix's Sydney head office shortly after the
mastheads published an article that contained details of his share
transfers to his brother in tax-friendly Switzerland, and he hasn't
been sighted there since.

Mr Doyle left for Runaway Bay, on Queensland's Gold Coast, on May
31, the same day Nuix rocked investors with a second downgrade of
its revenue forecasts that pushed its shares to a record low.

When asked about Mr Doyle's employment status, a Nuix spokesperson
instead spoke of the "exceptional and committed people" currently
employed by the company. Pressed as to whether Mr Doyle was one of
these people, the spokesperson did not respond. Mr Doyle also
failed to respond to questions about his position at Nuix.

The bean counter's imminent departure comes as burnt investors call
for the removal of Nuix CEO Rod Vawdrey and board renewal after a
joint Herald, The Age and The Australian Financial Review media
investigation exposed problems with Nuix's governance and the
quality of its financial accounts, years before it floated.

The heavily-hyped float made Nuix's co-founder Tony Castagna and Mr
Vawdrey instantly rich and delivered major shareholder Macquarie
Group a $550 million cash windfall. But since then Nuix shares have
crashed from a peak of almost $12 to close at $2.65 on June 11 --
destroying almost $3 billion in market value and leaving the stock
50 per cent below its $5.31 December 2020 issue price.

The decline has left investors baying for blood, with three class
action law firms investigating the company for misleading and
deceptive conduct or breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations.

The marketing campaign ahead of the float by Macquarie has been
likened to putting lipstick on a pig with some investors describing
themselves as being "stuck with the rancid bacon".

The savagery and speed of the share price fall has damaged the
reputations of Nuix and Macquarie and resulted in the regulator
sending notices to both companies warning them to retain relevant
documentation stretching back to 2018.

The investigation by ASIC relates to allegations that Nuix
overstated its sales forecasts ahead of its listing on the ASX on
December 4.

On the very day Nuix made its blockbuster debut on the Australian
Securities Exchange, Mr Doyle and his wife Liza Choa-Doyle splashed
out $4.6million for a four-bedroom, four-bathroom penthouse in
Pyrmont, on the fringes of Sydney's CBD.

Mr Doyle became CFO of Nuix in 2011, around the time Macquarie
became the major shareholder in the company.

In September 2012 Mr Doyle lodged documents with the corporate
watchdog ASIC reporting he had been issued with 50,000 Nuix shares
costing him $301,500.

However, three years later, in December 2015, Mr Doyle notified
ASIC he had sold those same 50,000 Nuix shares to his brother Ross
Doyle in Switzerland in July 2012. This was six weeks before he
owned the shares.

Despite having apparently sold the shares to his brother for
$326,000 some three years earlier, booking a $24,500 capital gain,
Nuix continued to produce internal and external documents which
showed Mr Doyle still owned the shares up until 2015, when their
value had jumped to $4 million.

On the day the company was listed on the ASX in December 2020, Ross
Doyle was listed as Nuix's 14th largest shareholder with 2 million
shares, worth $10.6 million at the $5.31 issue price.

The Australian Federal Police is investigating possible breaches of
the Corporations Act involving Mr Castagna, who recently had a
consultancy contract with Nuix terminated. The investigation is
interested in the dating of Dr Castagna's $3000 options package
which delivered him an $80 million windfall when Nuix became a
public company in December 2020.

It is not known what Mr Doyle plans to do next but Nuix chairman
Jeff Bleich gave him a few ideas in an email in October 2018,
obtained by this masthead, just as Nuix completed a $50 million
acquisition of US tech group Ringtail. "I'm optimistic about Nuix's
fortunes but if things don't work for you, then at least your 25
hour-day gives you a shot at the Nobel Prize for expanding the
space-time continuum," he wrote.

Mr Bleich was referring to an earlier email where Doyle said he had
endured an exhausting 90 days overseas inking the Ringtail deal.
"My longest day was 25 hours straight. Many of us experienced the
same iron man conditions . . .. Keep fit. SD." [GN]

ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Faces Granados Suit Over Account's Stolen Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNA GRANADOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONPOINT COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00847-SI (D. Or., July 3, 2021) alleges violation
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the perpetrator, who
is unknown to the Plaintiff, fraudulently misrepresented himself as
OnPoint Community Credit Union ("OnPoint" or "Defendant") in a
phone call in a successful effort to obtain the Plaintiff's debit
card pin number.

The perpetrator then used the pin to fraudulently charge and
withdraw a total of $3,474.28 from the Plaintiff's checking and
savings account with OnPoint after unauthorized transfers were made
between said accounts. Plaintiff promptly disputed the charges with
the Defendant. Despite its obligation under the the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act to promptly credit the Plaintiff's account in full,
the Defendant refused to credit the Plaintiff's account for the
stolen funds, says the suit.

OnPoint Community Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
          707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-6474
          Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
          E-mail: david@sugermanlawoffice.com
                  nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 13 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.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT PTON:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16834&from=1

Class Period: September 11, 2020 - May 5, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in
addition to the tragic death of a child, Peloton's Tread+ had
caused a serious safety threat to children and pets as there were
multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety was not a priority
to Peloton as defendants were aware of serious injuries and death
resulting from the Tread+, yet did not recall or suggest a halt of
the use of the Tread+; (3) as a result of the safety concerns, the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") declared 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.

Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT ARRY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/array-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16834&from=1

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.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

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.

Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT WISH:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16834&from=1

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.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021

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.

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]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on June 14
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON)
("Peloton") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Peloton
securities between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021

Website:

https://www.ktmc.com/peloton-interactive-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=peloton

Contact:

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

Peloton provides interactive fitness products such as the Peloton
Bike and the Peloton Tread+ and Tread, which include touchscreens
that stream live and on-demand classes. Peloton also provides
connected fitness subscriptions and access to all live and
on-demand classes. Peloton launched the Tread+ treadmill in 2018.
At that time, it was called the "Tread." Peloton renamed its
signature treadmill in September 2020 to "Tread +."

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, Peloton announced voluntary recalls of
both its Tread+ and Tread treadmill machines over safety concerns.
Peloton also advised customers who have the products to immediately
stop using them and contact Peloton for a full refund. Peloton's
Chief Executive Officer, John Foley said in a statement, "I want to
be clear, Peloton made a mistake in our initial response to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's request that we recall the
Tread+."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child,
Peloton's Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety
was not a priority to Peloton as the 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 Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC") declared the Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health
and safety resulting in its urgent recommendation for consumers
with small children to cease using the Tread+; (4) the CPSC also
found a safety threat to Tread+ users if they lost their balance;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements
about Peloton's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Peloton investors may, no later than June 28, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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


PEROUTKA MILLER: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peroutka, Miller,
Klima & Peters, PA, et al. The case is styled as Ebony Brown,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Peroutka, Miller, Klima & Peters, PA, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00069-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va., June 2, 2021).

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

Peroutka, Miller, Klima & Peters, PA --
https://www.kpdlawgroup.com/ -- is a Maryland law firm that
effectively and ethically collects delinquent consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Phone: (443) 326-6011
          Fax: (410) 653-1061
          Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


PETROQUEST ENERGY: Hoog Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Hoog, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PetroQuest Energy,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00463-RAW (E.D. OKla), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
classes under Rule 23(b)(3):

   -- Class I:

      "All persons who are royalty owners, except those whose
      leases expressly authorize deductions under Oklahoma law, in

      Oklahoma wells where Defendants (in-cluding their affiliated

      predecessors and affiliated successors) or PetroQuest Energy,

      L.L.C. are or were the operator (or a working interest owner

      who marketed their share of gas separately from the operator)

      and where Defendants are or were lessee (in whole or in part)

      from October 25, 2011, to the date Class Notice is given. The

      Class claims relate to royalty payments for gas and its
      constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids,
      helium, nitrogen, or drip condensate)."

   -- Class I Subclass:

      "All persons entitled to share in royalty proceeds payable
      under any lease that contains an express provision stating
      that royalty will be paid on gas used off the lease premises

      (an Off-Lease-Use clause).

   -- Class II:

      "All persons who are royalty owners in Oklahoma wells where
      the Defendants (including their affiliated predecessors and
      affiliated successors) are or were the operator (or a working

      interest owner who marketed their share of gas separately
      from the operator) and where Defendants are or were lessee
      (in whole or in part) from October 25, 2011, to the date
      Class Notice is given, and whose gas was delivered to NextEra

      Energy Marketing, LLC (or its affiliated predecessors and
      affiliated successors).

   -- Exclusions:

      (1) agencies, departments or instrumentalities of the United
       States of America, including but not limited to, the U.S.
       Department of the Interior (the United States, Indian
       tribes, and Indian allottees); (2) the State of Oklahoma or

       any of its agencies or departments that own royalty
       interests; (3) Defendants, their affiliates, predecessors,
       and employees, officers, and directors; (4) any publicly
       traded company, or their affiliated entity, that produces,
       gathers, processes, or markets gas; (5) the claims of
       royalty owners to the extent covered by arbitration clauses

       or prior settlement agreements, if any, still in effect at
       the time suit was filed herein; (6) overriding royalty
       owners and others whose interest was carved out from the
       lessee's interest; (7) royalty owners who have already filed

       and still have pending lawsuits for underpayment of
       royalties against Defendants; (8) royalty owners only to the

       extent they take gas in-kind, if any; (9) Plaintiff's
       counsel, their experts, and officers of the Court; and (10)

       royalty owners for the wells and leases acquired from Encana

       Corp.

The Defendants and Their Activity in Oklahoma Defendants WSGP and
Trinity are sister companies, with the exact same corporate
ownership. Both Defendants are ultimately owned by NextEra Energy,
Inc., which is the world's largest utility company, worth over $140
billion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102

               - and -

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208

PINTEREST INC: Faces Klein Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMO KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINTEREST, INC.; BENJAMIN SILBERMANN; and
TODD MORGENFELD, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04220 (N.D. Cal.,
July 3, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Pinterest securities between
February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, on April 27, 2021, after the market
closed, Pinterest announced its first quarter 2021 financial
results and reported that global monthly active users grew only 30%
year-over-year to 478 million, a decline from the prior quarter's
37% year-over-year growth. During a conference call held the same
day, Pinterest's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") stated that "[a]s
pandemic lockdowns were eased in some parts of the world during
mid-March, we began to see signs of less engagement and user growth
on Pinterest."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.25 per share, or
14.5%, to close at $66.33 per share on April 28, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) user growth was already slowing;
(ii) as a result, the Company expected user engagement to slow in
the second quarter of 2021; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Pinterest, Inc. operates and maintains social networking site. The
Company provides online venue for personal photos, ideas, oddities,
decorations, places to visit, recipes, and other items. [BN}

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

PLANTATION PEANUTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plantation Peanuts of
Wakefield, Virginia, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plantation
Peanuts of Wakefield, Virginia, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05194
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

Plantation Peanuts of Wakefield --
https://www.plantationpeanuts.com/ -- offers only the finest
gourmet Virginia peanuts available.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POLITICS AND PROSE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Politics and Prose
Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Politics and Prose Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05190 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021).

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

Politics and Prose -- https://www.politics-prose.com/ -- is an
independent bookstore located in Chevy Chase, Washington, D.C., on
Connecticut Avenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POND5 INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pond5, Inc. The case
is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Pond5, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05192
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

Pond5 -- https://www.pond5.com/ -- is a New York–based online
marketplace for royalty-free media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE MARATHON: Mencl Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Marathon
Insurance Company. The case is styled as John Mencl, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive
Marathon Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00489 (W.D. Mich., June 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Progressive Marathon Insurance Company --
https://www.progressivecommercial.com/ -- operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, homeowners, renters, motorcycle,
flood, condos, and boat insurance products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROHEALTH: Gonzalez Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProHealth. The case
is styled as Carolina Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ProHealth, Case No. 2:21-cv-04759
(C.D. Cal., June 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

ProHealth -- https://www.prohealthcare.com/ -- offer urgent care,
primary care and specialty care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          1925 Century Park East Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Ramos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joselyn Ramos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Puma North America, Inc., Case No.
2021CH00966, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 14, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03192 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Puma North America Inc. -- https://us.puma.com/ -- provides apparel
goods. The Company offers wholesale distribution of men and boys
apparel and furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PURECYCLE TECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
("PureCycle" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) and reminds investors
of the July 12, 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 PureCycle
stock or options between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 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/PCT.

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
PureCycle had: (1) previously brought six other businesses public
only to have each implode thereafter, "resulting in 2 bankruptcies,
3 delistings, and 1 acquisition after a ~95% decline[,]" with
"[o]ver $760 million in public shareholder capital [being]
incinerated in the process"; (2) "based their financial
projections" in those other failed companies on "'wild ass
guessing,' [bringing] companies public far too early, and [having]
deceived investors"; and (3) only brought PureCycle public in order
to permit that same spurious management team to "collectively
position themselves to clear ~$90 million in cash and tradable
shares before the company generates a single dime in revenue."

In response to this news, the price of PureCycle common stock
declined by more than 40%, or approximately $10 per share.

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 PureCycle's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 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.

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16827&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021

Allegations against PCT include that: (i) the technology PureCycle
licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents serious
issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the
availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to
commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (iii)
PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16827&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021

Allegations against PRVB include that: (i) 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 approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA
lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to
believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the
teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization
timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16827&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021

Allegations against FREQ include that: the Company's Phase 2a trial
results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as the
results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the
placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock.

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]

QUALITY HUTS: Strohmenger Files ADA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Huts, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Lucas Strohmenger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Huts, LLC, Does
1 to 10, Case No. 1:21-cv-01662-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 11,
2021).

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

Quality Huts -- http://www.qualityrestaurantgroup.com/-- Was
founded in 2017 with a strong focus on developing a world-class
multi-branded quick service and fast casual restaurant franchising
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah Cartwright Thomas, Esq.
          CHAPMAN LAW LLC
          20 NW 3rd St., Ste. 1410
          Evansville, IN 47708
          Phone: (812) 426-0600
          Fax: (866) 543-0024
          Email: noah@chapmanlaw.com

The Defendants appear pro se.


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Metzner Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metzner v. Quinnipiac
University, Case No. 3:20-cv-00784 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari
A Dooley entered an order granting joint motion to amend case
schedule:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
filed
      by November 29, 2021;

   -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
      certification shall be filed by February 1, 2022 and the
      Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be filed by February 28, 2022;

   -- All discovery shall be completed by May 3, 2022;

   -- Dispositive motions, if any, shall be
      filed by July 28, 2022; and

   -- The telephonic status conference scheduled for December 10,
      2021, is rescheduled for May 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM.

The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract.

Quinnipiac University is a private university in Hamden,
Connecticut. The university grants undergraduate, graduate, and
professional degrees through its College of Arts and Sciences,
School of Business, School of Engineering, School of Communication,
School of Health Sciences, School of Law, School of Medicine,
School of Nursing, and School of Education.[CC]


RANGERS ENTERPRISE: Stipulation to Dismiss Bridges FLSA Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CALVIN BRIDGES, individually and for others
similarity situated, Plaintiff v. RANGERS ENTERPRISE SATELLITE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-108-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi approved
the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

On April 3, 2020, Calvin Bridges, "individually and for others
similarly situated," filed a complaint against Rangers Enterprise
Satellite, LLC, alleging a denial of overtime compensation and
denial of minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On July 21, 2020, Kendall Jones filed a notice of consent to
join the proposed collective action. Six days later, Kendrick Smith
filed a similar notice. Rangers Enterprise answered the complaint
on Nov. 16, 2020.

On Dec. 17, 2020, Rangers Enterprise filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, on Jan. 20, 2021, this case was
stayed pending the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. On
April 9, 2021, the parties, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed a "Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice," which purports to "stipulate to the
dismissal with prejudice" of this case.

On April 16, 2021, this Court, noting that parties may not settle
FLSA claims without court approval, directed the parties to show
cause why the settlement should be approved and why Rangers
Enterprise's bankruptcy would not limit the Court's ability to
approve the settlement. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
all parties, filed a response to the order to show cause on April
30, 2021. Counsel also submitted to chambers a copy of the
settlement agreement for in camera review.

District Judge Debra M. Brown notes that as a threshold matter, the
parties represent that the bankruptcy proceeding has been dismissed
and that the automatic bankruptcy stay is no longer in force. With
respect to the terms of the settlement, the Plaintiffs represent
there were two bona fide disputes--the number of hours worked by
each Plaintiff individually and whether the Plaintiffs were
independent contractors or employees.

As to the relevant factors, the parties represent that (1) "[t]his
matter was resolved and settled over a period of months through
arms-length negotiations by experienced counsel;" (2) due to the
defendant's bankruptcy and issues with potential collective action
certification, "[a]bsent settlement, the cost of continuing
litigation would have been very high and the amount of time
necessary would be lengthy;" (3) discovery occurred with respect to
the defendant's financial status and the pay records for the
plaintiffs; (4) based on the pay records "[s]uccess on the merits
of the various contested issues was not certain;" (5) the
defendant's financial records showed it was unable to withstand a
sizeable judgment and "the settlement amounts reflect not only the
possibility of loss on the merits, but also Defendant's financial
status;" and (6) "Plaintiffs and their counsel fully agree that the
settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of genuine, bona
fide, disputes."

Based on the parties' representations and an independent review of
the settlement agreement, the Court concludes that the settlement
agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of bona fide
disputes. Accordingly, the settlement is approved and the Court
deems the stipulation of dismissal to be effective. This case is
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pnwe7p79 from Leagle.com.


REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 3
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saylor v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-13768-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon Judge Karen M.
Williams entered an order reinstating the class certification
schedule with the following adjusted deadlines:

   -- Fact Discovery Relating to            August 3, 2021
      Information Obtained From GDS:

   -- Expert Reports & Disclosures          September 14, 2021
      on behalf of Plaintiff:

   -- Expert Reports & Disclosures          October 18, 2021 a
      on behalf of the Defendant:

   -- Depositions of Expert Witnesses       November 12, 2021
      to be Concluded:

   -- Plaintiff to file his Motion          December 3, 2021 f
      for Class Certification:

RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SFHO41 at no extra charge.[CC]

REVCO SOLUTIONS: Matthews Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revco Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Lisa M. Matthews, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Revco Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-03314 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2021).

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

Revco Solutions -- https://revcosolutions.com/ -- was founded in
1979 and is the region's premier provider of fast, hassle-free,
professional debt recovery.[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


RLX TECH: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on June 13
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 RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) ("RLX") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired RLX American Depository
Shares ("ADS") pursuant or traceable to RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering (the "IPO").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired RLX
ADS pursuant or traceable to the IPO may, no later than August 9,
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/rlx-technology-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rlx_technology

RLX claims to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which it also claims is its "largest potential market." On January
19, 2021, RLX filed its final amendment to a Form F-1 registration
statement (the "Registration Statement"), which registered
133,975,000 RLX ADS for public sale. On January 22, 2021, the
defendants priced the IPO at $12 per ADS and filed the final
prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. Through the IPO, the defendants issued and sold
approximately 116,500,000 RLX ADS, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement, for gross proceeds of nearly $1.4 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
misrepresented and omitted, among other things, RLX's exposure to
China's then-existing campaign to establish a national standard for
e-cigarettes that would bring them into line with regular cigarette
regulations.

The truth was revealed when draft regulations were posted by the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, before the market
opened on March 22, 2021, eight weeks after RLX's IPO, which
confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated
similar to traditional tobacco offerings. Following this news, the
price of RLX's shares suffered an enormous decline. On March 22,
2021, RLX's ADS closed at $10.15 per ADS, down nearly 48% from its
previous close of $19.46 per ADS on March 19, 2021, the previous
trading day.

Then, on June 2, 2021 RLX published its first quarter 2021
financial results, announcing only a 48% increase in net revenues
quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that
its gross margin would "remain steady." Following this news, RLX's
shares declined, closing on June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down
nearly 9% from its June 3, 2021 close of $10.87 per ADS. Before the
commencement of the lawsuit, RLX's shares traded as low as $7.89
per ADS, or more than 32% below the IPO price.

RLX investors may, no later than August 9, 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.

Contacts:
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]

SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Response Due June 29
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kuehn v. Sage
EcoEnterprises, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00031 (W.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to file response/reply for conditional class
certification and for the issuance of court-supervised notice
responses to June 29, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

SAINT PAUL, MN: FLL Files Suit in Minnesota Judicial District
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Saint Paul.
The case is styled as Factory Lane LLC, Northern Pacific Ry Co, Soo
Line Railroad Co, James Langer, James Langer on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. City of Saint Paul, Case No.
62-CV-21-3292 (Minn. 2nd Judicial Dist., Ramsey Cty., June 11,
2021).

The case type is stated as "Assessment Appeal."

Saint Paul -- https://www.stpaul.gov/ -- the state capital of
Minnesota, forms the "Twin Cities" with neighboring
Minneapolis.[BN]


SAMCART INC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SamCart, Inc. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SamCart, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05144
(S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021).

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

SamCart -- https://www.samcart.com/ -- is an e-Commerce platform
designed to enable direct-to-consumer brands' growth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTA RITA, CA: Must Face Inmates' Medical Care Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dworetzky, writing for PleasantonWeekly.com, reports that a
federal magistrate judge in San Francisco refused to dismiss inmate
claims that medical care at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin is so
inadequate that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Alameda County seal.

The ruling came in a civil rights lawsuit originally filed in 2019
after a hunger strike and work stoppage by several hundred inmates
protested unsanitary conditions and inadequate medical care at the
jail.

The suit was styled as a class action of current and former inmates
at Santa Rita and challenged 20 conditions of confinement as
violations of the inmates' civil rights under a number of
constitutional provisions, including the 8th Amendment (cruel and
unusual punishment) and the 14th Amendment (denial of due
process).

The defendants included Alameda County, the Alameda County
Sheriff's Office, and a number of jail officers.

In addition, plaintiffs sued Aramark Correctional Services LLC, a
private company that provides food services at the prison, and
Wellpath Management Inc., a for-profit health care company that
provides medical care to the inmates.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.

Santa Rita Jail in Dublin is a medium-security facility serving
greater Alameda County. According to the complaint, Santa Rita is
the largest county jail in the Bay Area.

As of March 27, the jail population was 2,583, of which 2,324 were
male and 224 female, according to Inmate 101, an informational
website operated by a consulting group for inmates and families.

As a county jail, a major function of Santa Rita is to detain
individuals who have been refused pre-trial release or have been
unable to make bail. Some 85% of the jail population are pre-trial
detainees.

Through a series of motions to dismiss the lawsuit, the defendants
have been successful in whittling down the claims in the case, as
the court struck allegations and theories that did not meet federal
standards.

In March of this year, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint. That complaint -- now down to seven claims -- portrayed
the jail's operation as driven by financial policies designed to
denigrate inmates and deprive them of adequate food, sanitation and
medical care.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

The complaint describes the jail as being run in accordance with a
policy of "fiscal tightfisted, penny pinching control of prisoner
services, resulting in limited and reduced prisoner services."

The plaintiffs contended that the jail is run by guards and
officers being paid excessive compensation, even as funds spent on
services and care at the jail have decreased.

The complaint states that "being a jail guard at SRJ is one of --
if not the most -- remunerative jobs in the entire county that a
high school graduate with no college education can get. Starting
jail guards make approximately $100,000 per year in salary and
benefits."

The complaint's focus on financial policy is consistent with the
plaintiffs' challenge to their conditions of confinement under the
federal civil rights laws.

In order to obtain relief against local governmental entities like
Alameda County, plaintiffs must show more than one-time incidents.
They must establish that there is a specific policy or practice put
in place by the government -- or allowed by the government to
continue after learning about it -- that results in depriving a
person of their constitutional rights.

Central to the policy argument are the complaint's allegations
concerning Wellpath, a Delaware corporation formerly known as
California Forensic Medical Corporation.

The complaint says that Wellpath is the nation's largest for-profit
provider of health care services to correctional facilities, and it
has "a pattern and practice of providing inadequate medical care by
denying or unreasonably delaying medical care, reducing or denying
medication and refusing to provide medical devices."

The plaintiffs allege that Wellpath has a contract with the sheriff
to provide "all healthcare services of any type needed by any
prisoner at the jail," including "medical, dental, prenatal and
opioid treatment services."

The contract allegedly gives Wellpath sole authority to determine
"the necessity and appropriateness of inpatient hospital care and
other outside medical services."

The contract makes Wellpath "solely responsible for all costs
incurred in connection with any health care services provided to
prisoners inside and outside the jail" and pays the company "a set
price based on average daily prisoner population."

The plaintiffs contend that this structure gives Wellpath an
economic incentive to provide inadequate care and withhold needed
medical services. Because it is paid a fixed price and must fund
all health care costs, Wellpath allegedly withholds needed care on
a routine basis.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley found that the
"plaintiffs have adequately alleged a policy of financial
incentives to reduce costs of medical care in deliberate
indifference to prisoners' serious medical needs."

Moreover, the plaintiffs provided concrete examples of how that
policy resulted in deprivations of their constitutional rights.

The judge noted that the plaintiffs set forth numerous examples of
inadequate care, including inmates being forced to share
(pre-COVID) asthma inhalers, or (post-COVID) having their own
inhaler but only being allowed to use it once a day at a prescribed
time regardless of when it was needed.

The plaintiffs alleged that one inmate repeatedly asked to see an
eye doctor but was denied because Wellpath did not have a staff
ophthalmologist and would have had to pay for an exam as an
out-of-pocket expense.

Another inmate with a diagnosis of cervical cancer allegedly was
not able to get an evaluation until her lawyer got a court order
compelling it.

The judge concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that
Santa Rita prisoners are regularly denied necessary and appropriate
outside medical care because the contract provides that the cost of
such care comes out of Wellpath's profits.

The judge therefore denied the motion to dismiss the medical care
counts of the complaint against the municipal defendants.

She set a case management conference for July 29 to discuss the
next steps in the litigation. [GN]

SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: 9th Circuit Rules in Wage-and-House Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that a federal trial court in California
abused its discretion when it dismissed a former employee's
putative wage-and-hour class action against Schneider Logistics,
Inc. without leave to amend on the grounds that he didn't properly
define the putative class, the Ninth Circuit ruled. A fair reading
of the complaint is that the employee's proposed class definition
includes employees who are employed by staffing agencies acting as
joint employers with Schneider, the court said. [GN]

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Warwick Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled JOHN
WARWICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. and SCHNEIDER FINANCE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-C-1556 (E.D. Wis.).

Plaintiff John Warwick, an Illinois resident, brought this putative
class action against Defendants Schneider National, Inc. and
Schneider Finance, Inc., claiming that they improperly classified
thousands of drivers, including himself, as independent contractors
rather than employees. As a result of this misclassification,
Warwick claims that the Defendants have evaded their obligations to
pay these drivers their full wages as required by the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections
115/1, et seq. The case was transferred to this district from the
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 8,
2020. This Court has diversity jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332.

Background

Schneider National, Inc., and its affiliate Schneider Finance,
Inc., are Wisconsin corporations. Schneider National is the parent
company of Schneider Finance, Inc. and Schneider National Carriers,
Inc. (which is not a party). Schneider engages in long-haul
trucking, and its finance arm leases trucks to operators. Warwick
worked as an over-the-road truck driver for Schneider from
approximately October 2013 through November 2015. He was classified
as an owner-operator driver and resided in Illinois.

On Dec. 1, 2014, and Aug. 29, 2015, Warwick signed two Independent
Contractor Operating Agreements with Schneider National Carriers,
Inc. to render freight transportation services for Schneider. The
2014 Agreement contained a "governing law and choice of forum"
provision, providing that "[t]his Agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the United States and of the State of Wisconsin,
without regard to the choice-of-law rules of that State or any
other jurisdiction." The 2015 Agreement included similar language.

Mr. Warwick voluntarily terminated his contracts with Schneider in
November 2015. He asserts that the Defendants violated the IWPCA by
unlawfully deducting expenses from wages, failing to reimburse
business expenses, and failing to timely pay wages and final
compensation to Warwick and others.

Analysis

The Defendants assert that Warwick's IWPCA claims must be dismissed
because, under the choice-of-law provisions contained in the
parties' agreements, Wisconsin law, not Illinois law, governs the
instant dispute. Under Wisconsin choice-of-law principles, the
"parties to a contract may expressly agree that the law of a
particular jurisdiction shall control their contractual relations,"
as long as the parties' choice-of-law provision does not violate
"important public policies of a state whose law would be applicable
if the parties [sic] choice of law provision were disregarded."
Bush v. Nat'l Sch. Studios, 139 Wis.2d 635, 642, 407 N.W.2d 883
(1987).

As an initial matter, Warwick asserts that the choice-of-law
provisions do not encompass his claims because the plain language
of the provisions is limited to the law designated for interpreting
the Agreements, not to the statutory rights of the parties. In
particular, Warwick argues that the phrase "this Agreement shall be
governed" by Wisconsin law lends itself to a narrow construction
such that the choice-of-law provisions are limited to the
interpretation and construction of the Agreements and do not extend
to the enforcement of statutory or other substantive claims. He
asserts that, because he does not allege a dispute under the
Agreements or any cause of action sounding in contract, the
choice-of-law provisions do not comprise his IWPCA claims.

The Defendants maintain that Warwick's claims are contractual in
nature and require the Court to interpret the parties' agreements,
which the IWPCA would essentially render unenforceable. They cite
Lubinski v. Hub Grp. Trucking, Inc., 690 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir.
2017), to support their position that courts have enforced
choice-of-law provisions, like the ones in the parties' agreements,
when a plaintiff brings an IWPCA claim. In Lubinski, the plaintiff,
like Warwick here, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the defendant
trucking company improperly classified its drivers as independent
contractors and in doing so violated the IWPCA by forcing drivers
to assume expenses that it should have paid directly or reimbursed
to the drivers.

District Judge William C. Griesbach notes that in this case, the
choice-of-law provisions in the Agreements provide that the
Agreements are to be "governed by," "construed," and "enforced in
accordance with" the laws of Wisconsin. He holds that these
provisions do not meaningfully differ from the choice-of-law
provision in Lubinski, which stated that the "contract shall be
subject to, and shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of
the State of Tennessee."

Judge Griesbach opines that Warwick's attempt to distinguish this
case by asserting that Lubinski focused its analysis on the
enforceability of the choice-of-law provision, rather than its
scope, is to no avail. Lubinski could not have dismissed the
plaintiff's IWPCA claims without first finding that those claims
fell within the scope of the contract's choice-of-law provision.
Warwick's claims are dependent upon the Agreements, and like
Lubinski, the terms of the Agreements fall within the scope of the
choice-of-law provision. Accordingly, Warwick's claims are
encompassed by the Wisconsin choice-of-law provisions.

Mr. Warwick also asserts that the choice-of-law provisions violate
public policy. But he has not demonstrated that the application of
Wisconsin law is contrary to Illinois public policy, Judge
Griesbach finds. Warwick asserts that the choice-of-law provisions
frustrate the strong public policy of Illinois in regulating
employment occurring within its borders and it would deprive an
Illinois citizen of the protections of their state's laws for work
they do in or connected to Illinois. He maintains that forcing him
to "waive any ability to assert claims under Illinois law would be
all the more repugnant in that there does not appear to be any
analogous law in Wisconsin."

But as the Sixth Circuit in Lubinski explained, a choice-of-law
provision is not a waiver of rights but a "selection of governing
rights," Judge Griesbach notes. Warwick availed himself of
Wisconsin law when he signed the Agreements. In addition, the
absence of a Wisconsin statute identical to the IWPCA is not enough
on its own to prove that the choice-of-law provisions frustrate
public policy.

In sum, Wisconsin, not Illinois, law applies to Warwick's claim,
Judge Griesbach holds. His claims that his contracts with Schneider
are unenforceable and void are based entirely on Illinois law.
Because Illinois law does not apply, his claims fail. Warwick
cannot state a claim for violations of the IWPCA. The Defendants'
motion to dismiss will, therefore, be granted.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Warwick's
complaint is granted. This case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed
to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/9v8bfef7 from
Leagle.com.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that SJI, a company
subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs filed a class action
lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of
Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that US store-level employment practices are
discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with
respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an
order denying the Claimants' Motion. SJI filed with the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which
Claimants opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate
the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November
25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI
appealed the decision of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The arbitrator issued an
order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed
its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16,
2016.

The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the
arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion.

On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issued to
the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.


On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23,
2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which
Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016 and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. S

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016,
which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral
argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part
on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was
issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice
recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately 10,314 current
and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the
collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The
number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI
believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the
absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed
its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative
to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was
fully briefed, and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017.
On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims.

On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On
January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to Vacate
The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order
asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the
absent claimants to opt-in the litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date. A new trial date has not been set. On January 15, 2018,
District Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017 Renewed Motion to
Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that the Arbitrator
exceeded her authority by binding non-parties (absent class
members) to the Title VII claim.

The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not
permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in
the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants
disputed that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On
January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a
Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of
the Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No.
17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal.

The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to
submit additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On
November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and
remanding the District Court's January 15, 2018 Order that vacated
the Arbitrator's Class Determination Award certifying for
declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions
class of female retail sales employees. The Second Circuit held
that the District Court erred when it concluded that the Arbitrator
exceeded her authority in purporting to bind absent class members
to the Class Determination Award. The Second Circuit remanded the
case to the District Court to decide the narrower question of
whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying an opt-out, as opposed
to a mandatory, class for declaratory and injunctive relief.

On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second
Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition
for rehearing en banc. On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its
motion for stay of mandate with the Second Circuit pending the
filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court.

On January 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Sterling's motion
for stay of mandate. SJI's petition for a writ of certiorari from
the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2020. On January
27, 2021 the District Court ordered the case remanded to the AAA
for further proceedings in arbitration.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SKILLZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 13 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.

Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:SKLZ)
Class Period: December 16, 2020 - April 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021

During the class period, Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition
Corp. allegedly 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.

Learn 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=16830&from=1

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Danimer
Scientific, Inc. made materially 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in DNMR:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16830&from=1

Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021

The complaint alleges Ubiquiti Inc. 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in UI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16830&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]

SKILLZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:SKLZ)(NYSE:FEAC) between December 16, 2020
and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important July 7, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Skillz 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 Skillz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2093.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 7, 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 three games responsible for
a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined substantially; (2)
Skillz's revenue recognition policy misrepresented the Company's
financial condition; (3) Skillz had unrealistic market growth
projections, specifically in the Android market; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Skillz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2093.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]

SOCIAL STUDIES: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Social Studies 101
LLC. The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Social Studies
101 LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05218 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2021).

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

Social Studies 101 offers party planning of events requiring
curated design and decor, production and entertainment, and
location.[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


SPLUNK INC: Putative Securities Class Suit in California Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Splunk Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit filed in the Northern District of
California.

A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company,
its CEO and its CFO.

The initial complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding our financial guidance and asserted
a putative class period of October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020.

On March 16, 2021, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff counsel in the case. On June 7, 2021, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint which expands the putative class period
to run from March 26, 2020 to December 2, 2020 and alleges that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding our marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of
personnel.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Splunk Inc. provides innovative software solutions that ingest data
from different sources including systems, devices and interactions,
and turn that data into meaningful business insights across the
organization. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


SPOTIFY USA: New York Court Modifies Final Judgment in Ferrick Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order granting an unopposed
motion to modify final judgment in the lawsuit captioned MELISSA
FERRICK, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPOTIFY USA INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08412 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Court has considered Defendant Spotify USA Inc.'s unopposed
motion, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to modify the Corrected Order and Final Judgment
Approving Class Action Settlement, dated May 22, 2018.

The Court has previously entered stipulated orders modifying the
settlement agreement in order to grant class members additional
time to correct deficient claim forms and extend certain deadlines
for the settlement administrator.

The Court holds that, in light of the subsequent enactment of the
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3675 (2018)
(codified at 17 U.S.C. Section 115), there are sufficient changed
circumstances to justify the proposed modifications to the
settlement agreement and such modifications will not prejudice the
rights of class members.

Therefore, it is ordered that Paragraph 4.3 of the settlement
agreement is amended to add a new subparagraph 4.3(s), which
states: "Spotify may satisfy its obligations under the Future
Royalty Payments Program for usage for the period between the
Preliminary Approval Date and December 31, 2020 by accruing and
paying royalties to the mechanical licensing collective ("MLC")
recognized pursuant to the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C.
Section 115(d). If Spotify does so, it will not be obligated to pay
duplicative royalties for a particular Claimed Musical Work and
accordingly need not pay royalties for a Claimed Musical Work under
both the Future Royalty Payments Program and to the MLC. If,
however, Spotify pays to the MLC mechanical royalties that are owed
to an Identified Royalty Claimant with respect to a track embodying
a Claimed Musical Work but the Identified Royalty Claimant does not
receive mechanical royalties from the MLC for the period between
the Preliminary Approval Date and December 31, 2020 because the MLC
distributed those royalties to other copyright owners pursuant to
17 U.S.C. Section 115(d)(3)(J), that Identified Royalty Claimant
shall inform the Settlement Administrator by using the Future
Royalty Payments Program Website to provide: (i) the Claimed
Musical Work; (ii) the Spotify track identifier for all tracks
embodying the Claimed Musical Work; and (iii) the periods for which
the MLC has failed to remit royalties. On a quarterly basis,
starting no sooner than the first quarter after the MLC finishes
paying royalties to copyright owners for the period between the
Preliminary Approval Date and December 31, 2020 (including the
redistribution pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 115(d)(3)(J)), the
Settlement Administrator shall inform Spotify of these Identified
Royalty Claimants and the information they provide. Within ninety
(90) days of receiving that quarterly list, Spotify shall remit
payment to each such Identified Royalty Claimant who is not subject
to an unresolved Royalty Ownership Dispute or an unresolved dispute
under 17 U.S.C. Section 115(d)(3)(K) of any mechanical royalties
that the MLC failed to remit to the Identified Royalty Claimant
because those royalties were distributed under 17 U.S.C. Section
115(d)(3)(J) but would have been required to be paid under the
Future Royalty Payments Program. In the event that the MLC later
pays these missing royalties to the Identified Royalty Claimant,
the Claimant must promptly reimburse Spotify for any duplicative
royalties paid to that Identified Royalty Claimant. In addition,
Spotify shall have no obligation to pay royalties to an Identified
Royalty Claimant with respect to usage between the Preliminary
Approval Date and December 31, 2020 of any Claimed Musical Work not
claimed until after January 1, 2021 until after the MLC has
finished paying royalties to copyright owners for that same period
(including the distribution pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section
115(d)(3)(J))."

Paragraph 4.4 of the settlement agreement is amended to add new
subparagraph 4.4(e), which will state: "If a dispute regarding
mechanical royalties for Claimed Musical works is subject to the
procedures prescribed under 17 U.S.C. Section 115(d)(3)(K), those
procedures shall govern the resolution of that dispute rather than
the procedures of paragraph 4."

Subparagraph 4.3(c) of the settlement agreement is amended to add
the following two sentences at the end: "Because the mechanical
licensing collective ("MLC") has established a process for
copyright owners to claim or identify their musical works in order
to obtain royalties from digital music providers seeking a blanket
license under 17 U.S.C. Section 115(d), Spotify shall alter (or
direct the Settlement Administrator to alter) the Future Royalty
Payments Program Website to recommend that class members use the
MLC's process in order to obtain all royalties that have not been
distributed to other copyright owners pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section
115(d)(3)(J) and, to the extent that any distributed royalties are
owed under this settlement, use the Future Royalty Payments Program
Website to submit a claim for them. The statement to be added to
the Future Royalty Payments Program Website shall inform class
members that (i) although class members may continue to claim works
using the Future Royalty Payments Program Website, doing so is no
longer necessary if the class member instead claims their works
through the MLC's claiming process, with a link to the MLC's
claiming portal; (ii) claiming works through the MLC's portal is
sufficient to obtain mechanical royalties from all digital music
providers, including Spotify; (iii) class members who fail to claim
their works through the MLC's portal cannot be guaranteed that the
MLC will pay them for usage on Spotify that takes place after the
January 1, 2021 blanket license date; (iv) class members who fail
to claim their works through the MLC's portal may be missing
opportunities to collect royalties for streaming by all providers,
including Spotify, for works that were added to the service after
the class period; (v) class members who use the MLC's portal to
claim their works need not also submit a Spotify-only claim through
the Future Royalty Payments Program Website; (vi) the royalties the
class member would receive from a claim filed through the MLC
portal would include both ongoing royalties as well as royalties
dating back to when the MLC last redistributed royalties for
unmatched works to other copyright owners; and (vii) class members
who have waited to claim their works until after the MLC has
distributed historical royalties for unmatched works pursuant to 17
U.S.C. Section 115(d)(3)(J) can still obtain royalties from Spotify
for the period between the Preliminary Approval Date and December
31, 2020 by submitting a claim using the Future Royalty Payments
Program Website. Spotify also may alter (or direct the Settlement
Administrator to alter) the Future Royalty Payments Program Website
to require Identified Royalty Claimants to submit any additional
information needed to determine whether they are owed royalties
under the settlement that they will not receive from the MLC and
the amount of any such royalties. To the extent practicable,
Spotify may share information about Identified Royalty Claimants
and their Claimed Musical Works with the MLC, and may register
Identified Royalty Claimants with the MLC if needed to facilitate
payment of royalties by the MLC to Identified Royalty Claimants.
Spotify may alter (or direct the Settlement Administrator to alter)
the Future Royalty Payments Program Website to advise that, if the
Identified Royalty Claimant has registered with the MLC, properly
followed the MLC's procedures for claiming musical works, and such
claims are not subject to any conflict, the Identified Royalty
Claimant may communicate with a Spotify-appointed special liaison
to assist with pursuing the payment of royalty claims with the
MLC."

Subparagraph 4.3(d) of the settlement agreement is amended to add
the following sentence at the end: "Alternatively, the instructions
that Spotify must maintain on its website for how Settlement Class
Members may submit additional claims may instead consist of
instructions on how they may claim works with the MLC."

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/xvuryz6k from Leagle.com.


STATE COLLECTION: McGaughey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline McGaughey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
State Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-03318 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 12, 2021).

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

State Collection Service, Inc. --
https://www.statecollectionservice.com/ -- located in Madison,
Wisconsin, serving all of Michigan and Wisconsin, provides debt
collection and accounts receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit filed in the Northern District of
California, is still pending.

On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.

The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's active client growth and
strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018
and October 2018.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has
been appointed.

On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class
action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the company and other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed
their reply in support of the company's motion to dismiss on
December 30, 2019.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss on September 30,
2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed his amended
complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the
company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on
January 22, 2021.

Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal
shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters,
blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men
and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch
Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


SUPERFLY MEDIA: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superfly Media
Experiences, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Superfly Media Experiences, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05262
(S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Superfly -- https://superf.ly/ -- is a New York-based marketing and
event company..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Judge Set to Rule in Parkensbursg Fire Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for WV News, reports that a special judge is
considering -- for a second time -- whether to certify a class
action involving an October 2017 Parkersburg warehouse fire that
burned for eight days and whose billowing cloud of black smoke was
visible for miles.

If certified, the class would involve individuals from Parkersburg,
Vienna, Blennerhasset, Lubeck, Washington and Waverly, as well as
from Belpre, Ohio.

Special Judge Thomas A. Bedell in mid-2019 approved the
certification of a class action against Surnaik Holdings of WV LLC,
the owner of the warehouse. The attorneys for Surnaik Holdings last
September filed for a petition for writ of prohibition with the
West Virginia Supreme Court.

Last November, a 4-1 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice
Evan Jenkins vacated the class-action certification and sent the
matter back to Bedell.

The majority opinion created a syllabus point finding that "a class
action may be certified only if the circuit court is satisfied,
after a thorough analysis, that the predominance and superiority
prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied." The opinion
focused heavily on rulings in the past 10 years by the U.S. Supreme
Court and U.S. appeals courts.

The lone justice dissenting was Margaret Workman, who called the
majority "flatly wrong in its analysis of the facts" and also
opined that the high court's ruling was creating "unnecessary delay
in this case, and portends a sea change in our approach to class
action cases -- a change for the worse."

Justice John Hutchison concurred.

However, while Hutchison agreed that a circuit judge "weighing a
motion under Rule 23 must conduct a 'thorough analysis' that gives
'careful consideration to each factor set forth in the rule," he
didn't believe "that this is something new for circuit judges" in
West Virginia.

Hutchinson added that he believes the predominance and superiority
requirements "have always been a part of this Court's class action
jurisprudence, and are really nothing more than flexible guidelines
for a circuit court to use to ensure a class action is the best way
to resolve a case."

Hutchison's concurring opinion also discussed the case in brief.

"My sense, and the sense of my colleagues, is that a class action
is probably the best way to address the alleged injuries to the
thousands of residents impacted by the warehouse fire. This was a
massive week-long fire that consumed an entire warehouse in
Parkersburg. In just the first 12 hours, firefighters pumped six
million galls of water onto the fire, much of which may have flowed
back into a nearby river. The warehouse fire incinerated
everything, including tons of toxic materials like PVCs,
formaldehyde and styrene, and then vented poisonous smoke into the
air of the surrounding city. The fire was so extensive that the
governor declared a state of emergency, and the county commission
declared it a disaster," Hutchison wrote.

Bedell, a 29 1/2-year judge in Harrison County, and the attorneys
have been working on the case since it was sent back to circuit
court.

In a circuit court hearing earlier this month, Bedell told
plaintiff attorney Alex McLaughlin and defense attorney Ryan McCune
Donovan that his second decision on certification would be
forthcoming likely very early this summer.

Bedell also predicted that whatever his decision, there would be a
filing with the state Supreme Court, and he therefore set a status
conference on Sept. 17 to keep the matter on the circuit court's
docket.

Donovan, of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC of Charleston, and
McLaughlin, of Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC, also of Charleston,
briefly discussed the case for WV News/The State Journal.

"From our perspective, class actions like this one play two
critical roles in the administration of justice," McLaughlin wrote.
"First, they can make large numbers of court cases much more
efficient and cost-effective by resolving in one trial the issue or
issues that are common and identical for all the potential class
members. In some cases, as Surnaik's counsel pointed out at the
hearing, one class action trial can actually resolve all of the
issues for sometimes thousands of class members. This case is not
exactly like that.

"In this case, the single class action trial can resolve, for all
class members (people affected by smoke from the fire), all of the
issues surrounding Surnaik's "fault" or legal responsibility for
the fire -- questions such as whether Surnaik maintained a
sprinkler system at the warehouse (we allege it did not), whether
Surnaik should have maintained such a sprinkler system, why it did
or did not maintain a sprinkler system, and what Surnaik thought
would be the consequences of not having a sprinkler system in the
event of fire (consequences both in terms of a potential insurance
windfall to Surnaik, on the one hand, compared with the potential
for nuisance and smoke invading Surnaik's neighbors' homes, on the
other hand)," McLaughlin wrote.

"We believe that it is much more efficient to resolve all of those
common issues in one trial, even if the Court might then have to
preside over thousands of mini-trials or hearings on damages about
the extent to which individual homes were invaded by smoke and how
that smoke invasion impacted individual homeowners' comfort and
enjoyment in their own homes, and, in some cases, their health. The
alternative to this, at least legally speaking, is to require those
thousands of individuals to file individual cases and then for the
Court to preside over thousands of full-blown trials, each of which
would include not just individual presentations of damages but also
individual presentations and evidence about Surnaik's 'fault' or
legal responsibility for the fire. So a class action turns
thousands of full-blown trials, each of which might take a week or
more when the "fault" issues are included, into one big trial on
common issues, lasting a week or two, and then thousands of
mini-trials or mini-hearings, each lasting only a couple of hours.
That efficiency is, in our view, in the words of Justice Hutchison,
'judicial bang for the buck,'" McLaughlin wrote.

"The argument Surnaik made at the recent hearing, that it will be
'inefficient' to proceed as a class action because the court will
still have to preside over thousands of hours of testimony about
individual damages from thousands of plaintiffs, pre-supposes that
in the absence of a class action those claims will simply
disappear. In other words, Surnaik's lawyer knows that, even if
each individual small claim is meritorious and deserving of a day
in court, no reasonable lawyer will incur the time and expense of
proving all the elements of a case against Surnaik in order to
recover damages for one homeowner for one week of smoke invasion
and the resulting discomfort and inconvenience," McLaughlin wrote.

"The total costs of bringing a lawsuit include relatively small
fees like court filing fees and fees for the preparation of
official transcripts, which add up, and also large costs like
significant attorney time and the costs of paying expert witnesses.
For proving a complicated set of facts like those surrounding the
'fault' issues in this case, those costs quickly add up to tens of
thousands of dollars. The practical effect of this is that an
individual can have a meritorious claim against a defendant who
engaged in an egregious act of wrongdoing and selfishness, and yet
not be able to pay for his or her day in court, because the
potential recovery does not justify the expense," McLaughlin
wrote.

"This brings us to the second critical role that class actions play
in the administration of justice: They provide a means by which
small claims, like these, can be combined together so that the
potential outcome of the lawsuit justifies the costs of prosecuting
the claims. Viewed this way, the dispute about class actions is
really a dispute about whether small claimants should be permitted
to have their day in court, at least when one defendant harms many
individuals through a common course of conduct, or whether those
defendants should be permitted to get away with hurting many people
but each in a small way," McLaughlin wrote.

"Of course, Surnaik denies the allegations we have made against it
-- that it made a decision not to maintain a sprinkler system
because it wanted the insurance windfall from a total loss and did
not care whether smoke from such a fire disrupted the lives and
invaded the homes of its neighbors. It is Surnaik's right to deny
those allegations and make us prove them. All we want is our day in
court and an opportunity to prove those allegations so that
individuals impacted by the conduct might have a chance to recover
their losses from it. A class action provides an efficient means
for doing this," McLaughlin wrote.

Donovan countered that "Surnaik maintains that this suit has no
merit and should not be certified as a class action. The
plaintiff's own expert testified that as many as 90% of the
proposed class members were not exposed to perceptible amounts of
smoke at all. Even for those who were potentially exposed, the
plaintiff is not seeking damages for personal injury or actual
property damage. At most, the plaintiff seeks damages for the
temporary 'invasion' of his property by smoke from the fire --
basically, a 'bad smell' case. For essentially this reason, two
similar suits arising from the same fire were dismissed by a
federal judge. A third, filed by some of the state's best
plaintiff's class action attorneys, was voluntarily abandoned."

"It is simply not possible to fairly adjudicate this case as a
class action. At the class certification hearing, the plaintiff's
lawyer conceded that he had no real plan for even identifying the
members of the class. And the plaintiff's plan for trying the case
involves tens of thousands of mini-trials that would consume the
court's docket for years and years to come. The plaintiff isn't
worried about these details, however, because he knows that in
reality, almost any defendant who faces a certified class —
especially a local business like Surnaik -- will be forced to
settle. The plaintiff's lawyers hope to collect hundreds of
thousands or millions in fees, and each class member will receive a
few bucks. Most class members won't even find it worthwhile to file
a claim," Donovan wrote.

"Thankfully, in a number of recent opinions, our Supreme Court has
indicated that it intends to strictly enforce the requirements of
Rule 23. The first time this case went to the Supreme Court, it
tossed out the trial court's class certification order and sent it
back for a more thorough analysis. Specifically, the Court
indicated that, in the future, motions for class certification in
our state courts should be held to the same rigorous standards as
those applied around the country and, in particular, in our federal
courts. Surnaik has every confidence that if the trial court
follows the Supreme Court's guidance, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification will be denied," Donovan wrote.

"Class actions are an important tool that play an vital role in our
legal system -- resolving nearly identical claims in an efficient
and fair manner. But when used as the plaintiff proposes here -- to
aggregate thousands of highly individualized claims in an effort to
force business into unfair settlements that inure mostly to the
benefit of the plaintiff's lawyers — that tool is abused,"
Donovan wrote. [GN]

TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Ervin, on behalf
of himself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade
Holdings Corp., Case No. 20-CV-0266-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying Counts II, III and IV of his First Amended Class
      Action Complaint for class action treatment and defining the

      class as follows:

      "All TD Ameritrade accountholders who, during the time period

      from February 19, 2015 through the present, received a
      substitute payment in lieu of a qualifying dividend without
      also receiving a premium payment;"

      Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding
      over this or any related case. The class definition also
      excludes all officers and employees of TD Ameritrade;

   2. appointing him as class representative;

   3. appointing the attorneys of Bartle & Marcus LLC and The Law
      Office of Jared A. Rose as class counsel; and

   4. requiring the parties to submit an agreed-upon class notice
      or submit any disputes they may have over class notice within

      21 days of a class certification order so that notice may be

      issued promptly.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wquzCZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 256-4699
          Facsimile: 816.222.0534
          E-mail: Dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -

          Jared A. Rose, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE
          919 West 47th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-4335
          Facsimile: (816) 873.5406
          E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason M. Hans, Esq.
          GERMAN MAY PC
          1201 Walnut Street, 20 th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          E-mail: jasonh@germanmay.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq.
          Theodore L. Kornobis, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1601 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          E-mail: Stephen.topetzes@klgates.com
                  Ted.kornobis@klgates.com

TEAM HEALTH: Sanchez Seeks to Certify Class of Emergency Physicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ v. TEAM
HEALTH, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-21174-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting his motion for class certification of:

      "All emergency room physicians, who signed similar contracts
      to the named Plaintiff, that are part of the Team Health
      Organization in the State of Florida during the applicable
      statutes of limitations;"

      Included in the class are all physicians domiciled in the
      State of Florida who: (a) provided emergency medicine
      services at current or prior Team Health Facilities, pursuant

      to Medical Professional Independent Contract Agreements that

      contained contract language identical to or similar to the
      language cited in paragraphs 131 and 132 of Plaintiff's
      Second Amended Complaint, i.e., that provide bonus credit for

      physician services and require oversight of APCs but do not
      explicitly exclude bonus credit for RVUs generated through
      oversight of APCs; (b) provided assistance and supervision
      to said APCs; and (c) have not been given bonus credit for
      those RVUs;

   2. certifying the claims of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3);

   3. appointing him as Class Representative; and

   4. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel, and awarding such
      other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xqF8pA
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Gale, Esq.
          D. G. Pantazis, Jr.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
          FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          101 N. Woodland Blvd. Ste. 600
          DeLand, FL 32720
          Telephone: (386) 675-6946
          E-mail: JGale@wigginschilds.com
                  dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter R. Goldman, Esq.
          Nina C. Welch, Esq.
          Christina Lehm, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL
          One Financial Plaza, Suite 2700
          100 S.E. Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 764-7060
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8135
          E-mail: peter.goldman@nelsonmullins.com
                  nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com
                  christina.lehm@nelsonmullins.com

TECHPRECISION CORP: Settlement in Suit vs. Ranor Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the court approved the
final class action settlement in the labor class action lawsuit
filed against Ranor, Inc.

TechPrecision is a Delaware corporation organized in February 2005
under the name Lounsberry Holdings II, Inc. The name was changed to
TechPrecision Corporation on March 6, 2006. TechPrecision is the
parent company of Ranor, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Wuxi
Critical Mechanical Components Co., Ltd., a wholly foreign-owned
enterprise.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs,
of Ranor, Inc. filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Worcester County, against Ranor and former and current
executive officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract and conversion based on
a modification made to Ranor's personal time off policy.

Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time
off, or PTO, policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit
earned PTO. Plaintiffs had sought relief in the form of monetary
damages. Plaintiffs asserted their claims on behalf of a class of
all current and former employees of Ranor who were affected by the
modification to Ranor's PTO policy.

On March 16, 2020, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding
wherein the parties agreed to a settlement of $495,000, to be paid
within sixty (60) days following court approval of the settlement.

On March 15, 2021, the court approved the final class action
settlement.  

As such, the plaintiffs' claims have been fully and finally
dismissed, and the $495,000 payment to the plaintiffs' counsel was
paid within 60 days, on May 10, 2021.

TechPrecision Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and
machined metal components and systems in the United States and the
People's Republic of China. It offers custom components for ships
and submarines, aerospace equipment, nuclear power plants, and
large scale medical systems. The company also provides
manufacturing engineering services to assist customers. It serves
customers in defense, aerospace, nuclear, energy, medical, and
precision industrial markets. The company was founded in 1956 and
is headquartered in Westminster, Massachusetts.


TEVA BRANDED: Butkus Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Branded
Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
Roxanna Butkus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LLC, ALZA CORPORATION, JANSSEN ORTHO LLC, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Case
No. 2:21-cv-12458 (D.N.J., June 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury for Product Liability.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. --
https://www.tevapharm.com/ -- is located in Malvern, Pennsylvania
and is part of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Phone: (516) 466-6500
          Email: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com


TEVA BRANDED: Weber Files Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Branded
Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
William Weber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LLC, ALZA CORPORATION, JANSSEN ORTHO LLC, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Case
No. 2:21-cv-12464 (D.N.J., June 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury for Product Liability.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. --
https://www.tevapharm.com/ -- is located in Malvern, Pennsylvania
and is part of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Phone: (516) 466-6500
          Email: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com


TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the parties in Juan Carlos
Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of
Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed to
continue their settlement talks.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April
2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against the company seeking
penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and
hour laws.

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR,
the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the
Company.

In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed.
The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation,
the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions
with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a
trial date.

Tilly's said, "By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and
Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify us for all of our losses
and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. We have
defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the plaintiff Skylar Ward,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's,
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC595405, filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying her
motion for class certification.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought
class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against the company and dismissed the
complaint.

Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017,
the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court
of Appeal.

In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning
the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's
allegations stated a claim.

In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined
to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Since the case was
remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in
discovery.

In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In July 2020, the company filed its opposition to
the motion for class certification. In September 2020, the
plaintiff filed her reply brief in support of the motion for class
certification. In October 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification. In December 2020, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal of the court's order denying her motion for class
certification.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so. We believe that a loss is currently not probable
or estimable under ASC 450, "Contingencies," and no accrual has
been made with regard to the verdict."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ULTA SALON: Bailey Suit Remanded to Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARTHA BAILEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS &
FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-00503-MJH (W.D. Pa.),
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
state court.

The Plaintiff, Martha Bailey, Individually and Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, brings the within putative class action against
the Defendant, Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., for claims
under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (UTPCPL 73 P.S. Sections 201-1, et seq.). Ms. Bailey
moved to remand the case to the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas.

Ms. Bailey brought a putative class action in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas alleging Ulta violated the UTPCPL by
collecting sales tax on its sales of protective face masks. As of
April 23, 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue advised that
protective face masks would be exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax.
She avers that on Oct. 17, 2020, she purchased two protective face
masks at Ulta. Ulta charged $5.30 for the masks, which included $5
for the masks and $0.30 for the 6% sales tax.

In addition to Ms. Bailey's Oct. 17, 2020 purchase, Ulta allegedly
charged sales tax on approximately 25,000 transactions of face
masks in Pennsylvania during the relevant time period. Therefore,
Ms. Bailey alleges that Ulta's conduct of charging sales tax on
otherwise exempt items constitutes unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the UTPCPL.

For Ulta's alleged violation of the UTPCPL, Ms. Bailey, and on
behalf of those similarly situated, avers that she and the putative
class members are entitled to $100 per violation, along with
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such additional relief the
Court deems necessary and proper.

On April 15, 2021, Ulta filed a Notice of Removal maintaining that
this Court has jurisdiction over Ms. Bailey and the putative class
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").

In her Motion for Remand, Ms. Bailey contends that 1) CAFA
Jurisdiction does not exist because the amount in controversy does
not exceed $5,000,000; 2) The Court should remand under the Tax
Injunction Act; and/or 3) The Court should reject jurisdiction
under principles of comity.

Ms. Bailey contends that this Court cannot maintain CAFA
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed
$5,000,000. Specifically, she argues that the parties do not
dispute that Ulta charged sales tax for approximately 25,000 face
mask transactions. Therefore, under the statutory available damages
of $100 per violation, Ms. Bailey asserts that the maximum amount
of statutory damages available totals $2,500,000. When added to an
award of attorneys' fees of 30%, the maximum UTPCPL award for Ms.
Bailey and a putative class is between $2,500,000 and $3,250,000.

Ulta argues that, because the UTPCPL provides for treble damages,
the award for statutory damages could exceed $7,500,000. Thus, Ulta
maintains that requisite amount in controversy under CAFA is met.
In response, Ms. Bailey contends that Ulta misreads the language of
the UTPCPL, because the statute only provides for treble damages of
the actual damages sustained and not for the $100 per violation
provisions.

The question of amount in controversy centers on whether or not a
statutory award of $2,500,000, based upon a $100 per violation for
up to 25,000 face mask transactions, could be trebled under the
UTPCPL. If it can, then Ulta is correct that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, and CAFA jurisdiction exists.
However, a reading of the pertinent language of the UTPCPL suggests
otherwise, District Judge Marilyn J. Horan opines.

Judge Horan explains that the damages that could be trebled under
the UTPCPL are the actual damages sustained, namely the incorrectly
collected sales tax. Taking Ms. Bailey's allegations as an exemplar
for the putative class, her alleged actual damages totaled $0.30.
Therefore, even if actual damages were trebled for the 25,000
similar transactions, said damages would total $22,500. When the
treble damages ($22,500) are added to anticipated statutory damages
of $100 per violation ($2,500,000), and estimated attorney's fees
($750,000) are added, the total alleged and available UTPCPL
damages fall short of the $5,000,000 threshold required under
CAFA.

Therefore, the Court cannot maintain jurisdiction under CAFA. In
that CAFA jurisdiction was the sole basis for Ulta's removal, Ms.
Bailey's Motion for Remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas will be granted.

After consideration of Ulta's Notice of Removal, Ms. Bailey's
Complaint, Ms. Bailey's Motion to Remand to State Court, the
respective briefs of the parties, and for the foregoing reasons,
Ms. Bailey's Motion to Remand to State Court will be granted. Ms.
Bailey's Complaint will be remanded to the Allegheny County Court
of Common Pleas. A separate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3uh9tw34 from Leagle.com.


UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 14, 2021 to
enter an order certifying the following class:

   "All persons who purchased Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream in
   the State of California at any time from April 21, 2016 through

   the final disposition of this Action;"

Excluded from the Class are: governmental entities; Defendant; any
entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; Defendant's
officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees,
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; and any judge, justice, or
judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of
their immediate families and judicial staff.

The Class will pursue claims under the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

The  Plaintiff further asks that the Court to appoint her as the
class representative on all claims, and Reese LLP and Sheehan &
Associates, P.C., as co-lead class counsel.

Unilever manufactures, markets, and sells Breyers Natural Vanilla
Ice Cream. The Plaintiff alleges she was misled by Defendant's
labeling of the Product.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iKthyU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sue J. Nam, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, New York 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, New York 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

UNITED KINGDOM: Entrepreneur Urged Travel Industry to Back Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Taylor, writing for TravelWeekly, reports that travel industry
entrepreneur Clive Jacobs is urging support for a legal challenge
to the government over its block on the sector's recovery and
failure to provide aid.

Jacobs is seeking legal advice on action on behalf of the industry
after hopes of a partial summer restart were choked off by the
government's removal of Portugal from the green list of
destinations and refusal even to add Malta.

The chairman of Jacobs Media Group which owns Travel Weekly, Jacobs
has launched a crowd-funding appeal to support a group action aimed
at forcing transparency on the methodology and data behind
decisions on the traffic light system and claiming compensation for
industry losses.

Jacobs said: "Travel has clearly been the sector worst affected by
the pandemic, as hospitality and retail have been able to ease back
to some extent.

"But the government has given no signs that it cares about the
industry and the people in it, when it's clear the vaccination
programme is working and protecting people from the virus and that
two jabs stave off hospitalisation."

He argued: "The government keeps going back on its word. Despite
the best efforts of industry organisations to lobby the government,
they've found their efforts falling on deaf ears and ignored.

"Lobbying has proved ineffective -- that was demonstrated by the
Portugal debacle. Now the government needs to be challenged legally
to provide the criteria for allowing travel."

Jacobs has set up a crowd-funding site at Crowd Justice to support
the legal action, with backing from a group of industry figures.

He intends to engage lawyers at Blackstone Chambers to advise on a
challenge.

It was Blackstone Chambers QCs who challenged the government on
behalf of businesswoman Gina Miller in September 2019, winning a
Supreme Court ruling that prime minister Boris Johnson acted
unlawfully in proroguing Parliament for five weeks that autumn.

Blackstone also acted for Miller in 2016, overturning a government
attempt to leave the EU without a Parliamentary vote by winning a
Supreme Court ruling that Parliament had to legislate on Brexit.

Jacobs said initial discussions with lawyers on a legal challenge
had been positive and encouraged him to move to the next level.

He argued: "Hundreds of thousands of people are uncertain about
their futures because of the actions of this government around
international travel. People are becoming despondent and fearful.
There are people who are absolutely desperate.

"This is about giving people who work in the industry some hope,
some encouragement. I hope it contributes to putting pressure on
the government, to holding it to account over the way it makes
decisions that are destroying people's lives."

Jacobs noted: "Chief executives of companies are hamstrung to an
extent in the way they can tackle the government [on this]. That is
why I'm taking this initiative to force the government to be
transparent about its decision making.

Andrew Botterill, Travcorp Holdings executive chairman, backed the
action. He said: "Travel businesses can't plan anything right now.
There is a complete lack of transparency around the traffic light
system and we're being stonewalled in our efforts to have any
meaningful dialogue with ministers.

"It's time to take direct action and utilise the law to flush out
the information the government is making its decisions on. I hope
the industry will support this process."

Olly Brendon, chief executive of ATD Travel Services, also backed
legal action saying: "The government has ignored pleas and lobbying
from the industry. They have ignored common sense and more
pragmatic MPs from both sides of the house. They have ignored the
data.

"They failed to shut down the borders when it would have been
beneficial to do so. They've even failed to implement their own
policies after months of consultation with a travel taskforce they
created."

Brendon insisted: "They are so grossly incompetent that - in the
interests of the whole industry - it's time to take legal action.
I'm very happy to support Clive with this class action against a
pitiful government."

Lucia Rowe, managing director at A-ROSA UK and Ireland, argued:
"Across the EU, we've seen countries acknowledge that rebuilding
tourism is a priority. However, in the UK it has been almost an
afterthought.

"Our hugely successful vaccination programme is not being used to
open up travel. In fact, the UK government is acting as if we have
no protection from the vaccine.

"For a second year, operators can't easily welcome British guests
to Europe even though many destinations are considered safe."

Rowe said: "As an industry, we need to stand up for travel to
ensure it is treated fairly and to give our industry a chance of
survival. We need urgent action, certainty and sector-specific
support."

She added: "Confidence has all but been destroyed. We need to give
the people of the UK hope they will be able to holiday again
soon."

Holiday Discount Centre managing director Steve Campion said: "I'm
fully supporting Clive's efforts to mount a legal challenge to the
government over its treatment of the sector.

"The ongoing restrictions and chaotic approach to international
travel are not supported by the data and it's vital the government
is held to account before the UK travel industry is decimated."

Rob Kenton, owner of Triangle Travel, also backed the legal
challenge saying: "The industry has not stopped shouting since the
start of the pandemic, but nobody in government has listened. It is
now time to force them to listen."

Jacobs founded car rental firm Holiday Autos before selling it to
Lastminute.com and has a portfolio of brands including Jacobs Media
Group and a luxury tour operation in North America. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Lambro Suit Transferred to Court of Federal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Lambro, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00255, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, to the United States Court of Federal
Claims on June 11, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01447-ZNS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the
Tucker Act.

The United States of America, commonly known as the United States
or America -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country primarily
located in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Ludwig, Esq.
          DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG, PLLC
          8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 550
          Vienna, VA 22182
          Phone: (703) 777-7319
          Fax: (703) 777-3656
          Email: dludwig@dbllawyers.com


VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Appeals Portions of Ruling in Tel Aviv Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the motion for leave to
appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary,
Verint Systems Limited, is pending.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate CTI (Case
Number 1335/09).

Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in the company's and CTI's
historical public filings.

On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had
been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate
and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI,
and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution").

In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties. As the result of these
transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company and
ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI ceased to have any
material assets other than its equity interests in Verint.

Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the
plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150 million in
assets to secure any future judgment, but the District Court did
not rule on this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became
successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction.

As a result of the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and
liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of
the foregoing legal actions. However, under the terms of a
Distribution Agreement entered into in connection with the Comverse
Share Distribution, the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled
to indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses
the company may suffer in its capacity as successor to CTI related
to the foregoing legal actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the
merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.

On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed
CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District
Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York
law based on the parties' expert opinions.

Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018
and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the
District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion
to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended
pleadings by the parties. CTI submitted a motion to appeal the
District Court's decision to the Supreme Court, as well as a motion
to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending the
resolution of the appeal. On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court
granted the motion for a stay.

On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits
of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for
further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court.

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

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


VOLTARI CORP: Motions to Dismiss Franchi Stockholder Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ADAM FRANCHI and DAVID PILL, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAFFREY A.
FIRESTONE, KEVIN LEWIS, PETER K. SHEA, SACHIN LATAWA, CARL C.
ICAHN, HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, KOALA HOLDING LP, STARFIRE
HOLDING CORPORATION, and VOLTARI MERGER SUB LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2020-0503-KSJM (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery of Delaware
grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The action challenges a going-private transaction through which
Carl C. Icahn and affiliated entities owning approximately 53% of
the voting stock of Voltari Corporation ("Voltari" or the
"Company") acquired the minority stockholders' interests (the
"Merger"). To invoke business judgment rule protection under Kahn
v. M & F Worldwide Corp. ("MFW"), Icahn conditioned his initial
offer on approval by a special committee and an informed vote by a
majority of the minority stockholders. The special committee was
empowered to enlist its own advisors and definitively say no, and
the minority stockholders were uncoerced.

The Plaintiffs, former Voltari stockholders, allege that Icahn
acquired the Company to take advantage of over $78.7 million in net
operating loss carryforwards ("NOLs") that were of no or limited
value to the Company or third parties. They contend that the Merger
consideration of $0.86 per share, which generates an implied deal
price of $7.7 million, undervalued the Company's NOL assets. They
claim that Voltari's board of directors (the "Board"), Icahn, and
affiliated entities breached their fiduciary duties to the minority
stockholders by approving the Merger. The Defendants have moved to
dismiss the complaint. Their primary argument is that the
transaction is subject to business judgment review under MFW.

Factual Background

The facts are taken from the Verified Complaint (the "Complaint"),
the documents it incorporates by reference, and certain judicially
noticeable public documents, including filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

Voltari was a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. Prior
to the Merger, Voltari acquired, financed, and leased commercial
real estate properties. At the time of the Merger, the Company's
assets comprised its NOLs, which were worth anywhere from $0 to
$78.7 million, and three commercial real estate investments, which
were collectively worth approximately $23 to $24 million.

Mr. Icahn owned approximately 52.69% of the Company's outstanding
common shares through his affiliated entities, Defendants High
River Limited Partnership ("High River") and Koala Holding LP
("Koala"). On Dec. 7, 2018, High River offered to buy the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock for $0.58 per
share in cash. An entity 99.4% owned by Icahn, Defendant Starfire
Holding Corp. ("Starfire"), would be the acquirer.

High River's offer letter stated "that consummation of the proposed
transaction would, in addition to customary conditions, be subject
to the non-waivable conditions that the proposed transaction be
approved by (i) a special committee of independent directors of the
Company that has been empowered to freely select its own advisors
and to reject the transaction definitively should that be its
business judgment, and (ii) an informed vote of, or tender by, the
holders of a majority of the unaffiliated shares."

The Board at the time comprised Defendants Jaffrey A. Firestone,
Kevin Lewis, Peter Shea, and Sachin Latawa (collectively, the
"Director Defendants"). The Board determined that Latawa's "recent
employment by Icahn Enterprises L.P. made him unsuitable to serve
on the Special Committee." So, in response to High River's letter,
on Dec. 10, 2018, the Board formed a special committee comprising
Firestone, Lewis, and Shea (the "Special Committee").

The Special Committee engaged Dorsey & Whitney LLP ("Dorsey &
Whitney") as its legal counsel and Alvarez & Marsal Valuation
Services, LLC ("Alvarez & Marsal") as its financial advisor.

Dorsey & Whitney and Alvarez & Marsal met with High River on Feb.
4, 2019, to discuss certain aspects of the Company's net operating
loss carryforwards, research and development, tax credits and
foreign tax credits.

The Special Committee met on Feb. 6, 2019, with of Dorsey & Whitney
and Alvarez & Marsal in attendance. Alvarez & Marsal advised that a
buyout of the Company by Icahn would have an illustrative
incremental value of $6.97 to $8.57 per share, but only to Icahn.
Based on Alvarez & Marsal's analysis, the Special Committee
determined that running a process to seek an alternate buyer would
not be a good use of company resources and would not be in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders.

On March 22, 2019, the Special Committee and then the Board met and
unanimously approved the $0.86 per share price. At the Special
Committee meeting, Alvarez & Marsal presented its analysis
confirming the illustrative implied value of the Tax Benefits to
High River and its affiliates of $78.7 million.

The parties executed the Merger Agreement on March 22 and announced
the transaction on March 25, 2019.

On July 10, 2019, Voltari filed a proxy describing the terms of the
proposed Merger (the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated that the
stockholder vote on the Merger would take place on Aug. 20, 2019.
On Aug. 20, 2019, however, Voltari announced that the stockholder
meeting would be adjourned to Sept. 12, 2019, because there were
insufficient minority votes cast in favor of the Merger to comply
with the majority-of-the minority provision. Again, on Sept. 12,
2019, Voltari announced that the stockholder meeting would be
adjourned, this time to Sept. 24, 2019, because there were
insufficient minority votes cast in favor of the Merger to comply
with the majority-of-the minority provision.

The stockholder meeting took place on Sept. 24, 2019, and the
Merger was approved with slightly more than 50% of the minority
vote. The Merger closed that same day.

On June 14, 2019, and Aug. 7, 2019, respectively, Adam Franchi and
David Pill (together, "Plaintiffs") served demands on the Board
pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220. Each later filed enforcement
actions pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 (the "220 Actions"). The
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the 220 Actions in March 2020
after the Company produced books and records.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 23, 2020, asserting
three counts. In Count I, the Plaintiffs claim that the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger.
In Count II, the Plaintiffs claim that High River, Koala, Starfire,
and Voltari Merger Sub LLC (collectively, the "Entity Defendants,"
and with the Director Defendants and Icahn, "Defendants") and Icahn
comprise a control group and that they breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger. In Count III, the Plaintiffs
claim that the Entity Defendants and Icahn were unjustly
enrichments by the Merger.

The Defendants moved to dismiss all claims pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The motion was
fully briefed on Oct. 19, 2020, and the Court held oral argument on
Feb. 15, 2021.

Legal Analysis

The Defendants argue that dismissal is appropriate under Rule
12(b)(6) because the business judgment standard applies under MFW
and the Complaint fails to state a claim under that standard.

Under MFW, a claim is subject to the business judgment standard of
review if six prerequisites designed to protect the rights of the
minority are present. Those prerequisites are: (i) the controller
conditions the procession of the transaction on the approval of
both a Special Committee and a majority of the minority
stockholders; (ii) the Special Committee is independent; (iii) the
Special Committee is empowered to freely select its own advisors
and to say no definitively; (iv) the Special Committee meets its
duty of care in negotiating a fair price; (v) the vote of the
minority is informed; and (vi) there is no coercion of the
minority.

The Plaintiffs challenge three of those factors, contending that
(1) the Special Committee lacked independence, (2) the Special
Committee failed to exercise its duty of care, and (3) the vote of
the minority was not informed.

During oral argument, the Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that the
allegations are inadequate to cast doubt on the independence of
Defendants Firestone or Lewis. As to Firestone, the Plaintiffs
allege that he previously founded a company that collaborated with
an Icahn-controlled entity (once, twenty-years ago), he was
nominated to two boards by Icahn over the past decade, and he is
assisting with a documentary about Icahn. As to Lewis, the
Plaintiffs allege that he served as a Senior Vice President and
then Chief Marketing Officer of an Icahn-controlled entity from
2009 through 2012.

Of these allegations, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick notes,
all but those concerning Firestone's involvement in the Icahn
documentary concern the sort of ordinary past business
relationships, board nominations, and board service that this court
has deemed insufficient to cast doubt on a director's independence.
Although the allegation concerning Firestone's involvement with the
documentary is more unusual, the Plaintiffs fail to explain how it
moves the needle in their favor and ultimately conceded that it
does not.

As to Defendant Shea, the Plaintiffs allege that he served as
President of Icahn Enterprises from 2006 to 2009. During that time,
he served as head of portfolio operations for Icahn Associates,
which included an activist hedge fund and thirteen operating
companies owned or controlled by Icahn. He also served as a
director on the boards of the following Icahn-controlled entities:
American Railcar Industries, Inc., WestPoint International, Inc.,
XO Holdings, Inc., and PSC Metals, Inc. After he left his position
with Icahn Enterprises, he served on the boards of three other
Icahn-controlled companies: Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.,
Viskase Companies, Inc. (Viskase) and CVR Partners LP (CVR). Shea
was still on the boards of Viskase and CVR at the time of the
Merger, but that is insufficient to cast doubt on Shea's
independence from Icahn, Chancellor McCormick holds.

The more extensive past business relationships between Shea and
Icahn present a closer call than those of Firestone and Lewis,
Chancellor McCormick notes. Of the past relationships, however, the
vast majority ended at least ten years before the Merger, making it
unreasonable to infer that they impugned Shea's independence from
Icahn at the time of the Merger, Chancellor McCormick points out.

To demonstrate that the cleansing effect of MFW does not apply
because the Special Committee failed to exercise its duty of care,
the Plaintiffs must plead that the Special Committee acted with
gross negligence.

Chancellor McCormick opines that disagreeing with a special
committee's strategy is not a duty of care violation; nor is
"questioning the sufficiency of the price."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Special Committee fell victim to a
controlled mindset that resulted in a windfall to Icahn in the form
of tax savings from Voltari's NOLs. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Special Committee neglected to ask its financial advisor to explore
alternative transactions, failed to use the information it received
from its advisors effectively to negotiate a higher price, and
operated as if it were a foregone conclusion that the minority
stockholders would receive only a tiny fraction of the value of the
NOLs to the Company's acquirer.

Yet, Chancellor McCormick holds, the Special Committee met seven
times, engaged and consulted with independent advisors, came to a
reasoned decision to negotiate a transaction with Icahn, and
successfully bid the deal price up by 48% percent. In the face of
these facts, it is not reasonably conceivable that the Special
Committee acted with a controlled mindset. The Plaintiffs'
contentions concerning a windfall to Icahn amount to mere
questioning of the deal price, which is not enough to establish
gross negligence, Chancellor McCormick points out.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Proxy failed to disclose
material information regarding the Special Committee members'
conflicts of interest. Because the Plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege that any member of the Special Committee was conflicted,
disclosures related to the supposed conflicts are immaterial,
Chancellor McCormick concludes.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Proxy failed to disclose that
the Board determined that Defendant Latawa's recent employment by
Icahn Enterprises L.P. made him unsuitable to serve on the Special
Committee. Because Latawa was excluded from the Special Committee,
however, it is hard to understand how this omission would have
assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable
stockholder, Chancellor McCormick notes. The Defendants made this
point, and the Plaintiffs failed to address it in briefing or
during oral argument. Chancellor McCormick holds that this alleged
omission does not render the vote of the minority stockholders
uninformed.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to
undermine the cleansing effect of the MFW conditions, the business
judgment standard applies to the Merger, Chancellor McCormick
holds. When the business judgment standard applies, dismissal is
typically the result. The Plaintiffs offer no argument that the
complaint states a claim under the business judgment standard and,
thus, tacitly concede that it does not. Accordingly, Counts I and
II are dismissed as to all Defendants.

The Plaintiffs likewise concede that the unjust enrichment claim
fails to state a claim if the business judgment rule applies under
MFW. Accordingly, Count III is dismissed as to the Count III
Defendants.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the motions of the Director Defendants, Entity
Defendants, and Icahn pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34dxyt7v from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON PRIME: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 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.

Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE:CS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/credit-suisse-group-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=16828&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
Class Period: October 29, 2020 - March 31, 2021

Allegations against CS include 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.

Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE:WPG)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/washington-prime-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16828&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2021
Class Period: November 5, 2020 - March 4, 2021

Allegations against WPG include that: (1) WPG's financial condition
was deteriorating substantially; (2) as a result, there was
substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its
capital structure obligations as they became due; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16828&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the F-1 registration statement and related prospectus on Form 424B4
issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial public stock
offering.

Allegations against RLX include that: the Company's then-existing
exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national
standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with
ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials
were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor
were they indicative of future results. As a result, investors
purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices.

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]

WEBCOLLEX LLC: Morrison Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Webcollex LLC. The
case is styled as Frederick Morrison, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Webcollex LLC doing business as: CKS
Financial, a Virginia corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00280-RJC-DSC
(W.D.N.C., June 11, 2021).

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

CKS Financial -- https://www.cksfin.com/ -- is a "responsible debt
collector" that follows the highest standards for recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: sharris@milberg.com


WEST BEND MUTUAL: S.D. Illinois Refuses to Toss Treo Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum and Order denying in its entirety the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled TREO SALON, INC.,
Plaintiff v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-1155-SPM (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Treo Salon, Inc. ("Treo") is a hair salon that operates
at 2117 South State Road 157 in Edwardsville, Illinois, which is
located in Madison County. Prior to March 2020, Treo purchased a
policy of insurance from West Bend, aka policy number A 696293 00.
The policy included a Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form
with the following endorsement for Communicable Disease Business
Income and Extra Expense Coverage.

In late December 2019, a cluster of cases of 'viral pneumonia of
unknown etiology' were identified in Wuhan, China. On Jan. 5, 2020,
the World Health Organization shared information about this cluster
of cases and advised member states to take precautions to reduce
the risk of acute respiratory infections. On Jan. 9, 2020, WHO
advised that the outbreak was caused by a novel coronavirus. On
Feb. 11, 2020, WHO announced that the disease caused by the novel
coronavirus would be named COVID-19.

On March 7, 2020, when the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases
globally surpassed 100,000, WHO issued a statement calling for
action to stop, contain, control, delay and reduce the impact of
the virus at every opportunity. On March 11, 2020, WHO made the
assessment that COVID-19 could be characterized as a pandemic,
which is defined as "occurring over a wide geographic area and
typically affecting a significant portion of the population" and
"characterized by very widespread growth or extent."

According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, the variations
presented by COVID-19 are many, making it anything but routine.
First, COVID-19 was believed to be highly contagious with a latency
period of up to 14 days. Second, COVID-19 was spreading rapidly and
diffusely. Third, it could be spread by infected individuals who
were asymptomatic. Fourth, those who suffered the most severe
symptoms of the illness were dying and/or requiring emergent,
critical care. Because of this, the government had a reasonable
belief that America's health care facilities and health care
responders would become overwhelmed by a rapid increase in
infections, such as occurred in Italy. Therefore, the government
chose to preemptively and prophylactically order the closing of
certain businesses promptly and not wait until they would
inevitably become a vector of the virus. The Plaintiff's business,
a beauty salon, was identified as one of those classes of
businesses that must be closed immediately.

In accordance with the foregoing, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
issued a series of executive orders that resulted in the temporary
shutdown of numerous "non-essential businesses" throughout
Illinois. The novel coronavirus has undeniably wreaked havoc not
only on the physical health of millions of Americans, but also on
the economic health of the country and of businesses, such as
Treo.

Procedural History

On Oct. 2, 2020, Treo filed a Class Action Complaint in the Third
Judicial Circuit of Illinois. Within the complaint, Treo seeks a
declaratory judgment that its losses are covered by its policy with
West Bend, specifically under the "Communicable Disease Business
Income and Extra Expense Coverage." Treo also seeks an order
certifying this as a class action; however, it is premature to
address that issue at this time, and for compensatory damages,
costs of litigation and attorney's fees.

On Oct. 30, 2020, West Bend filed its timely notice of removal to
this Court and attached a copy of the complaint filed in Madison
County, Illinois as Exhibit 1.

On Dec. 4, 2020, after obtaining an extension of time, West Bend
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, along with
supporting memorandum of law. On Jan. 4, 2021, Treo filed its
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 19, 2021,
West Bend filed its reply to the Plaintiff's response. On Feb. 8,
2021, Treo filed a motion for hearing on the motion to dismiss. On
Feb. 26, 2021, oral argument was conducted in this case remotely
via Zoom.

West Bend began their oral argument by reiterating many of the
points in the motion to dismiss. West Bend asserted there were two
prerequisites that must be satisfied for coverage to be triggered:
(1) Communicable disease/outbreak at the insured's premises; and,
(2) Business closed due to that outbreak. West Bend stressed that
COVID-19 was a global pandemic that was not particular to Treo's
business and that Treo has not and cannot establish that any
governmental order was "due to" any outbreak on their premises.

Treo countered that they paid for an endorsement for communicable
disease coverage, which covered lost income due to outbreak of
communicable disease that closed business due to an outbreak. Treo
claims to have met the triggers set forth by West Bend and asserts
their right to coverage under their policy. Specifically, Treo
argues that there was a communicable disease/outbreak and that its
business was shut down as a result of said outbreak. Finally,
although Treo claims the insurance contract unambiguously provides
coverage, it stresses that any ambiguity must be construed in favor
of coverage.

On March 29, 2021, West Bend sought leave to file supplemental
authority, which was granted. Treo followed with correspondence
that distinguished the case provided by West Bend. On April 15,
2021, West Bend again moved for leave to file supplemental
authority, providing a recent decision out of the Western District
of North Carolina. The Court has reviewed all of the cases
provided; however, notes that they are merely persuasive and not
binding, as they have all been issued by courts of first
impression.

Insurance Contract Interpretation

Because this matter was removed based upon diversity of
citizenship, the substantive law of Illinois governs the insurance
contract provisions, District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn holds,
citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). In insurance
coverage disputes under Illinois law, underlying complaints and the
insurance policy must be liberally construed in favor of the
insured, which in this case is Treo, U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v.
Wilkin Insulation Co., 578 N.E.2d 926 (Ill. 1991).

Judge McGlynn notes that an insurance policy must be construed as a
whole, giving effect to every provision. If the words used in the
policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain,
ordinary, and popular meaning. Judge McGlynn adds that ambiguous
terms--that is, terms that are susceptible to more than one
reasonable interpretation--must be construed in favor of coverage,
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 607 N.E.2d 1204,
1212 (Ill. 1992).

Issue Before the Court

Does the simple and direct coverage formula advanced by the
Defendant plausibly address and exclude coverage when government
decides to order the closing of its insureds business preemptively
due to its high likelihood of becoming a vector for COVID-19? Or,
does the policy provide its insured coverage when government acts
to shut down its business as a vector for communicable disease,
before definitively establishing that the actual business, either
through an employee, customer or its physical location, is a
contaminated vector for communicating the disease on the date of
shutdown?

For the reasons set out in the Memorandum and Order, Judge McGlynn
holds that Treo Salon plausibly states a cause of action that it is
entitled to coverage under this policy and specific circumstances
surrounding COVID-19 and the government's response to it. Hence,
the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Analysis

In this case, Treo seeks coverage under the endorsement for
"Communicable Disease Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage,"
which specifically provides coverage for loss of business income
resulting from communicable diseases. This case deals with a
specific and finite policy endorsement, not a traditional business
interruption provision. At first blush, one presumes coverage
exists based only upon the endorsement title; however, upon
reading, it is clear that an analysis is required.

The dispute centers on the language and interpretation of the
endorsement clause. In its motion to dismiss, West Bend asserts
that Treo seeks coverage that is only available if a government
authority orders a shut down or suspension of an insured's
operations due to an outbreak of a communicable disease at the
insured premises.

Judge McGlynn observes that although West Bend only mentioned a
two-step analysis during oral argument, a reading of their motion
focuses on three questions. First, was the Treo shutdown ordered by
a governmental authority? Second, if so, was the shutdown due to an
outbreak of a communicable disease? And third, was the shutdown at
the insured's premises?

1. Was Treo Shutdown by a Governmental Order?

Yes, there is no doubt that there was a government ordered
shutdown. On March 9, 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, in
executive order 2020-19, issued his first gubernatorial disaster
declaration in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, finding all
counties in the State of Illinois as a disaster area. On March 20,
2020 in executive order 2020-10, Governor Pritzker, entered his
stay at home/shelter in place order, which also ordered all
non-essential businesses in Illinois, including Treo, to cease all
activities other than working from home. While this order was
originally set to expire on April 7, 2020, it was extended via
other executive orders until executive order 2020-38, which allowed
all non-essential businesses, including Treo, to open on May 29,
2020 with restrictions.

2. Was the Shutdown "due to" an Outbreak of a Communicable
Disease?

This question can be broken into multiple parts, Judge McGlynn
notes. First, is COVID-19 a communicable disease? Second, was there
an outbreak of COVID-19? Third, if there was an outbreak, did it
cause the government shut down? All three subsections can be
answered in the affirmative.

Judge McGlynn holds that there does not seem to be a dispute among
the parties that COVID-19 counts as a "communicable" disease under
the policy's definition. There also does not seem to be a question
that there was an outbreak of COVID-19. The final subsection is
also dispositive. In the State of Illinois, there is no question
that Governor Pritzker's shutdown orders were in response to the
outbreak of COVID-19 throughout all areas and regions of the
state.

3. Was the Shutdown at Treo's Premises?

Again, there is no question of an outbreak of a communicable
disease that resulted in a government ordered shutdown of
all-non-essential businesses in the entire State of Illinois. The
issue focuses on the insured's premises and whether it was shutdown
due to an outbreak at the insured premises. At hearing, West Bend
argued for strict interpretation while Treo argued for a broader
interpretation.

West Bend contends the endorsement fails because, although Treo was
shut down due to a governmental order issued as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, Treo was not and cannot prove it was shut down
"due to" the communicable disease being on the premises. Treo
argues that because its premises were included geographically in
the government shutdown orders, coverage was triggered under the
Communicable Disease endorsement. Moreover, they contend the
endorsement is meant to protect small businesses such as theirs
against government infringement. The government did not create any
process through which Treo could prove it was virus free, was not a
possible vector or was employing safety measures sufficient to
justify continuous operation of its services. How can West Bend or
anyone else be so certain that COVID-19 was not on Treo's
premises?

In light of the foregoing, at this time and without the benefit of
a developed evidentiary record and briefing on the issue, the Court
is not prepared to determine whether the endorsement is ambiguous
or contains ambiguous conditions. For now, Treo has sufficiently
pled a cause of action against West Bend and has plausibly alleged
that they are entitled to coverage. Any disputed issues may be
better suited for disposition on a motion for summary judgment,
after the case has been more fully developed.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Treo Salon, Inc. has
stated a claim sufficient to survive the instant motion to dismiss.
As such, the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company is denied. West Bend is further
ordered to answer the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 10,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k4f4yxc from
Leagle.com.


WILDE BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilde Brands Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Wilde Brands Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05250
(S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Wilde Brands -- https://www.wildebrands.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and producer of meat-based protein snack bars and chips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZENB US: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZenB US, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. ZenB US, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-03337 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021).

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

Zenb US Inc. -- https://zenb.com/ -- is located in Chicago,
Illinois and is part of the Food Manufacturing 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


ZERO GROCERY: Randall Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Randall, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. ZERO GROCERY INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. RG21100N99 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 1, 2021),
is brought to seek relief from Defendants' affirmative decision to
misclassify its grocery-store workers as "independent contractors"
and their failure to pay the Plaintiff their entire hourly rate
and/or premium wages including the minimum wages and overtime
wages.

The complaint alleges that by misclassifying the grocery-store
workers as independent contractors, Defendants have sought to
increase their profits while avoiding multiple duties and
obligations that they owe to employees under the Labor Code and the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Defendants
have implemented a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
and other putative class members statutorily-mandated overtime pay
by failing to pay them their entire hourly rate and/or premium
wages and, including the minimum wage, for compensable time spent
under ZERO GROCERY's direction and control. Zero Grocery required
Plaintiff and other putative class members to clock out for rest
breaks and did not pay them any wages whatsoever, including the
minimum wage, for time spent on rest breaks, despite Labor Code
making rest breaks paid time. Further, Zero Grocery does not pay
premium wages for any hours worked beyond eight in work day or 40
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a purported
independent-contractor grocery-store worker from February 2021
through April 11, 2021 in Alameda County.

ZERO GROCERY is an online grocery store and grocery delivery
service that serves customers throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543- 7861
          Email: eagrover@kellergrovcr.com
                 rspencer@kellergrover.com

              - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Phone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***