---

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

              Friday, June 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 121

                            Headlines

20-20 PIZZA: Aolani Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
20E FRAME: Salmeron Seeks Conditional Cert. of Workers Class
384 3RD AVE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Alfonso Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Allen Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Wash Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products

ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
ACIMA CREDIT: Feb. 7, 2022 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
AFFILIATED HOME: Alves FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Shephard Slams Usurious Interest Rates
AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action Suit in California

AGENT GROUP: Faces Chamely Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, KPH Alleges
AMERICAN NATIONAL: MSP Recovery Files Class Certification Bid
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Abundo Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
AON INVESTMENTS: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Steinke Claims

AT&T INC: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Classes
BANK OF AMERICA: Smith Suit Transferred to S.D. California
BOLD TRANSPO: Roggenkamp Conditional Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
BUFFETT SENIOR: Ziegler Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal

CAM INTEGRATED: Turner Seeks Unpaid Inspectors' Overtime Wages
CANADA: Cockpit Voice Recorder Contents Released in Class Action
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CENTENNIAL BANK: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 27
CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Tosses Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines

CHECKER NOTIONS: Underpays Pullers, Gresky Suit Alleges
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Robbins Geller Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court OK's Revised Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Adair Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
CONDUENT BUSINESS: July 19 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Seeks Extension to File Cert Reply

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DAVID LOCHA: J.C. Files Civil Rights Suit in D. New Jersey
DELTA AIR: Joint Stipulation to Modify Class Cert. Schedule OK'd
DESJARDINS GROUP: Faces Suit Over "Pay Stub Surprise" Deduction
DIAMOND NAIL: Conditional Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Lu Labor Suit

DRAFTKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
EASTWOOD HOMES: Dawkins Suit Alleges Breach of Real Estate Contract
EASTWOOD HOMES: Fails to Honor Contract, Franquelin Suit Alleges
EASTWOOD HOMES: Forces Buyers to Enter a New Contract, White Says
EASTWOOD HOMES: Glavinos Sues Over Breach of Real Estate Contract

EASTWOOD HOMES: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Termination of Contract
EASTWOOD HOMES: O'Grady Suit Seeks to Honor Real Estate Contract
EASTWOOD HOMES: Raybon Suit Seeks to Enforce Real Estate Contract
ELDAHMY WELLNESS: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective

EMERALD TOTAL: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Rodriguez Suit Claims
ERICA ROX: Underpays Servers and Bartenders, Bowen Suit Claims
FARMERS INSURANCE: Daniel Files Contract-Related Suit in N.D. Cal.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Daniel Files Fraud-Related Suit in N.D. Cal.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Stallone Sues Over Compromised Personal Data

FLORISSANT, MO: Seeks to Reset Hearing on Class Certification Bid
FOREST CITY: Seeks July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Withdraws Bid to Strike Class Cert. Evidence
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline

GEM MECHANICAL: Faces Styrc Suit Over Failure to Pay Plumbers' OT
GROUPE VOXCO: Faces Underwood Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HAWAII: DPS Inmates File Amended COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Gamino Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Initial Brief Due August 23

HUNGRYPANDA US: Seeks Denial of Weng Class Certification Bid
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies IDOC Solitary Confinement Class Action
INDEPENDENT MEDIA: Karabas Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
JOEL ALVARADO: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Sanford Claims
JOHN WETZEL: Brown Loses Class Action Bid

KFORCE INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Bids OK'd
LEXVID SERVICES: Kontnik Files ADA Suit in D. Colorado
MAPLEBEAR INC: Evans Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
MDL 2913: Orrville City School District Sues Over E-Cig. Crisis
MDL 2913: Roane County School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis

MDL 2913: Seminole Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Tipton County Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MERCEDES BENZ: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Repairs, Schimmel Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Scattaglia Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J.
MICHIGAN DOC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Rouse's 2nd Amended Complaint

NCAA: Diskint Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Flores Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
NCAA: Jones Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Rozgony Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Taylor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Kalling Files Suit in District of Minnesota
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PENN CREDIT: Lewis-Robinson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Sotelo FCRA Suit Goes to N.D. California

PHH MORTGAGE: Hanlon Sues Over Contract Breach & Emotional Distress
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faulds Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
PROOFPOINT INC: Finger Sues Over Proofpoint Parent Merger Deal
PROVENTION BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 20 Deadline
RED LAND COTTON: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Rasmuzzen Files Suit in S.D. California
SEADRILL LTD: Faces WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs

SELECT REHABILITATION: Hebert Seeks Physical Therapists' Unpaid OT
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Medeiros Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
SKORPIOS TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Mock Suit Claims
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Horowitz Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
STATE FARM LIFE: Jaunich "Insurance" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
SUNRISE FOOD: Flores PAGA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
SYNGENTA AG: Holliday Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to S.D. Illinois
T&M LINE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moss Suit Claims
TJ ALVAREZ: Underpays Restaurant Delivery Workers, Xocua Suit Says

TRACFONE WIRELESS: Nicholson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Guthrie UCL Suit Removed to N.D. California
TYSON FOODS: Nears Chicken Farmer Wage-Fixing Suit Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Low Cost Delivery "Deceptive," Hicks Claims
UNILEVER UNITED: Suave Products Cause Hair Loss, Lewakowski Says

UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Seeks to Strike Regard & Sabetta Expert Reports
UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Group Files Amended NOOA Lawsuit
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Marcaurel Files Suit in S.D. Texas
WAGEWORKS INC: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WALMART INC: Williams Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA Rights

WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Related Bids OK'd
[*] Baby Food Toxin Litigation to Proceed in Multiple Venues
[*] Travel Agent Calls for Support of BI Insurance Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CEMIG Spends R$86,000 on Solid Waste Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Loses Bid to Reduce Settlement


                            *********

20-20 PIZZA: Aolani Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KAHLEA DOO AOLANI, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. 20-20 PIZZA, LLC, and JUAN
JASON SHIFFLETT, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02414 (W.D. Tenn.,
June 16, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2019 to
April 2021 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's stores
located in Atoka, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed a flawed
reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a per-delivery
basis that equates to below the IRS business mileage reimbursement
rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of its
drivers' automobile expenses. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated delivery drivers were not adequately reimbursed
for the expenses they incurred while delivering pizza and other
food items for the primary benefit of the Defendants. The
Defendant's failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses
constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendants which also diminished
its drivers' net wages beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and
attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court deems fair and equitable.

20-20 Pizza, LLC operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
owned and directed by Juan Jason Shifflett. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070

20E FRAME: Salmeron Seeks Conditional Cert. of Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX SALMERON, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. 20E FRAME
INC d/b/a ETC. EATERY 341 FRAME INC d/b/a ETC. EATERY PYONG SU SON
and ELLY KIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01813-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of his Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
      action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)1 on behalf of:

      "all current and former non-exempt workers (including, but
      not limited to, cashiers, cooks, delivery persons, food
      preparers, floor persons, dishwashers, and cleaners) employed

      by the Defendants at the Eateries at any time between March
      2, 2014, and the date on which the Court conditionally
      certifies the FLSA Collective ("Covered Employees");"

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

      as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. approving the proposed FLSA notice (including Spanish
      translation) of this action and the consent form; and

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

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective Action
Complaint against the Defendants. On November 19, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class and Collective Action
Complaint (FAC). The FAC sought unpaid wages under the FLSA and New
York Labor Law (NYLL) for violations taking place at the
Defendants' four New York City eateries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jlETsv
at no extra charge.[CC]

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

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

384 3RD AVE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Alfonso Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JHONATAN MARTINEZ ALFONSO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 384 3RD AVE REST LLC d/b/a TARA
ROSE and KEVIN DOHERTY, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05316 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants to recover damages for its
alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
October 2019 until in or around January 2021 to perform primary
duties as a busboy, cleaner, and other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 63
hours or more hours per week throughout his employments with the
Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to pay him the legally
prescribes minimum wage and overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he
worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants also failed to keep
accurate payroll records and to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL,
the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies that the Court deems appropriate.

384 3rd Ave Rest LLC d/b/a Tara Rose owned operated by Kevin
Doherty. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: 718-263-9591

3M COMPANY: Allen Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCHOT ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01870-RMG
(D.S.C., June 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Wash Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01869-RMG
(D.S.C., June 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, the suit asserts.

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with leukemia.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

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

ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on June 15 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("AcelRx") (NASDAQ: ACRX) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx publicly traded securities
between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a result, the Company had been making
false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and
efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (3) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On February 16, 2021, the Company disclosed that, on February 11,
2021, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of AcelRx
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the August
9, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

ACIMA CREDIT: Feb. 7, 2022 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIEARA FARR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACIMA CREDIT,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:20-cv-08619-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and
agree that the hearing and briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification should be continued by approximately 90
days so that the schedule would be as follows:

   -- February 7, 2022:        Deadline for Plaintiff to file
                               motion for class certification;

   -- April 14, 2022:          Deadline for Defendant to file an
                               opposition;

   -- May 12, 2022:            Deadline for Plaintiff to file a
                               reply; and

   -- June 7, 2022:            Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
                               class certification.

Acima is located in Sandy, Utah, and is part of the consumer
lending industry.

A copy of the Parties motion dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j96xc4 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, are:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          4 La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
          Telephone: 858-623-4200
          Facsimile: 858-623-4299
          E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
          Leanne C. Yu, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com
                  jtopor@snllp.com
                  lyu@snllp.com

AFFILIATED HOME: Alves FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ALVES, LOUISE HENRY,
CAMILE JONES, PAULA SIMMONDS, LENY SMITH, ANNA MARIA SILVA, and
DIRCE FREIRES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AFFILIATED HOME CARE OF PUTNAM, INC., and BARBARA
KESSMAN, in her individual capacity, Case No. 7:16-cv-01593-KMK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
class certification as well as final certification of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, including a schedule
for submission and approval of the Class Action opt-out notice to
be distributed to the members of the three subclasses proposed.

Affiliated Home Care Of Putnam, Inc. is a home health agency in
Mahopac, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gRXNFJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
          CHARNY & WHEELER P.C.
          9 West Market Street
          Rhinebeck, NY 12572
          Telephone: (845) 876-7500
          E-mail: ncharny@charnywheeler.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Stafford, Esq.
          MCCABE & MACK LLP
          63 Washington Street
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12602
          Telephone: (845) 486-6888
          E-mail: dstafford@mccm.com

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Shephard Slams Usurious Interest Rates
-------------------------------------------------------
Judith Shephard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05241 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief for violation of the New York
General Business Law.

Affirm Holdings markets, promotes and issues consumer credit
products, vis-a-vis short-term installment loans, referred to as
"Buy Now, Pay Later," through partnership with online or
brick-and-mortar merchants. Affirm is a reverse "layaway" plan,
where a customer purchases something then makes multiple payments
until it is paid off.

However, Shephard alleges that the interest rates charged through
Affirm exceed most credit cards' rates, without any of the
protections of this regulated form of payment, resulting to
increased debt, higher interest, less transparency and reduced
consumer protections. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Pruett, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that Afterpay, a buy-now, pay-later company, is
facing a putative class action lawsuit in a California federal
district court. The complaint alleges that Afterpay misled
customers in representing that its services allowed customers to
"pay for purchases at a later date, with no interest, no fees, and
no hassle" when "there are huge, undisclosed fees and interest
associated with using the service." Afterpay's service allows its
customers to make a purchase on credit and repay the balance by
making four payments over the course of six weeks.

The plaintiff claims that Afterpay did not disclose to its
customers "that overdraft and NSF fees are a likely and devastating
consequence of the use of its service." She alleges that she "had
no idea small, automatic Afterpay repayments could cause $35 bank
fees from [her] bank" or that "Afterpay would process transactions
when [her] accounts had insufficient funds." While acknowledging
that banks, not Afterpay, assess these fees, the plaintiff contends
that "Afterpay misrepresents (and omits facts about) the true
nature, benefits, and risks of its service . . . [including] that
users are at extreme and undisclosed risk of expensive bank fees
when using Afterpay."

The complaint alleges that Afterpay's failure to warn consumers
about the potential risk of banks assessing overdraft and NSF fees
is an unfair and fraudulent act and practice in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all Afterpay customers who incurred an
overdraft or NSF fee because of a payment to Afterpay. The relief
sought in the complaint includes injunctive relief, restitution of
fees, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains, compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, and litigation costs.
[GN]

AGENT GROUP: Faces Chamely Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CHAMELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGENT GROUP REALTY LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-011856 (Fla. 17th
Jud. Cir. Ct., June 16, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been sending numerous
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 1884 beginning on or about May 21, 2021 in an
attempt to promote and solicit its real estate brokerage services.
The Defendant purportedly failed to include instructions on how to
opt-out of future messages to its transmitted text messages.
Despite the Plaintiff's use of standard opt-out language by
responding with the words "Unsubscribe" on May 21, 2021, the
Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's opt-out demand and continued
sending text messages instead, the suit asserts.

Due to the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons have suffered actual harm in the
form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenience and
disruption to their daily life.

Agent Group Realty LLC offers real estate brokerage services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, KPH Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. A/K/A KINNEY DRUGS, INC., on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMARIN
PHARMA, INC., AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, AMARIN
CORPORATION PLC, BASF AMERICAS CORPORATION, BASF CORPORATION, BASF
PHARMA (CALLANISH) LTD, BASF USA HOLDING LLC, CHEMPORT, INC.,
NISSHIN PHARMA, INC., NOVASEP LLC, NOVASEP, INC., GROUPE NOVASEP
SAS, and FINORGA SAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-12747 (D.N.J.,
June 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants delayed the competition
in the U.S. and its territories for Vascepa, a prescription
medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
treat hypertriglyceridemia in adults, by hoarding the world's
supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient needed to make the
drug. As a result of the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive
scheme, the Plaintiff and Class members have been forced to pay
supra-competitive prices for Vascepa and its generic equivalent.

KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., also known as Kinney Drugs, Inc.
(KPH), is an operator of retail and online pharmacies in the
Northeast, with headquarters in Gouverneur, New York.

Amarin Pharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 1430 Route 206, Bedminster, New Jersey.

Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company
with registered offices at 88 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2, Dublin,
Ireland.

Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company with
principal executive offices at 77 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Block
C, Gran Canal Docklands, Dublin 2, Ireland.

BASF Americas Corporation is a chemical company with its principal
place of business at 1105 North Market Street, Suite 1306, P.O. Box
8985, Wilmington, Delaware.

BASF Corporation is a chemical company with its principal place of
business at 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey.

BASF Pharma (Callanish) Limited is a company that develops and
manufactures concentrated omega-3 fatty acids with registered
offices at 2 Stockport Exchange, Railway Road, Stockport, SK1 3GG,
United Kingdom.

BASF USA Holding LLC is a chemical company with its principal place
of business at 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey.

Chemport Inc. is an omega-3 fatty acid manufacturer with its
principal place of business at 15-1, Dongsu-dong, Naju-si, Korea.

Nisshin Pharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.

Novasep, LLC is a company that develops and provides purification
solutions with its principal place of business at 23 Creek Circle,
Boothwyn, Pennsylvania.

Novasep, Inc. is a company that develops and provides purification
solutions with its principal place of business at 23 Creek Circle,
Boothwyn, Pennsylvania.

Novasep SAS is a company that develops and provides purification
solutions with its principal place of business at 39, Rue Saint
Jean De Dieu Lyon, 69007 France.

Finorga SAS is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of
business at Route De Givors Chasse Sur Rhone, 38670 France. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
         Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
         Michele S. Burkholder, Esq.
         NASTLAW LLC
         1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Telephone: (215) 923-9300
         E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                 dgallucci@nastlaw.com
                 mburkholder@nastlaw.com

                - and –

         Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
         Karen S. Halbert, Esq.
         Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
         ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
         20 Rahling Cir.
         Little Rock, AR 72223
         Telephone: (501) 821-5575
         E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
                 stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us

                - and –

         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
         Peter Moran, Esq.
         NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (917) 438-9189
         E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 pmoran@nussbaumpc.com

AMERICAN NATIONAL: MSP Recovery Files Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL GENERAL
INSURANCE CO, and AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Case
No. 1:20-cv-24077-CMA (S.D. Fla.) the Plaintiff, MSP Recovery
Claims, Series LLC, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), files motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiff submits that the Court should certify the following
class:

   "All Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream actors (or their
   assignees) that have borne the cost of a conditional payment in

   providing benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United
   States of America and its territories, who made payments for a
   Medicare Enrollee's medical expenses where Defendant:

   (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having settled a claim
       with a Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee;

   (2) settled a dispute to pay for medical expenses with a
       Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee; and

   (3) failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream

       actors (or their assignees) for their conditional payments
       upon settling with a Medicare Enrollee.

   This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers,
   directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

   and (b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any
   members of their immediate families.

The Defendant, American National Property & Casualty Company, is a
primary insurer that issues auto and general liability policies. By
virtue of those policies, the Defendant is made a primary payer by
the MSP Act, and is responsible to either pay the medical expenses
of Medicare beneficiaries before Medicare Advantage Organization
class members pay anything or, if the putative class members pay
first for any reason, the Defendant must reimburse them. The class
members are, essentially, private Medicare entities that "stand in
the shoes" of Medicare and are entitled to the same rights and
protections when it comes to their reimbursement rights. The
Eleventh Circuit and other courts have cleared the path for
efficient prosecution of MSP Act claims against recalcitrant
primary payers such as Defendant. MSP Act liability here is
"remarkably simple;" Defendant is liable when (1) it is a primary
plan, (2) that failed to reimburse a conditional payment made by a
MAO, causing (3) damages. And Plaintiff offers a viable methodology
for identifying and quantifying unreimbursed claims class-wide.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gXBrRN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-Mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com

              - and -

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          Shayna K. Hudson, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  fquesada@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  shudson@msprecoverylawfirm.com

AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Abundo Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GERARDO ABUNDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01190592-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01071 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 all wages owed, including overtime;
failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and
permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment;
failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment;
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair
competition.

American Residential Services, LLC is a building maintenance
services company, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
         Mina Saffarian, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
         Telephone: (213) 489-3939
         Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
         E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
                 msaffarian@jonesday.com

                  - and –

         Scott Morrison, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 314-1200
         Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
         E-mail: scottmorrison@jonesday.com

AON INVESTMENTS: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Steinke Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN STEINKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AON INVESTMENTS USA, INC.; 812 MARKET
STREET, LLC; and HAMILTON LANE ADVISORS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case
No. 210601197 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 18, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and
negligence/gross negligence.

The case arises from the Defendants' mismanagement of the Public
School Employees Retirement System (PSERS), which is a defined
benefit pension plan for public school teachers within the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Specifically, the Plan's consultants
and advisors (i) collected professional service and management fees
in the millions of dollars, and (ii) made a compounding series of
errors that has devastated the fund and resulted in at least a
multi-billion dollar funding shortfall. The Defendants breached
their duties in negligently analyzing, assessing, and communicating
the financial status of the Plan and in failing to provide services
consistent with a reasonably prudent advisor, and as otherwise set
forth herein. The Defendants' actions have allegedly triggered a
direct increased contribution obligation from the Plaintiff and the
putative Class to shore-up the Plan's recently disclosed pension
funding shortfall.

Aon Investments USA, Inc. is an investment advisory firm based in
Chicago, Illinois.

812 Market Street, LLC is a limited liability company based in
Pennsylvania.

Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C. is an alternative investment
management firm based in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gregory B. Heller, Esq.
         MCLAUGHLIN & LAURICELLA, P.C.
         One Commerce Square
         2005 Market Street, Suite 2300
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (267) 238-1211
         E-mail: gheller@best-lawyers.com

               - and –

         Gerard Mantese, Esq.
         MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
         1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
         Troy, MI 48083
         Telephone: (248) 457-9200
         E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and –

         John J. Conway, Esq.
         J. J. CONWAY LAW
         26622 Woodward Ave., Suite 225
         Royal Oak, MI 48067
         Telephone: (313) 961-6525
         E-mail: jj@jjconwaylaw.com

AT&T INC: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that AT&T Inc. urged a California federal judge to
toss an ERISA suit accusing the telecommunications giant of wasting
its workers' retirement savings on unreasonable fees, saying on
June 14 that there isn't a "shred of evidence" to back up the
allegations. [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits against Bank of America, the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the proposed classes:

   "All persons who worked for Defendant Bank of America, National
   Association in California as a non-exempt employee at any time
   during the period beginning on February 22, 2014 and ending when

   the Court grants class certification, but expressly excluding
   therefrom any individuals who, as of the date the Court grants
   class certification, (a) have filed their own separate action as

   a named plaintiff alleging any of the same claims alleged by
   Plaintiffs, (b) have opted into a collective action or are class

   members in a certified class action against Defendant alleging
   any of the same claims alleged by Plaintiffs, and/or (c) have
   previously released all claims against the Defendant being
   alleged by Plaintiffs."

In its earlier class-certification order, the court narrowed the
class definition and certified the 16 following classes: (1) for
the off-the-clock claim, (a) all Treasury Services Advisors (in
call centers) and (b) all Assistant Managers (in financial
centers); and (2) for the meal-and-rest-breaks claims, all Treasury
Services Advisors (in call centers).

The court stayed the case to allow the parties to mediate their
dispute. After the parties did not resolve the case, Bank of
America moved for reconsideration of the class-certification order
generally on the ground that by narrowing the class, the court
certified classes that the plaintiffs never advanced, either by way
of a theory of liability or through evidence. The court granted
reconsideration. The court held a hearing on June 17, 2021. All
parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
section 636 and do not contest the court's jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The plaintiffs' main claims are for off-the-clock work and missed
meal-and-rest-breaks, and they also raise claims predicated on
these claims: failure to pay final wages on time, failure to
provide accurate wage-and-hour statements, and unfair business
practices under the UCL. They moved to certify classes for all
claims.

The two suits are captioned as:

   "IRMA FRAUSTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
   situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 18-
   cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal.);" and

   "ARIANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
   situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 18-cv-01202-
   LB (N.D. Cal.)."

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vR7use at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Smith Suit Transferred to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jonathan Smith, Alex Yuan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03385, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on June 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01137-LAB-MSB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

The Bank of America -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is an
American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Sophie R. Sedaghat, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON AND WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Fax: (818) 788-8104
          Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                 ssedaghat@pswlaw.com
                 dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          BOUCHER LLP
          21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (818) 340-5400
          Fax: (818) 340-5401
          Email: ray@boucher.la

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Rossiter Callaway, Esq.
          Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 Marshall Street
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Phone: (650) 752-3100
          Fax: (650) 853-1038
          Email: dcallaway@goodwinlaw.com
                 lstoll@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Barry William Lee, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS
          One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 291-7450
          Fax: (415) 291-7474
          Email: bwlee@manatt.com


BOLD TRANSPO: Roggenkamp Conditional Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD ROGGENKAMP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOLD TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02036-HLT-JPO (D.
Kan.), the Hon Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
      for conditional class certification under section 216(b) of
      the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

      -- The Court conditionally certifies under 29 U.S.C. section
         216(b) the following class:

         "All persons nationwide who were, are, or will be
employed
         by the Defendant as Yard Hostlers anytime between January
         22, 2018 to the present who have not been compensated at
         one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all
         services performed in excess of forty hours per week. A
         Yard Hostler operates a "hostler tractor," which is
         connected to freight trailers to transport the trailers
         from a staging area to loading docks at Defendant's
         facility. These duties are all performed on the private
         property of Defendant. Yard Hostlers do not maintain a
         Commercial Driver's License, do not transport goods in
         interstate commerce, and do not load, help drive, or
         service tractor trailers in interstate commerce. Many Yard

         Hostlers do not operate as drivers, driver's helpers,
         loaders, or mechanics."

   2. directing the Defendant to give Plaintiff's counsel a list
      (in both electronic and hard copy format) of all current and
      former Yard Hostlers who worked for the Defendant at any
time
      from January 28, 2018 to the present. The list shall include
      last known address and email address. Defendant shall
provide
      such information within 14 days of this Order;

      -- The Plaintiff's counsel may begin to issue the proposed
         notice form, as modified to comply with this Order; and

   3. designating the Plaintiff Chad Roggenkamp as the class
      representative and Plaintiff's counsel is designated to act
      as class counsel in this matter.

The Court agrees that conditional certification is appropriate for
a class of Yard Hostlers as defined in Plaintiff's complaint. The
Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that a class
exceeding that definition is similarly situated. The Court also
finds that some changes to the proposed notice are necessary to
limit the class and to set appropriate parameters for sending
notice to the putative class members.

Bold provides transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xKj8GI at no extra charge.[CC]


BUFFETT SENIOR: Ziegler Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT A. ZIEGLER; GARTH
YATES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, v. RICHARD P. DALE, JR.; BUFFETT SENIOR HEALTHCARE CORP.;
SENIOR HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC.; RJR INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00071-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the settlement detailed in the
      Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying the settlement class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
      23 for purposes of the notice and claims process;

   3. appointing Robert Ziegler and Garth Yates as class
      representatives;

   4. appointing Hirlye (Ryan) Lutz and Brett C. Thompson of Cory
      Watson, P.C. and Jason Ochs of Ochs Law Firm, P.C. as class
      counsel;

   5. approving as to form and content the Summary Notice and Long

      Form Notice;

   6. directing the mailing of the Summary Notice by first class
      mail to the Class Members;

   7. setting a deadline of September 17, 2021 for all objections
      and requests for exclusion (or opt-out requests);

   8. setting a deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for final
      approval and response(s) to any objection(s) on September 22,

      2021; and

   9. setting a Final Fairness Hearing for October 22, 2021.

The Plaintiff Robert Ziegler initiated this action on behalf of
himself and all purchasers of My Senior Healthcare Partners (MySHP)
lifetime benefit plans who paid either $1299 (1299 plan) or $1599
(1599 plan), alleging that the Defendants did not provide the
benefits promised.

The Plaintiff brought these claims on behalf of a putative class
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of
the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff Garth Yates joined Mr.
Ziegler as Co-Plaintiff. The Defendants deny Plaintiffs'
allegations and have asserted a number of affirmative defenses.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gTY5vL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett C. Thompson, Esq.
          Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896

               - and -

          Jason E. Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          690 U.S. 89, Suite 204
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910

CAM INTEGRATED: Turner Seeks Unpaid Inspectors' Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID TURNER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CAM INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01969 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as
a result of its alleged illegal pay practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
January 2019 until September 2019 as a Coating Inspector and
Utility Inspector.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he and
other similarly situated were not paid overtime compensation at the
federally mandated overtime rate despite frequently working more 40
hours per week. Instead, the Defendant paid them their day rate
regardless of the number of hours they worked in a week, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Cam Integrated Solutions, LLC is an energy service provider that
provides engineering and design, procurement, fabrication,
construction management, survey, inspection, and right-of-way
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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

CANADA: Cockpit Voice Recorder Contents Released in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Martins, Esq., and Andrew MacDonald, Esq., of WeirFoulds
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Canada
(Transportation Safety Board) v Carroll-Byrne, 2021 NSCA 34
("Carroll-Byrne"), the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld a lower
court's authorization of the conditional release of the contents of
the cockpit voice recorder ("CVR") to the parties to a class
action. The appeal court unanimously affirmed the motion judge's
holding that the public interest in the proper administration of
justice outweighed the statutory privilege that attaches to the
CVR.

Background
In its final approach to Halifax International Airport just after
midnight on March 29, 2015, Air Canada Flight 624 severed power
lines and then struck snow-covered ground short of the runway,
impacted a localizer antenna array - causing the Airbus A320's
landing gear to separate - bounced twice more, and then skidded on
its belly before coming to a rest. Approximately two dozen of the
133 passengers, as well as both pilots, and a flight attendant,
were taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

A class proceeding was commenced on behalf of the passengers
against Air Canada; the pilot and first officer of Flight 624; as
well as Airbus; the airport; NAV Canada, which operates Canada's
civil air navigation system; and the Canadian government.

The class action was certified on consent in December 2016.

Meanwhile, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (the "TSB" or
"Board") carried out an investigation into the accident. The TSB's
investigation report was released in May 2017. Among its findings
was that Air Canada's applicable standard operating procedure
("SOP") and practice did not accord with its or Airbus's flight
crew operating manuals. As a result, Flight 624's flight crew did
not monitor the aircraft's altitude or distance from the runway
after selecting the flight path angle and, therefore, did not
notice that the aircraft had descended below the minimum descent
altitude too early in its final approach. (Air Canada amended its
SOP following the accident. It also sued Airbus.)

The TSB's report is publicly available, but its findings are not
binding, and the opinions of TSB investigators are not admissible
in other legal proceedings, by virtue of ss. 7(4) and 33 of the
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act
(the "Act").

As part of its investigation, the TSB took possession of and
considered the contents of the CVR. Section 28(2) of the Act
prohibits the disclosure of the CVR or its contents except in
accordance with that section.

Section 28(6) allows a court to order the "production and
discovery" of the CVR if the public interest in the proper
administration of justice outweighs the importance of the statutory
privilege attached to the CVR. That provision also references
certain procedural considerations that came into play in
Carroll-Byrne -- it reads:

Power of court or coroner

(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where, in any
proceedings before a court or coroner, a request for the production
and discovery of an on-board recording is made, the court or
coroner shall

(a) cause notice of the request to be given to the Board, if the
Board is not a party to the proceedings;

(b) in camera, examine the on-board recording and give the Board a
reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect
thereto; and

(c) if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the
case that the public interest in the proper administration of
justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the
on-board recording by virtue of this section, order the production
and discovery of the on-board recording, subject to such
restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems
appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that
relates to the on-board recording.

Airbus, along with the plaintiffs, the Halifax airport and NAV
Canada, moved for the production and discovery of the CVR in the
class action. The TSB and the Air Canada Pilots' Association were
granted intervenor status and opposed the requested disclosure
order, along with Air Canada.

The Appeal
The motion judge ordered the conditional release of the CVR to the
parties to the class action. The TSB appealed, with the support of
the Pilots' Association and Air Canada. On appeal, the TSB's
primary arguments were that the court below had erred

1. by failing to give it the opportunity to make in camera
representations with respect to the CVR and
2. by determining that the public interest in the proper
administration of justice outweighed the importance of the
privilege in the CVR.
The Pilots' Association argued that disclosure of the CVR
compromises pilot privacy interests and public safety by
discouraging candour in flight officer communications.

"In camera" non est "ex parte"

The TSB argued that s. 28(6)(b), in its inclusion of the words "in
camera", entitled it to make "ex parte" representations to the
judge prior to any decision to release the contents of the CVR.
That is, the TSB asserted that the motion judge should have allowed
it to make submissions not only in the absence of the public (in
camera) but also in the absence of any other adverse parties (ex
parte).

In detailed reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the TSB's
interpretation was not correct. In particular, the fact that s.
28(6)(b) uses the words "in camera" and not "ex parte" presented a
considerable challenge to the TSB's argument. As noted by the
court, there is a clear distinction between in camera  and ex
parte, and it can be assumed that Parliament will use ex parte
when that is what it means - as it has in s. 19(3) of the Act and
in various other federal legislation.

In addition, the court held that on a plain reading of s. 28(6),
it

authorizes the Court - not the parties - to listen to the cockpit
recorder in camera. The Board - which is not a party in the
ordinary sense - is then given an opportunity to make
representations with respect to the recording - something
non-parties ordinarily cannot.

While the court did not make a clear finding on this issue, there
is good reason to interpret the "in camera" in s. 28(6)(b) as
applying only to the court's examination of the CVR, and not to any
representations the TSB is allowed to make in respect of it. As
Airbus argued, to the extent there is any ambiguity in the English
version of the provision, the French version appears to support
this conclusion in providing that a court to which a request for
the production of a CVR is made must "…examine celui-ci a huis
clos et donne a la Regie la possibilite de presenter des
observations a ce sujet . . . " This phrasing more clearly states
that only the examination of the CVR is to be done in camera ("a
huis clos").

The public interest favoured conditional release of the CVR
The TSB faulted the motion judge for following and applying the
analysis of a 2009 Ontario decision rendered by Justice Strathy in
Societe Air France v Greater Toronto Airports Authority,  2009
CanLII 69321, which canvassed many of the arguments raised in
Carroll-Byrne  in some detail.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had not
erred in relying on the Air France articulation of the applicable
test, which rejected the inclusion of a "possibility of a
miscarriage of justice" threshold as unwarranted and unsupported by
the language of s. 28(6). That decision was unanimously upheld on
appeal (and Strathy J was subsequently elevated to Ontario's court
of appeal and appointed Chief Justice of the province).

The appeal court also found no error in the motion judge's
assessment of the facts before him, which findings were entitled to
deference. In particular, the motion judge held that:

   * the CVR was both reliable and material to a central focus of
the claim:    

   * the flight officers' perceptions, observations, considerations
and decision-making in Flight 624's final approach;

   * the flight crew's discovery evidence revealed gaps in their
ability to provide facts about their conduct at material times in
the flight, which could be filled by production of the CVR;

   * disclosure of the CVR under the stringent conditions
proposed would not unduly compromise flight officer privacy,
especially given that the most important part of the recording
occurred when the aircraft was below 10,000 feet when "sterile
cockpit rules are in effect", meaning that only operational issues
are to be discussed; and

   * disclosure of the CVR would not unduly compromise safety by
having a "chilling effect" on pilot communication or witness
cooperation with investigators, having weighed competing evidence
from the TSB and the experience of the United States National
Transportation Safety Board, where no such effect had been found.

The Act attaches privilege to cockpit voice recorders and their
contents to promote safety and to protect the privacy interests of
flight crews. However, CVRs contain critical data that are usually
of critical importance to understanding the causes of an aviation
accident. Like the TSB, a court's function is to uncover the truth
and, in recognition of this fact, the Act allows for the production
of CVRs in the civil litigation discovery process in appropriate
circumstances. [GN]

CARNIVAL CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mee (Rina) Kim, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that on May 27, 2021, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a securities class action against Carnival Corp.
("Carnival"), which operates the world's largest cruise company,
relating to the company's health and safety disclosures made prior
to and as the COVID-19 pandemic spread. This decision follows a
dismissal of another securities fraud class action against a major
cruise operator six weeks earlier by the same court.

Like in the prior case against Norwegian, the Carnival court
dismissed the suit upon finding the plaintiffs failed to plead the
existence of any statements that were materially false or
misleading, and failed to sufficiently allege scienter. In so
doing, it applied traditional principles of federal securities laws
to the anything-but-traditional circumstances created by the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Background
The complaint involves statements made by Carnival between
September 16, 2019 and March 31, 2020. It is focused on the cruise
line's pre-pandemic disclosures surrounding its commitment to
health and safety (including in its 2019 Form 10-K), as well as its
early 2020 disclosures related to the company's operations and
risks as it began to respond to the pandemic.

The plaintiffs alleged that, contrary to the cruise line's stated
commitment to health and safety, Carnival "lacked proper policies,
procedures, controls, or processes to prevent cruise ships from
embarking on new voyages" after learning that passengers and crew
were exposed to COVID-19, and similarly lacked policies "to prevent
passengers from embarking on cruise ships where infection had
already been detected."

According to the consolidated complaint, on March 4, 2020, Carnival
informed passengers on one of its ships that the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control ("CDC") was investigating a cluster of COVID-19
cases in northern California, including the death of a man linked
to a previous Carnival cruise. Within two days, 21 passengers that
had been on the ship on March 4 tested positive for COVID-19.

The complaint further alleges that on March 31 and April 1, 2020,
Carnival made several filings with the SEC, including a Preliminary
Prospectus Supplement seeking to commence a public offering of
$1.25 billion in Carnival common stock; this offering was reduced
to $500 million the next day. In these filings, Carnival discussed
its plans to improve liquidity in light of the pandemic, and
updated its disclosures regarding risks posed by COVID-19. These
filings allegedly revealed the true financial harm that Carnival's
"dearth of health and safety protocols had inflicted upon its
business." Carnival's stock price fell from $13.17 at March 31 to
$8.80 on April 1 and further fell to $7.97 on April 2, 2020.

No Materially False or Misleading Statements
The court found that none of Carnival's challenged statements were
materially false or misleading such that they could withstand the
defendants' motion to dismiss. These statements fell into five
categories. First, the plaintiffs alleged Carnival's 2019
statements discussing the company's enhancements to its
pre-pandemic health and safety protocols were actually false and
misleading, given Carnival's response to the COVID-19 outbreak on
its ships. These measures, including the creation of an Incident
Analysis Group, would allow employees to make recommendations to
improve the company's health and safety practices. The court
instead found that Carnival's statements regarding its planned
health and safety improvements indicated the company's
acknowledgement of shortcomings in its present compliance methods.
In the court's view, a reasonable investor could appreciate that it
would take time to make these improvements; accordingly, Carnival's
inability to complete these changes before the pandemic
materialized did not render the statements materially false or
misleading.

Second, the plaintiffs alleged Carnival downplayed the risk of
COVID-19 in its 2019 10-K and related filings because a battery
manufacturer based in Wuhan, China had already alerted Carnival's
chief experience and innovation officer the scale and severity of
the outbreak. The court, however, found those allegations vague and
unpersuasive, especially in light of guidance from the CDC and the
World Health Organization that, at the time, were reporting low
infection risk.

Third, the plaintiffs alleged Carnival's February 2020 statements,
which related to the company's prioritization of the health and
safety of its passengers and crew, the existence of protocols
surrounding COVID-19, and the role of its health and safety
committees, were false and misleading. The court determined many of
these statements reflected incomplete actions, ongoing initiatives,
or aspirational goals, which could not be objectively measured and
therefore would not mislead a reasonable investor. The court noted
that some February 2020 statements involved completed enhancements
or immediate actions that were to occur; accordingly, those
statements could be actionable if they were false or misleading.
But these statements also included caveats that protected them from
liability. For example, Carnival's statements that certain enhanced
procedures would take place at "many" of its embarkation ports
meant that the absence of such procedures at some ports did not
render the statements materially false.

Fourth, Carnival disclosed on March 13, 2020 that it "has not had a
diagnosed case linked to our operation." Although the court noted
that statement was objectively false, as numerous passengers had
tested positive for COVID-19, the statement was made on the same
day that the company announced a voluntary suspension of voyages.
The court held that this statement, and any statements made
thereafter, could not have reasonably misled investors given the
suspension, and therefore the statement was not actionable.

Fifth, the court disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that
Carnival's statements affirming its compliance with health and
safety standards were false and misleading based on subsequent
confirmations of COVID-19 cases on board—a quintessential case of
fraud by hindsight. In the court's view, the plaintiffs' suggested
health and safety measures were far more stringent than the
contemporaneous guidance, against which Carnival's statements must
be measured.

No Compelling Inference of Scienter
Although the court did not find the plaintiffs had alleged any
materially false or misleading statements, it nevertheless analyzed
the complaint's scienter allegations. Notably, the court found it
was plausible that Carnival was committed to health and safety
aboard its ships while also believing the risk of COVID-19 in early
2020 was relatively low. Further, the court noted that unsuccessful
and ineffective measures—as evidenced by the incidences of
COVID-19 on Carnival's ships—did not, standing alone, support a
strong inference of scienter.

Implications
This decision, with its focus on health and safety protocols and
related disclosures, is particularly timely now, as certain parts
of the world attempt to return to some degree of normalcy. As such,
this opinion may be useful for tourism companies that are
considering how to navigate a post-COVID world. As demonstrated
here, courts may evaluate external factors, such as CDC guidance,
in determining what would mislead a reasonable investor. Public
disclosures of health and safety practices should take current
guidance into account, especially as the risk of travelers
contracting COVID-19, including on cruise ships, remains. [GN]

CENTENNIAL BANK: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMEON PENTON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CENTENNIAL BANK,
et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-450-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge
Allen Winsor entered an order modifying schedule as follows:

   1. The deadline to complete discovery is extended to August 27,
      2021.

   2. The deadline to disclose expert reports is extended to July
      23, 2021.

   3. The deadline to file a class-certification motion is extended

      to September 27, 2021.

   4. The mediation deadline remains unchanged.

   5. The dispositive-motions deadline remains 21 days after the
      close of discovery or 30 days after an order resolving any
      timely filed class-certification motion, whichever is later.

   6. The clerk will set a telephonic hearing for 11:00 a.m. on
      June 28, at which the court will consider the motion to
      dismiss and the motion for leave to amend.

   7. No later than June 24, the parties may file supplemental
      memoranda, not to exceed five pages, on the issue of whether

      an order granting the motion for leave to amend would moot
      the motion to dismiss.

Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad
range of commercial and retail banking.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vTxBP4 at no extra charge.[CC]

CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Tosses Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARDO ALDAPE v. CEVA
LOGISTICS U.S., INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08713-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying the
stipulated request to further delay this case:

   -- A case management conference is scheduled for Wednesday,
July
      14 at 2 p.m., at which the parties should be prepared to
      explain what, if anything, they have been doing since the
      initial case management conference in February.

   -- A joint case management statement is due 7 days before the
      conference.

   -- The Plaintiffs' counsel is reminded that if they wish to be
      appointed to represent a class of plaintiffs, they need to
      demonstrate they are able and willing to move the case along

      effectively.

Ceva offers logistics services. The Company provides trucking
transportation services, freight forwarding, contract logistics,and
warehousing.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d93s7V at no extra charge.[CC]


CHECKER NOTIONS: Underpays Pullers, Gresky Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA GRESKY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CHECKER NOTIONS COMPANY, INC. d/b/a CHECKER
DISTRIBUTORS, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01203 (N.D. Ohio, June
17, 2021) brings this collective and class action complaint against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of
puller from approximately August 2018 to the present.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, the Defendant did not properly pay her and other
similarly situated employees for all of their compensable hours
worked. The Defendant failed to properly calculate their regular
rates of pay for the purposes of meeting the minimum and overtime
requirements set forth in the FLSA by failing to include the
Additional Remuneration in its regular rate calculations. As a
result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' overtime wages
were allegedly underpaid.

Checker Notions Company, Inc. d/b/a Checker Distributors is a
distributor of a variety of product lines throughout the U.S. and
internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

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

                - and –

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

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 6, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI) common stock between November 26, 2019
and May 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

Then, on May 6, 2021, after the market closed, ChemoCentryx
announced that the FDA Advisory Committee was evenly divided as to
whether the efficacy data supported approval of avacopan. Multiple
analysts commented on the news. For example, J.P. Morgan noted that
"while the vote was more 50/50-ish, we note that commentary by the
panel was skewed to more of a negative tone."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $17.03 per share, or
62%, to close at $10.46 per share on May 7, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ChemoCentryx common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July
6, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

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

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

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

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

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's
revenues had declined substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue
recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the
company; (3) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android
market; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the management
team bringing PureCycle public had previously brought six other
failed business public only to have each implode thereafter; (2)
the management team bringing PureCycle public had characterized
rank speculation as financial projections to investors in the past;
(3) the primary motivation of the management team bringing
PureCycle public was to complete any transaction, good or bad, to
obtain tens of millions of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (4)
PureCycle faces higher competition for high quality feedstock than
it has led investors to believe, materially undermining the
management team's financial projections; (5) PureCycle's patent is
nowhere as cogent or valuable as it has led investors to believe,
and the technology underlying its business operations is unproven
and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (6) in reality,
PureCycle's flammable pressurized process is not yet functional,
especially at scale, and is dangerous; (7) PureCycle purports to be
advancing to commercial production scale despite still having
operational issues at a lab scale; and (8) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Aterian, Inc. f/k/a Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER,
MWK)
Class Period: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (2) the Company's recent, self-lauded
acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable
sources; (3) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software
is a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses
rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their
product offerings; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

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

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16908&wire=5

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

ChemoCentryx, Inc. NEWS - CCXI NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the study
design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about the
interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically
meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III
ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3)
these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the
viability of ChemoCentryx's New Drug Application ("NDA") for
avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
ChemoCentryx, you have until July 6, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities between
November 26, 2019 and May 6, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16908&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Robbins Geller Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 15 disclosed that the lead
plaintiff motion deadline is approaching in two related securities
class actions on behalf of purchasers of Churchill Capital
Corporation IV (NYSE:CCIV) securities between January 11, 2021 and
February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The first-filed
case is Phillips v. Churchill Capital Corp. IV, No. 21-cv-00539,
and is assigned to Judge Annemarie C. Axon of the Northern District
of Alabama. The second-filed case is Arico v. Churchill Capital
Corp. IV, No. 21-cv-12355, and is assigned to Judge Brian R.
Martinotti of the District of New Jersey.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Churchill Capital IV securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Churchill
Capital IV class action lawsuits. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuits. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuits. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the Churchill Capital
IV class action lawsuits is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Churchill
Capital IV class action lawsuits or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuits,
please provide your information here or contact counsel, Juan
Carlos Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

Churchill Capital IV is a blank check company, also known as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). In April 2020,
defendant Michael Klein launched Churchill Capital IV, which raised
more than $2 billion in its initial public offering and is listed
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:CCIV). Lucid Motors is an
American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of
2020 its first car, Lucid Air, was in development. On January 11,
2021, Bloomberg News reported that: "Electric vehicle maker Lucid
Motors Inc. [was] 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." Bloomberg News further
reported that the transaction could be valued at up to $15 billion
and that "Churchill Capital Corp IV – the largest [of Klein's two
SPACs], having raised more than $2 billion last year – is the
vehicle considering a deal with Lucid." On February 22, 2021, the
long anticipated merger agreement between Churchill Capital IV and
Lucid was announced. Churchill Capital IV and Lucid's transaction
equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. Churchill Capital
IV's share price closed that day at $57.37.

On February 23, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that the Lucid chief
executive officer announced that production of its debut car would
be delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for actual delivery of an actual vehicle. On this news,
the price of Churchill Capital IV stock fell by approximately 38%,
damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.

With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion
-- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court OK's Revised Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order as follows:

   1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file her reply in support of
      the motion for class certification shall be extended from
      June 24, 2021 to July 15, 2021.

   2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file her oppositions to
      Colgate’s motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses
      shall be extended from June 24, 2021 to July 15, 2021.

   3. The deadline for Colgate to file its replies in support of
      its motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses shall be

      extended from July 30, 2021 to August 20, 2021.

   4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and

      Colgate's motions to exclude Plaintiff's experts shall be
      continued from August 23, 2021 to September 20, 2021 at 9:00

      a.m. or such other date that is convenient for the Court.

Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan,
New York City. It specializes in the production, distribution and
provision of household, health care, personal care and veterinary
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35NBDxT at no extra charge.[CC]

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Adair Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS P. ADAIR, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., and
PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS II LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00725-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va., June 16, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful collection practices that violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a written
communication on or about November 25, 2020 in an attempt to
collect his alleged debt that was incurred to a creditor primarily
for a personal medical expense. However, instead of printing and
mailing the letter on their own, the Defendant communicated to a
third-party mail vendor by providing private information regarding
the Plaintiff and his alleged debt and then mailed the letter on
the Defendant's behalf. The Plaintiff asserts that he never
provided the Defendant his consent to communicate with any
third-party vendor in connection with the collection of the Debt.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals have suffered the same injuries as a result of
the Defendant's illegal communications related to their personal
alleged debt. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and
actual damages, reasonable litigation costs and attorneys' fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale W. Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
          The Eliza Spotswood House
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
          Tel: (804) 861-6000
          Fax: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

                - and –

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Tel: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

CONDUENT BUSINESS: July 19 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE ALMON, JON CARNLEY,
CYNTHIA CLARK, JACKIE DENSMORE, JENNIFER KREEGAR, HAROLD MCPHAIL,
KATHLEEN PAGLIA, JB SIMMS, and KENNETH TILLMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT BUSINESS
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DIRECT EXPRESS (TM), COMERICA, INC., and
COMERICA BANK, Case No. 5:19-cv-01075-XR (W.D. Tex.), the parties
have met and conferred and have agreed to a further extension of
all remaining deadlines in the Court's scheduling order, as
follows:

           Event                      Current      Proposed
Amended
                                      Deadline        Deadline
                              

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to      June 21, 2021    July 19, 2021
   move for class certification

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to      June 22, 2021    July 21, 2021
   file a motion seeking leave
   to amend pleadings or to
   join parties

   Deadline for Defendants to      July 16, 2021    August 23,
2021
   file a motion to designate
   responsible third parties,
   seeking leave to amend
   pleadings, or to join parties

   Deadline for Defendants to      Aug. 2, 2021     Sept. 3, 2021
   oppose class certification

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to      Aug. 16, 2021    Sept. 27, 2021
   reply in support of class
   certification

Conduent provides business process services.

A copy of the Parties motion dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SnSfcx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          6122 Palo Pinto Ave.
          Dallas, TX 75214
          Telephone: (214) 675-8603
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: allen@vaughtfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC
          1201 Peachtree Street NE
          Building 400, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 407-5250
          Facsimile: (404) 600-1624
          E-mail: jchally@cgc-law.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Adam Reinke, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  areinke@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Henry B. Gonzalez III, Esq.
          GONZALEZ CHISCANO ANGULO &
          KASSON, PC
          9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 401
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 569-8500
          Facsimile: (210) 569-8490
          E-mail: hbg@gcaklaw.com

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH)
who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) purchased or otherwise
acquired ContextLogic common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
offering documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about December 16, 2020 (the "IPO"
or "Offering"), of the important July 16, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased ContextLogic 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 ContextLogic class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2097.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. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than July 16, 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, the Offering
documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ContextLogic's fourth quarter
2020 monthly active users ("MAUs") had declined materially and were
not then growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
materially overstated the Company's business metrics and financial
prospects. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the ContextLogic class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2097.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]

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Seeks Extension to File Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN C. HINES and JOSEPH
NORRIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00109-PRW (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order giving them
an additional two weeks, or until July 2, 2021, to file their Reply
in support of the Motion for Conditional Certification.

The extension is requested for the following reasons:

   A. The Plaintiffs' counsel has been unable to work weekends
      because she has been required to travel out of town to assist

      her father-in-law after he was hospitalized.

   B. The Plaintiffs' counsel has been in mediations, meetings
      and/or depositions nearly every day this week and the last
      week. As a result, she has been unable to work on the Reply
      either during the week or the weekends. Further, for the same

      reasons she has been unable to meet with the Plaintiffs to
      discuss Defendants' response to the motion.

On May 5, 2021 the Plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and the Facilitate Notice to Class Members". The
Defendant filed its Response on June 11, 2021. The Plaintiffs'
deadline to file a Reply is June 18, 2021.

Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company based in the Continental Oil Center in
Oklahoma City.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w1co65 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          Brandon D. Roberts, Esq.
          HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
          E-mail: amber@hammonslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel R. Fulkerson, Esq.
          Andre' B. Caldwell, Esq.
          Lori Fixley Winland, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The Heritage Building
          621 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 400
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 546-3774
          Facsimile: (405) 546-3775
          E-mail: sam.fulkerson@ogletree.com
                  andre.caldwell@ogletree.com
                  lori.winland@ogletree.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR)
investors that acquired shares between October 5, 2020 and May 3,
2021. Investors have until July 13, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Danimer made materially misleading and false statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Danimer's internal controls were
deficient; (2) as a result, Danimer had misrepresented the size and
regulatory compliance of the operation; (3) Danimer had overstated
Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in landfills and oceans; and
(4) as a result, Danimer's public statements were materially
misleading and false at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

DAVID LOCHA: J.C. Files Civil Rights Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAVID LOCHA, et al.
The case is styled as J.C., individually, and all others similarly
situated  v. DAVID LOCHA, DAVID L. HENRIQUEZ, JANE DOE, NICHOLAS
EPISCOPO, DAVID BOLLA, MARY BETH DAISEY, JENNIFER HAMMILL, JONATHAN
BIONDI, RICHARD DINAN, CASEY WOODS, JEWELL BATTLE, PHOEBE HADDON,
KEVIN PITT, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY also known as: RUTGERS-CAMDEN
"UNIVERSITY", Case No. 1:21-cv-12361-NLH-MJS (D.N.J., June 9,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

David Locha is the Sergeant University Police at Rutgers University
based in Newark, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          J.C.
          P.O. Box 934
          Philadelphia, PA 19105
          PRO SE


DELTA AIR: Joint Stipulation to Modify Class Cert. Schedule OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leighton, et al., v. Delta
Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-01089 (D. Minn., Filed
April 22, 2019),  the Hon. Judge Joan N. Ericksen entered an order
approving joint stipulation to modify class certification and
summary judgment briefing schedules:

   -- Responses due on or before August 10, 2021.

   -- Replies due on or before September 2, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act involving labor and employee benefits.

Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[CC]




DESJARDINS GROUP: Faces Suit Over "Pay Stub Surprise" Deduction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law disclosed that a $5,691.17 "pay stub surprise"
deduction is at the heart of an $84 million Ontario Class Action
suit against the Desjardins Group.

It results from a departing employee opening their final pay check
to find it docked $5,691.17 for 130.2 hours of vacation with no
explanation or documentation.

The lawyer involved understands other former employees are out
there with similar stories who are entitled to compensation.

"It's a strange, almost unheard of practice and it's a violation of
the Employment Standards Act," says Andrew Monkhouse of Monkhouse
Law, Employment Lawyers acting for the aggrieved client in getting
the case certified as a Class Action. "It's called a negative
vacation bank and Desjardin appears to have used it since 2011 to
the detriment of their departing employees and to profit from it."

The lead plaintiff in the case started at Desjardins as a Special
Investigator on Jan. 4, 2016. His offer of employment letter stated
he'd have 6.67 pro-rated vacation days up to April that year, since
vacation entitlement ran from May 1 to April 30. He would also be
entitled to a floating half day vacation each month, which would
accrue during the year.

"Nothing was said, verbally or in writing and nor did he sign any
document recognizing that the vacation was to be an advance and
that it would be accounted for at the end of his employment," says
Monkhouse. "At no time was anything discussed about a "negative
vacation bank" and he did not sign off on any acknowledgement of
this."

The big surprise was on his departure in July 2019, when his final
pay cheque was $5,691.17 short because he'd been dinged 130.2 hours
for "recovery of vacation bank."

"What we still don't understand is how those hours for 6.65 days
jumped to 130.2," says Monkhouse. "There's been no explanation. At
eight hours a day that would be more than three weeks in vacation.
This money was deducted without explanation or documentation or
consent. He did ask for reimbursement and for documentation and
explanation and they ignored him."

In filing the Class Action, Monkhouse asks for damages of $80
million for those past employees who were similarly treated by
Desjardins plus $4 million in punitive damages.

"In effect, employees who suffered this were powerless," says
Monkhouse. "It would cost them far more to retain a lawyer
individually to fight a large corporation like Desjardins. A Class
Action levels the playing field and allows the little guys to fight
back."

The same issue was also adjudicated in 2020 at the Ontario Ministry
of Labour which held Desjardins was in violation of the Employment
Standards Act.

"They ignored the ruling and continued to practice 'vacation bank
recovery' and this is why we're asking for $4 million in punitive
damages," he says. "We need to send a strong message here that when
employers get unfavourable rulings from the Ministry of Labour that
they should pay heed and change their processes. Otherwise, what's
the point?"

He says while vacation advances by employers can be done in a
legally permissible way they must always be documented with the
employee consenting in a signed statement "These "advanced vacation
hours" are then balanced through overtime or paid off at the end of
employment but there's always a signed consent," he says. "This was
not the case with Desjardins. The claim lays out that they did this
unilaterally and unjustly enriched the company at the expense of
their employees. In most cases, employers need to have explicit
written authorization from employees in order to legally make
deductions from their wages."

Meanwhile, Monkhouse is actively seeking anyone who worked at
Desjardins related companies and was subject to a "vacation bank
recovery" deduction on their final pay cheque since 2011 to contact
his office to share their details and to get updates on the case at
monkhouselaw.com.

Former Desjardins employees can have a confidential conversation
about the class action by contacting Alexandra Monkhouse at
416-907-9249 ext. 211 or alexandra@monkhouselaw.com. Individuals
can also submit their information on the Monkhouse Law website to
be sent updates on the case.

                About Toronto-based Monkhouse Law

Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm specializing in wrongful
dismissal, human rights law, labour law, employment insurance
claims, and denied long-term disability claims and we also have a
strong track record with Class Action cases representing employees
in Canadian Workplaces.

Monkhouse Law has filed numerous class actions against Canadian
companies for shortchanging employees on employment entitlements.
Monkhouse Law has certified class actions against Approval Team,
Deloitte, and Solar Brokers and has commenced actions against other
big employers such as Bank of Montreal, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd.
and Aviva Insurance Co., RBC Life Insurance Co., and Medcan Health
Management Inc. for vacation pay violations.

For further information:

Andrew Monkhouse
Monkhouse Law, Employment Lawyers
andrew@monkhouselaw.com
(416) 907-9249 x 225 [GN]

DIAMOND NAIL: Conditional Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Lu Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANGMING LU and MARIA
OLGA LLIGUICOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DIAMOND NAIL SALON, LLC, GREENWICH NAILS & SPA, LLC,
GREENWICH DIAMOND NAILS & SPA INC., GUI BIAO QI, ELAINE BAO, and
JOSE F. ROJAS, Case No. 3:19-cv-02017-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and notice to potential plaintiffs as follows:

   1. The Court grants conditional certification for all current
      and former nail workers, massagers, and drivers employed by
      Defendants from December 29, 2016 to the date of this Order,

      finding that the Plaintiffs have made the factual showing
      required to infer that these employees were subject to a
      common policy or plan that violated the law.

   2. The Court orders that the notice to potential opt-in
      plaintiffs (1) be provided in both English, Chinese, and
      Spanish; (2) include contact information for both Plaintiffs'

      and Defendants' counsel; and (4) provide a ninety-day
      opt-in period. This notice shall be disseminated via mail,
      email, text message, or social media to potential opt-in
      plaintiffs. Notice shall also be posted at the locations of
      Defendants' stores and Plaintiffs may send reminder
      notifications during the notice period.

   3. The Court orders the parties to confer and revise the notice

      and consent form described in the preceding paragraph
      consistent with this Order and submit a final version for the

      Court's approval by July 16, 2021.

   4. The Court further orders Defendants to disclose to
      Plaintiffs' counsel, in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, the

      names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
      numbers, any known social media handles, dates of employment,

      and positions of Defendants' employees within the proposed
      opt-in plaintiff class by July 2, 2021, within 14 days of
      this Order.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zVjoEo at no extra charge.[CC]


DRAFTKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of DraftKings Inc. (NASDAQ:DKNG) resulting from
allegations that DraftKings may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2109.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2021, before the market opened,
Hindenburg Research published a report titled "DraftKings: A $21
Billion SPAC Betting It Can Hide Its Black Market Operations." The
report alleges that one of the companies that was part of the
three-way merger that took DraftKings public, SBTech, exposed
DraftKings and their investors to black-market gaming, money
laundering and organized crime. Hindenburg Research claimed that it
had "conversations with multiple former employees, [. . .]
review[ed] SEC & international filings, and inspect[ed] back-end
infrastructure at illicit international gambling websites[.]" Based
on this information, the report concluded with the opinion that
"DraftKings has systematically skirted the law and taken elaborate
steps to obfuscate its black market operations."

On this news, the Company's stock price opened on June 15, 2021 at
$44.95 per share, down $5.67, or 11%, from its closing price of
$50.62 per share on June 14, 2021.

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

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

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

EASTWOOD HOMES: Dawkins Suit Alleges Breach of Real Estate Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH DAWKINS and MICHELLE DAWKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD HOMES OF
COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS,
LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-CP-10-02829 (S.C. Ct.
Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for declaratory judgment, specific performance of
contract, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by
fraudulent act, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: Fails to Honor Contract, Franquelin Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCEL FRANQUELIN and PATRICIA FRANQUELIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD
HOMES OF COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION
PARTNERS, LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD
HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2021-CP-10-02831 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment, specific performance of contract, breach of contract,
breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and violation of
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a
document titled "Mutual Release," which described the nature of the
legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the Swygert's Landing
Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to be included in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but the covenants and
restrictions to affect the inclusion were not properly recorded.
The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release because the
aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: Forces Buyers to Enter a New Contract, White Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS K. WHITE and REBECCA A. WHITE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD HOMES OF
COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS,
LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-CP-10-02844 (S.C. Ct.
Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for declaratory judgment, specific performance of
contract, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by
fraudulent act, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: Glavinos Sues Over Breach of Real Estate Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS GLAVINOS and KIMBERLY GLAVINOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD HOMES OF
COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS,
LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-CP-10-02837 (S.C. Ct.
Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for declaratory judgment, specific performance of
contract, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by
fraudulent act, and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Termination of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. MARTIN and ADRIANA S. IAQUINTO-MARTIN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD
HOMES OF COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION
PARTNERS, LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD
HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2021-CP-10-02833 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment, specific performance of contract, breach of contract,
breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and violation of
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: O'Grady Suit Seeks to Honor Real Estate Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J. O'GRADY and KAITLYN E. GRIGOLEIT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTWOOD
HOMES OF COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION
PARTNERS, LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD
HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2021-CP-10-02838 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment, specific performance of contract, breach of contract,
breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and violation of
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

EASTWOOD HOMES: Raybon Suit Seeks to Enforce Real Estate Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER M. RAYBON and LASHONDA K. JONES RAYBON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
EASTWOOD HOMES OF COLUMBIA, LLC D/B/A EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD
CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC F/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A
EASTWOOD HOMES; EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2021-CP-10-02840 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 17,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment, specific performance of contract, breach of contract,
breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and violation of
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to compel Eastwood Homes to honor
its legally binding and enforceable contract to build and sell a
semi-custom home in the Swygert's Landing subdivision on Johns
Island. On or about June 6, 2021, Eastwood Homes sent the
Plaintiffs a document titled "Mutual Release," which described the
nature of the legal error on the inclusion of Phase 4 in the
Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association. Phase 4 was supposed to
be included in the Swygert's Landing Homeowners Association, but
the covenants and restrictions to affect the inclusion were not
properly recorded. The Plaintiffs rejected the Mutual Release
because the aforementioned legal error is wholly unrelated to the
enforceability or performance of the contract. Subsequently,
Eastwood Homes sent the Plaintiffs a purported earnest money refund
and a liquidated damages check. Eastwood Homes unjustly seeks to
use the legal error surrounding its own negligence and failure to
record the covenants to its financial advantage by requiring the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated buyers under contract to
enter a new contract at a future date for an unspecified higher
price. The Plaintiffs insist Eastwood Homes honor the contract for
the original price and terms negotiated prior to the discovery of
the covenants issue.

Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC, doing business as Eastwood Homes,
is a real estate developer in South Carolina.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC, formerly known as Eastwood
Construction, LLC and doing business as Eastwood Homes, is a
company that provides construction services based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jamie A. Khan, Esq.
         Ross A. Appel, Esq.
         MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
         359 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 937-0400
         Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
         E-mail: jamie@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

                - and –

         Michael Thomas Cooper, Esq.
         McLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         E-mail: Michael@mcleod-lawgroup.com

ELDAHMY WELLNESS: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eldahmy Wellness
Pharmacy Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Loftus,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Eldahmy Wellness Pharmacy Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05024 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2021).

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

Eldahmy Wellness -- https://www.eldahmywellnessrx.com/ -- aims to
unite passion and resources to serve their clients with
unparalleled pharmacy services.[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


ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANEE WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, v.
ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE LLC, SOVEREIGN ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and DJIBRIL
DAFE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02780-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying and authorizing
notice of the action to a proposed Collective, encompassing both
the Minimum Wage Collective and the Withheld Tips Collective,
defined as follows:

   "Persons who were, or are, employed by Defendants as Waitresses
   -- or performing materially similar work as Waitresses – from
   July 1, 2017, to present."

With notice to this Collective, both groups (which likely overlap
nearly entirely, if not completely) will be given notice of this
action and will be able to decide whether to join.

The Plaintiff Williams brings this collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), individually and on
behalf of all current or former Cocktail Waitresses and Bottle
Waitresses, and other similarly-situated persons employed by the
Defendants Elleven45 and Sovereign.

In her First Amended Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts two collective claims on behalf of herself and
similarly-situated individuals, alleging that the Defendants failed
to pay members of the putative "Minimum Wage Collective" the
minimum wage required by the FLSA and did not satisfy the
requirements to take a "tip credit" (Count II), and unlawfully
withheld tips from Plaintiff and members of the putative "Withheld
Tips Collective" (Count IV).

Elleven45 is in the Cocktail Lounge business. Sovereign
Entertainment is a 360 artist development company incorporating
management, label, publishing and marketing services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d4alXW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ellaretha Coleman, Esq.
          Nishit Patel, Esq.
          E. Jones & Associates, LLC
          101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 3650
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 525-3080
          E-mail: ejones@ejoneslaw.com

EMERALD TOTAL: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Rodriguez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMERALD TOTAL CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01968 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act as a result of its alleged unlawful payroll
practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a healthcare worker
from approximately September 2020 through the present.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated
healthcare workers regularly scheduled to and did work more than 40
hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant denied them of their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they have
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid
them straight time for all hours worked, the Plaintiff adds.

Emerald Total Care, LLC provides healthcare services to elderly,
ill or disabled at various locations, including the patients' homes
or third-party locations such as nursing homes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

ERICA ROX: Underpays Servers and Bartenders, Bowen Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v.  ERICA ROX INC. d/b/a ON THE ROX SPORTS BAR
& GRILL, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01975 (S.D. Tex., June 16,
2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a server at the
Defendant's restaurant from approximately July 2019 to March 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA's Tip
credit notification and tip pool requirements by failing to notify
each tipped employee about the tip credit allowance before the
credit was utilized, and by requiring its Tipped Employees to use
their tips pay for food order mistakes, shortages in their drawers,
for credit card charge back, credit card dispute, and the check
when customers walked out on a tab. As a result, the Plaintiff and
other Tipped Employees were allegedly not compensated at the
federally mandated minimum wage.

Moreover, although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
tipped employees frequently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
as required by the Defendant, the Defendant refused to pay them
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the FLSA mandated
time-and-a-half rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
added the suit.

Erica Rox Inc. d/b/a On the Rox Sports Bar & Grill operates three
On the Rox Sports Bar & Grill Sports bars and restaurants in the
greater Houston area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Tel: (713) 223-8855
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
                  service@tranlf.com

FARMERS INSURANCE: Daniel Files Contract-Related Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Exchange. The case is styled as De Sloover Daniel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Case No. 3:21-cv-04725 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Farmers Insurance Exchange -- http://www.farmers.com/-- is one of
the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melody L. Sequoia, Esq.
          THE SEQUOIA LAW FIRM
          530 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 102
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: (650) 561-4791
          Email: melody@sequoialawfirm.com



FARMERS INSURANCE: Daniel Files Fraud-Related Suit in N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Exchange. The case is styled as De Sloover Daniel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Case No. 3:21-cv-04724 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Farmers Insurance Exchange -- http://www.farmers.com/-- is one of
the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Stallone Sues Over Compromised Personal Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Stallone, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04841, (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2021) seeks
damages, restitution and injunctive relief resulting from
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment and for violation of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Farmers Insurance Company provides insurance products, including
car insurance. In doing so, it collects and provides sensitive
personal information about members of the public when quoting
prices for its car insurance. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. is a
Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Woodland
Hills, California.

Ronald Stallone is a resident of Hicksville, New York. In April
2021, he received notice from Farmers that it improperly exposed
his driver's license number to an unknown third party despite the
fact that Stallone never sought a quote for insurance. Stallone
eventually received a letter stating that his application for
credit at Eddie Bauer was not approved despite never applying, thus
confirming that someone illegally used his identity. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
     Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
     P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
     CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
     110 Laurel Street
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 238-1811
     Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
     Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
            gmb@cglaw.com
            camille@cglaw.com

            - and -

     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
            khriebel@locklaw.com


FLORISSANT, MO: Seeks to Reset Hearing on Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, SEAN BAILEY,
NICOLE BOLDEN, ALLISON NELSON, MEREDITH WALKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF FLORISSANT,
MISSOURI, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order Resetting hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification which states as follows:

   1. At both parties' request, the Court scheduled a hearing on
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for July 16, 2021,

      at 10:30 a.m.

   2. Undersigned counsel has a prepaid family vacation scheduled
      during that entire week and respectfully requests that the
      Court reset this hearing.

   3. Counsel for Plaintiffs consents to this request.

   4. Counsel have conferred with respect to their joint
      availability and respectfully advise the Court that all
      attorneys are available anytime during the week of August 9,

      or August 16, 17 or 18.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wTieHJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          William A. Hellmich, Esq.
          Blake D. Hill, Esq.
          HELLMICH, HILL & RETTER, LLC
          1049 North Clay
          Kirkwood, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 646-1110
          Facsimile: (314) 646-1122
          E-mail: bill@hellmichhillretter.com

FOREST CITY: Seeks July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK A. RAPP, SR., v.
FOREST CITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02059-TMP
(N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
providing them until July 1, 2021 to respond to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and Conditional Certification.

The Defendants contend that they calendared the response date to
Plaintiffs' Motion as July 1, 2021 and only became aware today that
this Court's local rules may require a response prior to July 1,
2021. The Defendants add that they also previously agreed to
provide Plaintiffs additional time to file their Motion for Class
and Conditional Certification. Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice
with the extension as they have already undertaken discovery and
may continue to do so.

Forest City processes and applies pre-applied adhesives, sealants
and coatings.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gR5egk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Secrest, Esq.
          Sara H. Jodka, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          150 East Gay Street, Suite 2400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 744-2938
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: jsecrest@dickinson-wright.com
                  sjodka@dickinsonwright.com

FOURPOINT ENERGY: Withdraws Bid to Strike Class Cert. Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNY WAYNE ROUNDS, and
RANDY CARL SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FOURPOINT ENERGY, LLC, n/k/a Unbridled Resources, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi W.
Dishman entered an order granting the Defendant's Notice of
Withdrawal of Motion to Strike Inadmissible Class Certification
Evidence.

FourPoint Energy is a private exploration and production company
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Founded by the leadership of the
former Cordillera Energy Partners, the team has decades of industry
leading experience and is dedicated to creating value that makes a
difference.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j7ZWhV at no extra charge.[CC]


FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FREQ) investors that acquired shares between November 16, 2020 and
March 22, 2021. Investors have until July 13, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies
evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most
significant of which was a Phase 2a study, beginning in October
2019. In April 2020, David L. Lucchino Frequency's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling
over 350,000 shares sold, earning over $10.5 million.

Before the market opened, on March 23, 2021, Frequency disclosed in
a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a
study, which revealed that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did
not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo.

Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, on this news, to close at
$7.99 per share, thereby damaging investors.

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Frequency made materially misleading and/or false statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Frequency's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Frequency failed
to disclose: (1) that Frequency's Phase 2a study did not yield
positive results in support of commercialization of FX-322; and (2)
that, as a result, Frequency's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 2,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ)
for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 2, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Frequency's development efforts of its
hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322" were not successful. The
reality of FX-322's ongoing clinical study did not match the
Company's positive portrayal. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about
Frequency, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

GEM MECHANICAL: Faces Styrc Suit Over Failure to Pay Plumbers' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TADEUSZ STYRC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEM MECHANICAL LLC, and CHRISTOPHER KAY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03425 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2021) seeks
equitable and legal relief against the Defendant for its alleged
intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a plumber from on
or about 2010 until on or about November 14, 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week throughout his employment with the Defendants. However,
the Defendant did not pay him at least minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
In addition, the Defendant neither tracked the actual hours he
worked nor required him to record his time. The Defendant also
allegedly failed to provide him with wage statement with each wage
payment, and to provide him a notice at the time of hire, or at any
time thereafter, containing his rates of pay and the designated
payday.

GEM Mechanical is a plumbing, heating and mechanical contractor.
Christopher Kay is the owner, officer, director, shareholder,
and/or person in control of GEM Mechanical. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Severyn Rebisz, Esq.
          REBISZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          33 Nassau Ave., Suite 67
          Brooklyn, NY 11222
          Tel: (347) 486-4699
          Fax: (347) 514-8988
          E-mail: sr@rebiszlaw.com

GROUPE VOXCO: Faces Underwood Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AARON UNDERWOOD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUPE VOXCO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00830-ACA (N.D. Ala., June 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class members using an
automatic telephone dialing system to promote products and services
without obtaining prior express written consent. The Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the Defendant from placing calls and/or sending
text messages to cellular telephone numbers listed on the National
Do Not Call Registry.

Groupe Voxco, Inc. is a company that develops survey software with
its principal place of business in Quebec, Ontario, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
         21 S. Section Street
         Fairhope, AL 36532
         Telephone: (251) 990-5558
         Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
         E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com

                - and –

         Steven P. Gregory, Esq.
         GREGORY LAW FIRM, PC
         505 20th Street North, Suite 1215
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 208-0312
         E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us

HAWAII: DPS Inmates File Amended COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KHON2 reports that The Erik A. Seitz, Attorney At Law cooperation
announced plaintiffs filed an amended class action lawsuit on
behalf of all Hawaii inmates in Department of Public Safety (DPS)
facilities on Tuesday, June 15.

According to a news release, "the lawsuit alleges disturbingly
inhumane conditions of confinement and an abysmal effort by DPS to
protect inmates from exposure to COVID-19."

On the go? Listen to the team that's Working for Hawaii on the KHON
2Go podcast. Every morning at 8 a.m.

News of the lawsuit comes after a COVID-19 outbreak and inmate
unrest at Hawaii Community Correctional Center in Hilo.

"Inmates and current DPS employees describe a third-world
environment with upwards of 50 inmates confined in a single room
overrun with urine and feces, and without adequate access to
necessities like water or restrooms. Others are housed in groups of
seven in small, chain-link "dog cages" with no precautions in place
to prevent the exposure to COVID-19."

The lawsuit seeks the appointment of a special master to implement
a response plan for COVID-19 and oversee compliance from DPS to
provide immediate injunctive relief from the federal court.

Attorneys for DPS denied any wrongdoing and "expressed no interest
in participating in discussions with Plaintiffs," during a
court-ordered settlement conference held on June 15, according to
the news release from the Erik A. Seitz, Attorney At Law
cooperation. [GN]


HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Gamino Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE GAMINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KPC
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, and KPC HEALTHCARE,
INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on August 6, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following class
under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Counts I-V and VII-VIII of
her Complaint:

   "All participants in the KPC Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock
   Ownership Plan from August 28, 2015 or any time thereafter
   Ownership (unless they terminated employment without vesting in

   Ownership the ESOP) and those 10 participants' beneficiaries;"

   Ownership Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendants, (b) any
   Ownership fiduciary of the Plan; (c) the officers and directors

   Ownership of KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. or of any entity in
   Ownership which one of the individual Defendants has a
   Ownership controlling interest; (d) the immediate family members

   Ownership of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the

   Ownership legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any

   Ownership such excluded persons.

KPC Healthcare provides health care services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zIrVe1
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Colin M. Downes, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com
                  colin@blockleviton.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Darin Ranahan, Esq.
          FEINBERG JACKSON
          WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
                  darin@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC.
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  wdonahoo@donahoo.com

               - and -

          Major Khan, Esq.
          MKLLC LAW
          1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 546-5664
          E-mail: mk@mk-llc.com

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Initial Brief Due August 23
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA SANCHEZ, PABLO
SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order that the class certification motion
briefing schedule in this matter is hereby extended as follows:

   -- Plaintiff's Initial Brief:       August 23, 2021

   -- Defendant's Opposition:          October 6, 2021

   -- Plaintiff's Reply Brief:         November 3, 2021

The Court says that it is highly unlikely to grant any further
extensions.

On April 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint which Defendant answered on April 15, 2021. On March 31,
2021, the Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a list of putative
class members. An updated list was provided by Defendant on April
30, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the parties conducted a mediation via
videoconference with Mr. Mark Rudy acting as a neutral. The matter
did not resolve during this mediation.

Hearst owns newspapers, magazines, television channels, and
television stations, including the San Francisco Chronicle, the
Houston Chronicle, Cosmopolitan and Esquire. It owns 50% of the A&E
Networks cable network group and 20% of the sports cable network
group ESPN, both in partnership with The Walt Disney Company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d8Jr1r at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for Plaintiff Yolanda Sanchez, Pablo Sanchez, and the
Putative Class, are:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          Andrew Mailhot, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 262-0096
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com
                  andrew.mailhot@ottingerlaw.com

HUNGRYPANDA US: Seeks Denial of Weng Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qiang Weng v. HungryPanda
US, Inc. d/b/a HungryPanda, et al., Case No. e 1:19-cv-11882-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification for the same
reason that the Court denied the motion on December 23, 2020, or
alternatively, adjourn the Defendants' deadline to file an
opposition sine die pending the outcome of Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff filed the identical
Motion for Conditional Certification on June 15, 2021, less than
ten days before Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
due. The Plaintiff's decision to file this motion defies all logic
as well as the Court's exact reasoning for initially denying his
Motion for Conditional Certification during the December 23rd
conference. For the same reasons that Your Honor cited during the
December 23rd conference, the Defendants request that Your Honor
once again deny Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification to
allow the parties to complete the motion practice contemplated
during the December 23rd conference, the Defendants add.

Alternatively, the Defendants request that the deadline for their
opposition to Plaintiff Motion for Conditional Certification be
adjourned sine die until a decision is issued on Defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h12Y4M at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Douglas, Esq.
          KANE KOESTLER, P.C.
          www.kanekessler.com
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 541-6222
          Facsimile: (212) 245-3009
          E-mail: jdouglas@kanekessler.com

ILLINOIS: Court Certifies IDOC Solitary Confinement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Beachwood Reporter reports that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois certified all 28,000+
state prisoners to be part of a class on June 14 in a class action
lawsuit challenging IDOC's excessive use of solitary confinement.

Plaintiffs, represented by the Uptown People's Law Center and pro
bono attorneys with Winston and Strawn, allege that conditions in
solitary are horrific; that IDOC permits the use of solitary
confinement for minor infractions; and that IDOC uses lengthy,
disproportionate stays, all of which constitute "cruel and unusual
punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Plaintiffs also allege that prisoners are given no
meaningful opportunity to present a defense, and sometimes are not
even told why they are being sent to solitary, thereby violating
the 14th Amendment by not complying with the minimum requirements
of due process.

In the June 14 opinion, the court not only held that plaintiffs had
sufficient evidence to support their allegations, but also held
that the six named plaintiffs could litigate the claims on behalf
of all Illinois prisoners, since every prisoner is subject to being
sent to solitary at any time, often for very minor violations.
Plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek a court order to
fix the system.

"Illinois' prison system locks up too many people, for too long, in
horrific conditions," says Alan Mills, a UPLC attorney. "And as
solitary confinement is prison within prison, it, too, is overused.
The U.N. states that over 15 days of solitary is torture, yet
sometimes people in Illinois spend decades there. And everyone who
spends more than a couple of weeks ends up traumatized. We welcome
the chance to finally expose these horrors in federal court."

Magistrate Judge Beatty stated in the ruling that prisoners
"routinely are not offered the full amount of yard time required by
IDOC policy. Even when they are, they often refuse to go because
the yards are unstimulating, unsanitary, and/or unsafe. Cells are
extremely small but nevertheless frequently occupied by two
[prisoners]. Guards regularly use force against prisoners, chemical
spray on prisoners, and use racial epithets and slurs when
speaking.

"While variations undoubtedly exist between facilities as to other
conditions, such as cleanliness, cell fixtures, and rodent and
insect control, these dissimilarities do not bear on or somehow
negate the broader, baseline conditions the facilities all have in
common."

Beatty concluded that he found the conditions described by
plaintiffs and their experts "disturbing, and quite frankly
distressing."

The UPCL is a nonprofit legal services organization specializing in
prisoners' rights, Social Security disability, and tenants' rights
and eviction defense. The UPLC currently has six active class
action lawsuits regarding jail and prison conditions. [GN]

INDEPENDENT MEDIA: Karabas Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS KARABAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDEPENDENT MEDIA, INC.; SUSANNE PREISSLER;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21SMCV01078
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including breach
of written employment agreement, breach of sales agreement,
misclassification as independent contractor, inaccurate wage
statements, failure to provide wages when due, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely provide employee records,
failure to provide paid sick leave, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
hostile work environment, retaliation, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a commissioned
salesperson from on or around May 28, 2019.

Independent Media, Inc. is a video production service company
located at 6950 S. Centinela Avenue, Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         James L. Greeley, Esq.
         Diyari Vazquez, Esq.
         Chris Anstett, Esq.
         VGC, LLP
         1515 7th Street, No. 106
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (424) 272-9885
         E-mail: jgreeley@vgcllp.com
                 dvazquez@vgcllp.com
                 canstett@vgcllp.com

JOEL ALVARADO: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Sanford Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA SANFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOEL ALVARADO d/b/a Alvarado Concepts, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00119-Z (N.D. Tex., June 16, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried Assistant
Manager from December 2020 until June 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Although they regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours they have worked in excess of 40
each week.

Moreover, when the Plaintiff clocked out last time, the timekeeping
system printed her a receipt showing that she had worked 72 hours
and 42 minutes that pay. However, her final paycheck indicated she
was only paid 64 hours of work. The Defendant failed to pay her
approximately 8.75 hours of work during her final pay period, the
suit added.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant deprived her and other
similarly situated Assistant Managers of regular wages and overtime
compensation for all hours worked. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover all unpaid overtime premiums on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated Assistant Managers, as well as liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.

Joel Alvarado owns and operates several Taco Bell franchises
throughout Texas and Oklahoma, including a location in Amarillo.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOHN WETZEL: Brown Loses Class Action Bid
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORDIRO R. BROWN v. JOHN
WETZEL, MALINDA ADAMS, RICHARD COON, PHILLIP MCCRACKEN, KARAN
FEATHER, and PAMALA BEHR, Case No. 2:20-cv-00512-CCW-MPK (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order denying the
motion for class action.

Judge Kelly says that the parties are allowed 14 days from the date
of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge which
includes the basis for objection to this Order. Failure to file a
timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff requests the Court to
consolidate this action with cases filed by Plaintiffs Charles
Riley, Michael Balas, Jeffrey Neal, and Anthony Lacastro at Case
Nos. 21-598, 21-596, 21-599, and 21-597, respectively. Based upon
the Court's review of the dockets for each of these cases, however,
all were dismissed on May 10, 2021 and are not currently pending.
Therefore, the Court finds that consolidation is not warranted,
Judge Kelly adds.

On May 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Action. In
the Motion for Class Action, the Plaintiff seeks to have this Court
"certify Covid 19 claims as a class action and consolidate any
pending actions" In support of his motion, the Plaintiff makes two
arguments. First, he asserts that Defendants showed deliberate
indifference to inmates at SCI-Mercer during the period March 2020
through January 2021 relative to Covid-19. Second, he alleges that
Defendants thwarted inmates at SCI-Mercer from exhausting the
inmate grievance procedure by engaging in conduct including:
removing grievance boxes; obstructing access to grievance boxes;
failing to making grievance forms available; misrepresenting the
grievance policy and by "employing a scheme as in a machinated
manner." The Defendants filed a response in opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action. The Defendants argue that
Plaintiff cannot maintain a class action because he is pro se and,
as such, he cannot satisfy the requisite elements to maintain a
class action lawsuit. In support of their position, the Defendants
correctly rely on the previous decision of this Court in
Pelino v. Gilmore, No. 18-1232, 2018 WL 4699944 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 1,
2018).

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

KFORCE INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Bids OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA COOK, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. KFORCE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02453-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon
Judge John F. Walter entered an order continuing the motion for
class certification to the following dates:

   Motion to Issue Notice                  October 11, 2021
   under the FLSA:

   Defendant's opposition to               November 15, 2021
   be filed by:

   The Plaintiff's reply to                December 2, 2021
   be filed by:

   Rule 23 Class Certification             December 10, 2021
   Motion:

   The Defendant's opposition              January 14, 2022
   to be filed by:

   The Plaintiff's reply to                January 28, 2022
   be filed by:

All other scheduling and case management deadlines shall remain the
same, says Judge Walter.

The Court, having considered the Parties' Joint Stipulation to
Continue Motion for Class Certification Deadline finds that good
cause exists to continue the motion.

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


LEXVID SERVICES: Kontnik Files ADA Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexVid Services,
Inc.. The case is styled as Spencer Kontnik, for himself and other
similarly situated individuals v. LexVid Services, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01554-SKC (D. Colo., June 9, 2021).

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

LexVid -- https://www.lexvid.com/ -- is a pioneer in online
Continuing Legal Education, providing high quality, affordable MCLE
to thousands of attorneys across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Waldo, Esq.
          JOHN F. WALDO LAW OFFICE
          2108 McDuffie Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Phone: (206) 849-5009
          Email: johnfwaldo@hotmail.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Evans Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MELISSA EVANS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAPLEBEAR INC., doing business as
INSTACART, Case No. 2016-CV17865, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, State of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00428-DGK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment by misrepresenting and concealing true
retail prices and inflating those retail prices with the intent to
induce the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers to
authorize payment for those inflated amounts.

Maplebear Inc., doing business as Instacart, is a company that
operates a multi-sided technology and communications platform that
facilitates fast on-demand grocery and retail delivery services,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Kimberly M. Bousquet, Esq.
         Steven A. Shredl, Esq.
         THOMPSON COBURN LLP
         One US Bank Plaza
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 552-6000
         Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
         E-mail: kbousquet@thompsoncoburn.com
                 sshredl@thompsoncoburn.com

MDL 2913: Orrville City School District Sues Over E-Cig. Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrville City School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., James Monsees,
Nicholas Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani, Adam
Bowen, Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution
Company, Altria Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-04400
(N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
"In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products
Liability Litigation" and is assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.

The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.

Orrville City is a unified school district in Orrville, Ohio. It
accuses JUUL of causing more young people to start using
e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public
health crisis. Defendants are sued for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]

The Orrville City School District is represented by:

      James Frantz, Esq.
      William B. Shinoff, Esq.
      FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5945
      Fax: (619) 525-7672
      Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
             wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com


MDL 2913: Roane County School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roane County School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., James Monsees,
Nicholas Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani, Adam
Bowen, Altria Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution
Company, Altria Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-04401
(N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
"In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products
Liability Litigation" and is assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.

The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.

Roane County is a unified school district in Kingston, Tennessee.
It accuses JUUL of causing more young people to start using
e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public
health crisis. Defendants are sued for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]

The Roane County School District is represented by:

      James Frantz, Esq.
      William B. Shinoff, Esq.
      FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5945
      Fax: (619) 525-7672
      Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
             wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com


MDL 2913: Seminole Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seminole Public Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc., James Monsees, Nicholas
Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani, Adam Bowen, Altria
Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria
Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-04406 (N.D. Cal., June
9, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, "In Re: JUUL Labs,
Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products Liability Litigation"
and is assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.

The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.

Seminole Public Schools is a unified school district in Seminole,
Oklahoma. It accuses JUUL of causing more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis. Defendants are sued for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]

The Seminole Public Schools is represented by:

      James Frantz, Esq.
      William B. Shinoff, Esq.
      FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5945
      Fax: (619) 525-7672
      Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
             wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Tipton County Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Tipton County Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc., James Monsees, Nicholas
Pritzker, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Riaz Valani, Adam Bowen, Altria
Client Services LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company, Altria
Group, Inc. and Hoyoung Huh, Case No. 21-cv-04404 (N.D. Cal., June
9, 2021) has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, "In Re: JUUL Labs,
Inc. Marketing, Sales Practice, and Products Liability Litigation"
and is assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.

The actions in this MDL involve allegations that Juul Labs, Inc.
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include putative class
actions, actions on behalf of school districts and other
governmental entities, and individual personal injury cases.

Tipton County Schools is a unified school district in Covington,
Tennessee. It accuses JUUL of causing more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis. Defendants are sued for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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. Altria Client Services LLC provides Altria Group Inc. and
its companies digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development and safety, health, and environmental affairs.
Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies. Philip
Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]

Tipton County Schools is represented by:

      James Frantz, Esq.
      William B. Shinoff, Esq.
      FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5945
      Fax: (619) 525-7672
      Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
             wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

MERCEDES BENZ: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Repairs, Schimmel Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOEY SCHIMMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04973 (C.D.
Cal., June 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Business and Professions Code and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly identify
and pay for all of the parts and labor that should correctly be
covered for 15-years or 150,000 miles, pursuant to California Code
of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Section 1962.1, 2035, 2037 and 2038,
(California Emissions Warranty), relating to 2009 through 2017
MERCEDES BENZ USA (MBUSA) PZEV vehicles. As a result, the Plaintiff
and Class and Subclass members are paying out of pocket for repairs
that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. The
Plaintiff's claims apply to all Model Year 2009-2017 MBUSA PZEV
vehicles which qualify for coverage pursuant to the California
Emissions Warranty, the suit says.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is an automobile manufacturer headquartered
in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robert L. Starr, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
         23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
         Calabasas, CA 91302
         E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Scattaglia Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GERALD SCATTAGLIA, JR., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Case No. MID-L-2759-21, was removed from the New Jersey
Superior Court for Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on June 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-12750 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act by manufacturing, advertising and
distributing 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 automobile with electrical
system defect.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is an automobile manufacturer headquartered
in Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Eric Gladbach, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING LLP
         1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 556-2100
         Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
         E-mail: egladbach@kslaw.com

MICHIGAN DOC: Ct. Narrows Claims in Rouse's 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et al.,
v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11409-MAG-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
      to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint;

      -- Specifically, the motion is granted as to Plaintiffs'
         Sixth Amendment claims against Defendants in their
         individual and official capacities as well as Plaintiffs'

         Eighth Amendment claims against the named Defendants in
         their individual capacities.

      -- The motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment
         claims against the named Defendants in their official
         capacities.

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' amended

      motion to certify class;

      -- The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot insofar as the
         Plaintiffs seek inclusion of the dismissed claims in the
         class action.

      -- In addition, the motion is denied as premature to the
         extent that Plaintiffs seek to bring the class action
         against the unnamed Defendants.

   3. certifying, at this time, a class action consisting of only
      Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims against the Defendants in

      their official capacities for injunctive relief;

      -- As for the class definition, the Court will not use the
         precise class definition proposed by Plaintiffs;

      -- The class definition will consist of only those persons
         who were incarcerated within SMT on or after March 13,
         2020 and remain incarcerated at SMT as of the date that
         this action is dismissed or the date that judgment is
         entered; and

   4. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that they seek

      appointment of Ms. Oliver as class counsel.

The Court says that Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1), it retains the power
to amend and alter the class if appropriate. Finally, the
Plaintiffs' original motion to certify class is denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action pursuant 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 against the Defendants, Heidi Washington, Malinda
Braman, Dave Shaver, and Lee McRoberts, and several unnamed
Defendants, all current or former employees of either the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) or Southern Michigan Temporary
Facility (SMT).

The Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Defendants failed to implement
adequate preventative measures to protect SMT inmates from
COVID-19, in violation of Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights, and,
(ii) MDOC's COVID-19 restrictions hindered inmates' access to the
prison law library and their lawyers, in violation of Plaintiffs'
Sixth Amendment rights.

The MDOC 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 Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TTpwwk at no extra charge.[CC]

NCAA: Diskint 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 Michael
Diskint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01837-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., June 21, 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: Flores Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Flores, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01304, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 21,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03210 to the
proceeding.

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: Jones 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 Evin Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01836-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., June 21, 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: Rozgony Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph M. Rozgony, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01276, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03205 to the
proceeding.

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: Taylor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Johnnie Taylor, III, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01282, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03206 to the
proceeding.

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.


NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Kalling Files Suit in District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netgain Technology,
LLC. The case is styled as Mark Kalling, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01368-NEB-LIB (D. Minn.,
June 9, 2021).

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

Netgain -- https://www.netgainit.com/ -- is a cloud IT provider
delivering cloud hosting and managed services to the healthcare and
financial industries nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUED PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Ste. 2600
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 mstevens@gustafsongluek.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Peloton Interactive,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON).

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

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16878&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: September 11, 2020 to May 5, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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.

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

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

PENN CREDIT: Lewis-Robinson Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Monica Lewis-Robinson, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Penn Credit
Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00250-JAS (D. Ariz., June 21, 2021).

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

Penn Credit -- https://penncredit.com/ -- is a nationwide accounts
receivables management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENTAGON FEDERAL: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 128415074 (11th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., June 9, 2021), is brought under
the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) against the
Defendant arising from the Defendant's unlawful interception -- or
"wiretapping" -- of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications with the websites penfed.com and the PenFed Mobile
App.

Specifically, the Defendant uses wiretaps, which are embedded in
the computer code on the Websites, to intercept the Plaintiff's
electronic communications with the Defendant's Websites and App. To
accomplish this wiretapping, the Defendant uses tracking,
recording, and/or "session replay" software to secretly observe and
record the Plaintiff's electronic communications with the Websites
and the App, including their keystrokes, mouse movements and
clicks, swipes, gestures and information inputted into the Websites
and the App, and/or pages and content viewed on the Websites and
the App. The Defendant intercepted or allowed for the interception
of the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or
prior consent of the Plaintiff, for its own financial gain. By
doing so, the Defendant has invaded the Plaintiff's privacy rights
under Florida Law and violated the FSCA, says the complaint.

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

Pentagon Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union
with headquarters in Tysons, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                 rachel@kaufmanpa.com


PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Sotelo FCRA Suit Goes to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORGE SOTELO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING GROUP, INC. and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-591427, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04668 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide proper disclosures and
obtain proper authorization in connection to its acquisition of
consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on employees.

Performance Contracting Group, Inc. is a specialty contractor based
in Lenexa, Kansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Jason J. Curliano, Esq.
         Christopher J. Ohlsen, Esq.
         BUTY & CURLIANO LLP
         516 16th Street
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 267-3000
         Facsimile: (510) 267-0117
         E-mail: jcurliano@butycurliano.com
                cohlsen@butycurliano.com

PHH MORTGAGE: Hanlon Sues Over Contract Breach & Emotional Distress
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frances J. Hanlon, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR TO MAVERIK
FINANCIAL CORP., PHH MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, AND PHH
MORTGAGE SERVICES, Case No. 1:21-cv-03057 (N.D. Ill., June 7,
2021), is brought against the Defendant in causes of action which
contain two class action claims, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Installment Loan Act, violation of the Illinois Financial
Exploitation of an elderly person and Disabled Persons Act. The
remaining three counts are to quiet title, for breach of contract,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had an obligation to
make periodic payments under a reverse mortgage loan. The
Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and artifice to
manufacture a false claim of default to facilitate unauthorized
charges and milk an elderly plaintiff and others like her.
Commencing in April, 2021 the Defendants refused to make the
periodic payments or to even discuss the issue with the Plaintiff.
In January 2021 or thereabouts the Defendant alleged its agent
trespassed upon the Plaintiff's property and attempted to charge
the Plaintiff $20.00 for an inspection fee and a purported
recalculation of the loan, based upon the $20 charge, purportedly
divested Plaintiff of all right to receive funds under the Reverse
Mortgage loan.

The Plaintiff, Frances J. Hanlon, is an 88 year old (days away from
being 89 years old) citizen of the State of Illinois.

The Defendants are incorporated in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Hanlon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT T. HANLON, AND ASSOCIATES P.C.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faulds Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, L.L.C. The case is styled as Mary Faulds, Ty Carerun,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00274-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C., June 9, 2021).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) Group, Inc. or PRA --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a company acquiring and
collecting nonperforming loans based in Norfolk, Virginia.[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


PROOFPOINT INC: Finger Sues Over Proofpoint Parent Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Finger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PRA Health Sciences, Inc. and the members
of its Board of Directors, Dana Evan, Kristen Gil, Gary Steele,
Michael Johnson, Elizabeth Rafael, Richard Wallace, Jonathan
Feiber, Kevin Harvey and Leyla Seka, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-04567 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2021), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Proofpoint by Proofpoint
Parent, LLC, formerly known as Project, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Project Kafka Merger Sub, Inc. The lawsuit further seeks
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, each Proofpoint
stockholder will receive $176.00 in cash for each share of
Proofpoint common stock they own. The proposed transaction is
valued at approximately $12.3 billion.

The proxy statement allegedly failed to disclose Proofpoint's
financial projections, the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
the company's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, as well
as Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of interest. Finger alleges
that Proofpoint's public stockholders are prevented from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the merger
because of the proxy statement's material misrepresentations and
omissions.

Proofpoint is a cybersecurity and compliance company that protects
organizations' assets and risks. Its common stock trades on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "PFPT."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

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


PROVENTION BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Provention Bio, Inc. ("Provention" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PRVB) securities between November 2, 2020 and
April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a
Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention
of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA").

On April 8, 2021, the Company published a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2,
2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of
the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of
clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."

On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the teplizumab
BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require
additional data to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Provention securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20,
2021, to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]

RED LAND COTTON: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Land Cotton, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Red Land Cotton, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05356 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2021).

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

Red Land Cotton -- https://www.redlandcotton.com/ -- creates
heirloom quality bedding and bath towels crafted from cotton grown
exclusively on their family farm and made entirely in the USA.[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


RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the American
Depository Shares ("ADS") of RLX Technology Inc. ("RLX" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RLX) from January 19, 2021 through June 9, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you purchased RLX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit RLX Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877)
779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts both required by governing regulations and necessary
to make the statements not misleading. Among other things, the
registration statement misrepresented and omitted that RLX knew (or
had information making if foreseeable to know), at the time of the
Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), that China was working on a
national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring them into line
with regular cigarette regulations. The complaint also alleges that
RLX knew that its reported financials were not nearly as rosy as
the registration statement made it seem, nor indicative of future
results. By omitting these facts, ADS purchasers were unable to
adequately assess the value of the shares offered in connection
with the IPO, and thus purchased their ADS without material
information and to their detriment.

When draft regulations were posted by China's Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology on March 22, 2021, the price of RLX's
shares suffered an enormous decline, closing at $10.15 per ADS,
down nearly 48% from its previous close of $19.46 per ADS.

Then, when the Company posted its first quarter 2021 financial
results on June 2, 2021, RLX's shares declined again, closing on
June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down nearly 9% from its June 3, 2021
close of $10.87 per ADS.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased RLX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rlxtechnologyinc-rlx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-405/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired RLX Technology Inc. ("RLX" or
the "Company") (NYSE: RLX) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or
"shares") pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public offering ("IPO"). RLX investors have until August 9, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

RLX purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which the Company claims is its "largest potential market."

In January 2021, RLX conducted its IPO, selling approximately 116.5
million ADSs) at $12 per ADS, raising approximately $1.4 billion in
gross proceeds.

On March 22, 2021, China's Ministry of Industry and Information
Technology posted draft regulations confirming that e-cigarettes
and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to traditional
tobacco offerings.

On this news, RLX's share price fell $9.31, or 48%, to close at
$10.15 per share on March 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on June 2, 2021, the Company announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting only a 48% increase in net revenues
quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that
its gross margin would "remain steady."

On this news, RLX's share price fell $0.97, or nearly 9%, to close
at $9.90 per share on June 4, 2021, thereby damaging investors
further. The Company's shares have traded as low as $7.89 per ADS,
or 32% below the IPO price.

The complaint alleges that Defendants overstated certain financial
metrics and failed to disclose that these metrics were not
indicative of future financial performance since regulators in
China were already working on a national standard for e-cigarettes
that would regulate them either under the same rules or in the same
manner as ordinary cigarettes.

If you purchased RLX ADSs pursuant or traceable to the IPO, you may
move the Court no later than August 9, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased RLX ADSs pursuant or traceable to the IPO, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007,
by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

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

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of RLX
Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) pursuant and/or traceable to the
offering documents issued in connection with RLX's initial public
offering ("IPO") on or about January 22, 2021, of the important
August 9, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased RLX 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 RLX class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2108.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 August 9, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the offering
documents misstated and/or omitted facts concerning RLX's
then-existing exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a
national standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them in line
with traditional tobacco offerings such as ordinary cigarette
regulations, and that RLX's reported financials were not nearly as
robust as the offering documents projected nor were they indicative
of future results. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the RLX class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2108.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]

SCRIPPS HEALTH: Rasmuzzen Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scripps Health. The
case is styled as Kate Rasmuzzen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v.
Scripps Health, Case No. 3:21-cv-01143-H-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 21,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.

Scripps Health -- https://www.scripps.org/ -- is a health system in
San Diego where top doctors practice at hospitals, outpatient
clinics, walk-in clinics, telehealth, urgent care and ERs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bibianne Uychinco Fell, Esq.
          FELL LAW, PC
          11956 Bernardo Plaza Drive, Suite 531
          San Diego, CA 92128
          Phone: (858) 201-3960
          Fax: (858) 201-3966
          Email: Bibi@Fellfirm.com



SEADRILL LTD: Faces WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Seadrill Ltd.
broke federal law by failing to provide sufficient notice to
employees before conducting mass layoffs in early March, according
to a proposed class action complaint filed in the offshore oil
driller's bankruptcy proceedings.

The Houston-based company is required, under the federal WARN Act,
to give at least 60 days notice to several employees it terminated
just weeks after its Chapter 11 filing in February, plaintiff Corey
Kimble said in a complaint filed Monday with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas. [GN]

SELECT REHABILITATION: Hebert Seeks Physical Therapists' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY HEBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT REHAILITATION, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00524-JM (E.D. Ark., June 18, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant
alleging the Defendant of violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Physical Therapist from 2012 until April 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Physical Therapists regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week, including off the clock work. However, the Defendant
deprived the of sufficient overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours
they have worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Physical
Therapists, the Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Select Rehabilitation, LLC owns and operates healthcare and
rehabilitation centers throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, LLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (800) 615-4946
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

SIMM ASSOCIATES: Medeiros Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
RENATA MEDEIROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-22226-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 17, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to a nationally
recognized bank primarily for a consumer credit account. The
current creditor purportedly contracted with the Defendant to
collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant
contacted the Plaintiff via a written correspondence. However,
instead of preparing and mailing written collection correspondence
on its own, the Defendant allegedly provided the Plaintiff's
personal information and her alleged debt to a third-party vendor
in order to outsource the process. By doing so, the Defendant
unlawfully communicates with the Vendor for the purpose of
streamlining its generation of profits without regard to the
propriety and privacy of the information, thereby violating the
FDCPA, says the Plaintiff.

Simm Associates, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
          499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Tel: (954) 235-3706
          E-mail: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

SKORPIOS TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Mock Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GERALD MOCK, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SKORPIOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Manufacturing Technician, alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
him and other similarly situated manufacturing technicians overtime
premiums for all hours they have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. Allegedly, the Defendant has implemented a policy called
"Overtime Reset" in which the Defendant would move overtime hours
to the preceding workweek if its Manufacturing Technicians worked
less than 40 hours. This was done by the Defendant by changing the
beginning of the workweek so that some of the excess overtime would
fall in a week where there was no overtime. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing Technicians
were not paid correct overtime premiums despite working more than
40 hour per week because the Defendant incorrectly calculated their
overtime premiums, the Plaintiff asserts.

Skorpios Technologies Inc. is a company specializing in silicon
chips and operates a chip foundry in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Tel: (713) 223-8855
          Fax: (832) 827-3192
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
                  service@tranlf.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Horowitz Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GREGORY HOROWITZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG21092756, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04674 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, unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, failure
to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages due upon
separation of employment, and unfair business practices.

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. is an American regional airline
headquartered in St. George, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                            
         Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071.2300
         Telephone: (213) 489-3939
         Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
         E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com

               - and –
         
         Marnie Phillips, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 California St., 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 875-5861
         Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
         E-mail: marniephillips@jonesday.com

               - and –
         
         Scott Morrison, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 314-1200
         Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
         E-mail: scottmorrison@jonesday.com

               - and –
         
         Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq.
         STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE
         543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209
         Simi Valley, CA 93065
         Telephone: (805) 578-3474
         Facsimile: (805) 994-0199
         E-mail: patricia@patriciastambelos.com

STATE FARM LIFE: Jaunich "Insurance" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN E. JAUNICH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-01567-PAM-BRT
(D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the following Class:

   "All persons who own or owned a universal life policy issued by
   State Farm on its policy form 94030 in the State of Minnesota
   whose policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002 and who
   was subject to at least one monthly deduction."

   Excluded from the Class are: State Farm; any entity in which
   State Farm has a controlling interest; any of the officers,
   directors, or employees of State Farm and their immediate
   family, the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
   assigns of State Farm; anyone employed with Plaintiff’s
   counsel's firms; any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and
   his or her immediate family; and policies that insured males
   with an issue age of zero and terminated in the first policy
   year.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Sj1OJL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  mkberg@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
          E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
glassBYTEs.com reports that on June 11, New Jersey Federal Judge
Renee Marie Bumb gave final approval to a settlement in Khona, et
al. versus Subaru of America Inc. The settlement gives a class of
Subaru owners extended warranties and a reimbursement program to
resolve claims over crack-prone windshields.

Under the terms of the settlement, Subaru will extend the warranty
of covered vehicles to eight years with unlimited miles and will
cover expenses for the replacement of one free windshield,
including for car owners who have already replaced the original
windshield due to cracking if the repair was done by an authorized
retailer or third party. The settlement terms are limited to owners
or lessees, or former owners or lessees, of certain 2015 and 2016
Outback and Legacy models.

According to an article published by legal news source Law360, Bumb
said that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. The
U.S. District Judge also said the deal will offer "very generous
relief," Law360 reports, adding, "It puts them in a very good
position."

The case was originally filed in October 2019, then amended in
November 2019, and was consolidated with three other lawsuits. The
final suit was added in April 2020. [GN]

SUNRISE FOOD: Flores PAGA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDY FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE FOOD SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21NWCV00391 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failing to pay all
meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly
calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to
provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and
owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and
failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in California.

Sunrise Food Service, Inc. is a wholesale food distributor based in
Vernon, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas Han, Esq.
         Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
         Josh B. Tran, Esq.
         JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
         751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
         Pasadena, CA 91103
         Telephone: (818) 230-7502
         Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

SYNGENTA AG: Holliday Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to S.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DOUG HOLLIDAY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SYNGENTA AG; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC;
and CHEVRON USA INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00137, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June
17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-pq-00604-NJR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and strict
products liability by failing to adequately warn the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated consumers that their use of and
exposure to Paraquat, a synthetic chemical compound used as an
herbicide, significantly increased their risk of developing
Parkinson's Disease.

Syngenta AG is a global provider of agricultural science and
technology, in particular seeds and crop protection products, with
its principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland.

Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Syngenta AG, with its principal place of business in Greensboro,
North Carolina.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a provider of energy services, with its
principal place of business in San Ramon, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                            
         J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
         SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
         5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
         West Des Moines, IA 50265
         Telephone: (515) 223-4567
         E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

                - and –

         Brian O. Marty, Esq.
         SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
         5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
         West Des Moines, IA 50265
         Telephone: (515) 223-4567
         E-mail: marty@sagwlaw.com

                - and –

         Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-1019
         E-mail: beth@feganscott.com

                - and –

         Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 800
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 921-6007
         E-mail: jessica@feganscott.com

T&M LINE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moss Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER MOSS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. T&M LINE LOCATORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-00112 (W.D. Tex., June 16, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint to challenge the Defendant's unlawful employment
policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a roustabout and as a
welder from approximately January 2020 until June 2020, and again
from approximately September 2020 until December 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, he typically worked 50 to 70 hours per workweek.
Accordingly, the Defendant paid him $50 per hours for work
performed as a welder, $28 per hour for work performed as a
roustabout, and $42 per hour for hours worked over 40 on a certain
workweek when he performed work as a roustabout. However, the
Defendant allegedly failed to include his hourly compensation for
welding work in his regular rate of pay when calculating his
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay.

T&M Line Locators LLC is a line locating company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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

TJ ALVAREZ: Underpays Restaurant Delivery Workers, Xocua Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO XOCUA DE LA CRUZ and JOSE MIGUEL GONZALEZ CONOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TJ ALVAREZ CORP. (D/B/A IL CARINO RESTAURANT) and
JULIO ALVAREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05351 (S.D.N.Y., June
17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to
comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse equipment
expenses, unlawful tip deductions, unlawful wage deductions, and
failure to pay wages on a timely basis.

Plaintiff Xocua was employed as a delivery worker at Il Carino
Restaurant located at 1710 2nd Avenue, New York, New York from
October 2020 until December 2020 and from March 2021 until May
2021.

Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed as a delivery worker at Il Carino
Restaurant located at 1710 2nd Avenue, New York, New York from
August 1, 2020 until May 16, 2021.

TJ Alvarez Corp. is an owner and operator of an Italian restaurant
under the name Il Carino Restaurant located at 1710 2nd Avenue, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
         E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com

TRACFONE WIRELESS: Nicholson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN NICHOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. d/b/a
SAFELINK WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-22213-CMA (S.D.
Fla., June 16, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant bombarded her with text
message solicitations on her cellular telephone number ending in
6431 between April 23, 2021 and June 3, 2021 in an attempt to
advertise and promote its products and services. The Defendant
purported did not obtain the Plaintiff's express consent to be
contacted on her number with text message solicitations. The
Defendant allegedly continued to repeatedly sending text messages
to the Plaintiff despite the Plaintiff's opt-out requests.

According to the complaint, the Defendant caused similar text
messages to be sent to individuals residing within the judicial
district which have caused them and the Plaintiff to suffer
injuries including annoyance and disruption to their daily life.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff brings this class action complaint seeking an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text
messaging activity, and an injunction prohibiting the Defendant
from using an automatic telephone dialing system without obtaining
the recipient's consent to receive calls made with such equipment.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and other relief as the
Court deems necessary.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. d/b/a Safelink Wireless is a "No-Contract"
cellular service provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Guthrie UCL Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN GUTHRIE and GRADY LEE HARRIS, JR., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. RG21098977, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-04688 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Unfair Competition Law by misleadingly represented the Chronic and
Critical Illness Accelerated Death Benefit Riders as being included
at "No Charge" on its Trendsetter LB individual term life insurance
policy.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company is an insurance company
headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Valerie Rojas, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 892-7965
         Facsimile: (213) 784-9067
         E-mail: VRojas@cozen.com

                - and –

         Michael D. Rafalko, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 665-4611
         Facsimile: (215) 372-2360
         E-mail: MRafalko@cozen.com

                - and –

         Wendy N. Enerson, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 382-3100
         Facsimile: (312) 382-8910
         E-mail: Wenerson@cozen.com

TYSON FOODS: Nears Chicken Farmer Wage-Fixing Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Tyson Foods
Inc. has reached an agreement in principle resolving antitrust
claims over its alleged role in a scheme to drive down pay for
chicken farmers until they're permanently indebted "modern-day
sharecroppers," according to a federal court filing in Oklahoma.

The farmers leading the lawsuit disclosed late on June 14 that
they're "working to finalize and document all terms of the class
action settlement," which calls for both unspecified "monetary
compensation" and "significant and invaluable cooperation" against
the other poultry processors involved in the case.

They'll seek approval of the deal from Judge Robert J. Shelby
"shortly," according to the settlement notice filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

In addition to Tyson, the multidistrict lawsuit targets affiliates
of Koch Foods Inc., Perdue Farms Inc., JBS SA subsidiary Pilgrim's
Pride Corp., and Sanderson Farms Inc.

It's part of a wave of cartel cases involving livestock and
protein, including beef, turkey, pork, tuna, salmon, and eggs. Most
of the suits allege price-fixing schemes centering on unlawful
exchanges of sensitive information through Agri Stats Inc., which
compiles farm sector databases.

The poultry industry has been particularly hard hit. Along with
wide-ranging price-fixing litigation and wage-fixing claims by
chicken farmers, top processors are accused of a plot to depress
pay for their largely immigrant workforce. Some executives are also
facing potential prison time.

Tyson has already shelled out nearly $200 million to resolve many
of the claims against it, and Pilgrim's recently became the first
poultry processor to plead guilty to criminal antitrust violations
following the indictment of its CEO. Pilgrim's will pay a $110
million fine.

Hausfeld LLP and Berger Montague PC are co-lead counsel for the
farmers, who are also represented by 16 other firms. Tyson is
represented by Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP and Whitten Burrage.

Koch is represented by Coffey, Senger & Woodard PLLC. Perdue is
represented by Fellers Snider. Pilgrim's is represented by Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP and Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom. Sanderson
is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP and GableGotwals.

The case is In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig. (No. II),
E.D. Okla., No. 20-md-2977, notice of class action settlement filed
6/14/21. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Low Cost Delivery "Deceptive," Hicks Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akia Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a POSTMATES INC., and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CGC-21-592316 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., June 17, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for false and misleading advertising and violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law and the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and marketing of its food delivery services.
The Defendant prominently marketed a flat, low-cost delivery fee in
its mobile application (app), however, this representation is false
because it actually imposes hidden delivery charges on its
customers. Specifically, Postmates secretly marks up food prices
for delivery orders only by 20%, without informing customers. The
identical food costs more when ordered through the Defendant's app
than it does when ordered in person at a restaurant or through the
restaurant's own website or app. The price differential is another
hidden delivery fee because the Defendant's only function is to
provide food delivery services, the suit says.

Uber Technologies, Inc., doing business as Postmates Inc., is an
American quick-commerce and food delivery service, headquartered in
San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
         KALIEL GOLD PLLC
         1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783

UNILEVER UNITED: Suave Products Cause Hair Loss, Lewakowski Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA LEWAKOWSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., and CONOPCO,
INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03276 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of State
Consumer Fraud Acts and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
several variations of Suave Professionals Shampoo and/or
Conditioner. The Defendants represented the Suave products as well
as premium brands, which led consumers to believe that Suave
products help nourish and replenish hair and specifically help to
reduce hair loss. In reality, the products contained DMDM
hydantoin, an ingredient known to cause significant hair loss and
scalp irritation. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff has experienced actual damages,
including economic damages.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care
products, with its principal place of business located at 700
Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
is a provider of personal care products with its principal place of
business located at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and –
         
         Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
         SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
         Land Title Building
         100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1910
         Philadelphia, PA 19110
         Telephone: (267) 328-5245
         Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
         E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com  

               - and –
         
         Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (815) 878-4674
         E-mail: Msims@milberg.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Harper T. Segui, Esq.
         Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
                 hsegui@milberg.com
                 ctaylor@milberg.com

               - and –
         
         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         747 Chestnut Ridge Road
         Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
         Telephone: (845) 356-2570
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                 ggraifman@kgglaw.com

UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Seeks to Strike Regard & Sabetta Expert Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-20887-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order that it should strike the expert report of Daniel
Regard, the expert report of Richard Sabetta, the Regard Affidavit,
and the Sabetta Affidavit and preclude Plaintiff from using them
for any purpose, including, but not limited, as to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendant contends that The Regard Report does not rectify the
deficiencies in the Regard Affidavit. While Mr. Regard's Report has
a lot of vapid discussion, that discussion does not tie to his
ultimate conclusions, and it brings to mind the old adage that
quantity does not equal quality. In essence, the Regard Report has
a lot of "filler" with no substance.

The Defendant adds that the Sabetta Report should also be excluded
from consideration. At least in large part, the Sabetta Report is
formulated as a legal opinion, and, as such, it is improper. The
Sabetta Report contains an entire section titled "Overview of
Emerging Case Law," which sets up his subsequent expert analysis.
While there may be nothing overtly wrong with an expert
acknowledging the general legal backdrop of a case to provide
context, the Sabetta Report reads more like a legal brief prepared
by a lawyer. Based on his summary of the case law, Mr. Sabetta
concludes that "insurance claim settlement stakeholders now have
the legal standing and rights to pursue the recovery claims such as
those being sought in the instant litigation." Such a conclusion is
wholly improper and essentially infects Mr. Sabetta's entire
Report; it is not Mr. Sabetta's prerogative as an expert to
conclude whether Plaintiff has legal standing in the "instant
litigation." Tellingly, Mr. Sabetta's "Concluding Opinion" starts
with the following sentence: "UAIC cannot plausibly deny that it
has a statutory obligation to reimburse the Secondary Payer for
medical treatment payments." That is pure legal opinion.

MSP Recovery provides professional services. The Company offers
comprehensive platform to recover on any claims where the law
places primary payment responsibility on another payer. MSP
Recovery serves clients in the State of Florida.

United Automobile Insurance Company a property and casualty
insurance organization specializing in automobile insurance.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UoYbCB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, Florida 33155
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  serve@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Steve I. Silverman, Esq.
          Micayla Mancuso, Esq.
          KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN,
          KATZEN & LEVINE P.L.
          201 S Biscayne Blvd #2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com

               - and -

          J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          Eduardo E. Bertran, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com
                  fzincone@armaslaw.com
                  ebertran@armaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Valerie Greenberg, Esq.
          Ari H. Gerstin, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast 7th Avenue, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: valerie.greenberg@akerman.com
                  debra.atkinson@akerman.com
                  ari.gerstin@akerman.com
                  tiffany.hydes-belalcazar@akerman.com

UNITED STATES: Civil Rights Group Files Amended NOOA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bittenbender, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that a week
after receiving class-action status in its lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA, and NOAA Fisheries, a nonpartisan
civil rights group has filed an amended lawsuit regarding NOAA
Fisheries plan to monitor charter boats in the Gulf of Mexico.

A group of 11 small businesses and fishing-boat owners claim that a
policy requiring electronic monitoring and reporting infringes on
their operations. Last July, NOAA Fisheries issued an order to
electronically submit reports for each fishing trip, even if no
fish were caught. It also requires boats to notify the agency
before departing on any kind of trip.

"Warrantless GPS surveillance of even a suspected criminal's
vehicle is indisputably unconstitutional," said Sheng Li, a lawyer
for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). "Yet, NOAA is
mandating 24-hour GPS surveillance of countless boat owners for
running legitimate businesses. It does not take a legal scholar to
spot the constitutional violation."

The amended lawsuit filed Wednesday, 9 June, in a U.S. District
Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, also objects to NOAA Fisheries
mandating captain reveal charter fees, number of paying passengers,
and the amount of fuel used. That information, the plaintiffs
claim, does not help determine the status of fishing stocks in the
Gulf of Mexico.

The amended complaint came one week after U.S. District Judge Susie
Morgan approved the plaintiffs' request for class-action status.
With that designation, more than 1,000 charter operators are now
eligible to join the case, according to an NCLA statement.

The federal government opposed the motion for class-action status.
In a filing on 11 December, 2020, U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney
General Jean E. Williams and Shampa Panda, a U.S. Justice
Department trial attorney for wildlife and marine resources, said
granting class-action status would lead to delays in the case and
increase the costs.

They also said that there was "significant disagreement" among
charter-boat owners.

"A survey of the administrative record that was lodged in this case
reveals that there are a number of comments from the owners and
operators of federal permitted charter vessels on the proposed rule
that demonstrate that a number of permit holders are in favor of
the final rule, for reasons ranging for accountability to accuracy
in data collection," the government argued.

However, Morgan determined that the plaintiffs met the standard for
class-action status.

Plaintiffs seek a decision that the electronic monitoring order is
unconstitutional as the data charter owners and operators collect
is private property. [GN]

USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Marcaurel Files Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Waste-Management
Resources, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Janie Marcaurel,
Shelby Ingram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USA Waste-Management Resources, LLC, Waste Management,
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-02027 (S.D. Tex., June 21, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.

Waste Management -- https://www.wm.com/ -- is the leading provider
of comprehensive waste management, offering services such as
garbage collection and disposal, recycling and dumpster
rental.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, L.L.P.
          3811 Turtle Creek
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


WAGEWORKS INC: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
regarding the WageWorks, Inc. Class Action Settlement.

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF WAGEWORKS, INC. BETWEEN MAY 6, 2016 AND MARCH
1, 2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
-OR-
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF WAGEWORKS, INC. ISSUED PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO
THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR WAGEWORKS' PUBLIC
OFFERING ON JUNE 19, 2017 (THE "OFFERING" OR "JUNE 2017 OFFERING")
AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
(COLLECTIVELY THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, that a settlement between Lead Plaintiffs, the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, the Government
Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands, and the Public
Employees Retirement System of New Mexico (collectively "Lead
Plaintiffs"), and WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), Joseph L. Jackson,
Colm M. Callan, Robert L. Metzger, Mariann Byerwalter, Thomas A.
Bevilacqua, Bruce G. Bodaken, Jerome D. Gramaglia and John W.
Larson (collectively "Defendants") in the amount of $30,000,000
(the "Settlement") has been proposed.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White,
United States District Judge, on August 20, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 5 of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612 for the purpose of determining, among other
things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 1, 2021;
(iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is
fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of Lead Counsels' attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest,
incurred in connection with this Action. The Court has reserved the
right to reschedule the hearing without further notice.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement
thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
them from www.wageworkssettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

WageWorks, Inc. Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 147
Warminster, PA 18974-0147
www.wageworkssettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
STEPHEN R. BASSER
SAMUEL M. WARD
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 230-0800

or

JEFFREY A. BARRACK
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 963-0600
www.barrack.com
wageworkssettlement@barrack.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked or received no later than September 14, 2021
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further
described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim,
unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 30, 2021. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no
later than July 30, 2021.

URL: http://www.barrack.com

Contact Information:
JEFFREY A. BARRACK
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 963-0600
www.barrack.com
wageworkssettlement@barrack.com [GN]

WALMART INC: Williams Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., in its own name and d/b/a
SAM'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01480 (M.D. Fla., June 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The case arises from the Defendant's denial of the Plaintiff's
employment and termination of his temporary assignment after
obtaining his consumer report. Sam's Club did not provide the
Plaintiff with a copy of his background check before terminating
his temporary assignment and rejecting his application for
employment. The Defendant's alleged failure to provide the
Plaintiff with pre-adverse action notice, including a copy of his
consumer report and written summary of his FCRA rights at least
five business days before coding him as ineligible in its computer
system was a blatant violation of the FCRA requirements.

Walmart, Inc., doing business as Sam's Club, is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 577-4722
         Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
         E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
         CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
         Newport News, VA 23601
         Telephone: (757) 930-3660
         Facsimile: (757) 257-3450
         E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

WELLS FARGO: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Related Bids OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAUDLEY SIMON, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Banking Association; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00211-JAK-AS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving the
stipulation to continue class certification-related motion Hearing
Dates:

   -- The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
      continued from June 21, 2021, to September 20, 2021;

   -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for leave to add new class

      representative is continued from June 21, 2021, to September

      20, 2021.

   -- Neither party shall file any further briefing or other
      documents in support of or in opposition to either
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification or Plaintiff's
      Motion for Leave to Add New Class Representative, absent the

      Court's express approval.

Wells Fargo & Company an American multinational financial services
company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California,
operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices
throughout the United States and overseas.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qr6wBS at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Baby Food Toxin Litigation to Proceed in Multiple Venues
------------------------------------------------------------
L. Christine Lawson, Esq. and Jonathon A. Fligg, Esq., of Womble
Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that on March 4, 2021, we posted "Are Your Baby's Strained
Carrots Safe? Considerations for Manufacturers." Multiple
plaintiffs had filed class action lawsuits in jurisdictions around
the country alleging that baby food contained heavy metals and
toxins and that manufacturers violated state consumer protection
statutes. The US Food and Drug Administration has not set the
permissible levels for heavy metals in baby food, nor the testing
and labeling requirements. Some plaintiffs wanted the lawsuit to be
part of a MDL, but the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
announced on June 7, 2021, that it will not consolidate the baby
food lawsuits. In briefing on the consolidation, manufacturers and
some parent groups argued against the MDL because the issues were
particular to the cases making consolidation improper. For example,
there were issues about the suppliers, testing practices, quality
controls, selection of ingredients and additives, packaging,
advertising, marketing, and labeling. For now, the cases will
proceed on an individual basis.

As a result, manufacturers will defend their respective practices
in multiple jurisdictions across the country. This provides each
the opportunity to explain why its own standards are appropriate
and were followed. However, manufacturers will need to monitor the
lawsuits of the other manufacturers for competitors' arguments
regarding the appropriate ingredients, testing requirements,
labeling, advertising, etc. Until there is uniformity in the rules,
manufacturers need to be aware of competitors' positions and how
juries react in different venues. [GN]

[*] Travel Agent Calls for Support of BI Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juliet Dennis, writing for TravelWeekly, reports that a travel
agent has made a further plea to rally more agents together for a
class action that he hopes can make insurance firms pay out on
business interruption insurance.

So far, 48 agents have put their names forward after a call led by
Bailey's Travel owner Chris Bailey. This is an increase on 30
agents who pledged to support the campaign after it launched in
April.

Bailey is now contacting a lawyer to assess the chances of a
successful action with a group of this size, but said more agents
would strengthen the case.

He had hoped for at least 50 agents to come on board, ideally those
with the same policy. He took out business interruption insurance
with Axa through broker James Hallam.

He said: "Ideally, I'd like more agents because it spreads the
cost, should it go to court.

"The more agents we have, the better our chances.

"It's going to be a long slog but this is a cause worth fighting
because it could make the difference between paying off debt for
the next five years or clearing it, or even the difference between
surviving or not."

A Supreme Court ruling in January found in favour of small firms.
The court ordered insurers to pay out business interruption
insurance claims where companies were affected by Covid-19.

Bailey had hoped to claim between GBP200,000 and GBP250,000 in lost
earnings on his business interruption insurance.

But despite the ruling, Bailey's claim was again rejected, based on
the wording of his policy, which referenced a "notifiable disease
manifesting itself at the premises".

Meanwhile, Abta is now analysing the government's response to its
intention to take separate legal action over the level of Restart
Grants.

Agents are currently entitled to a one-off grant of up to £6,000
from their local council, whereas gyms, hairdressers and pubs can
claim up to £18,000.

An Abta spokesman said the association was working out its next
steps after receiving a response to its 'letter before claim'
advising of its intention to take action. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CEMIG Spends R$86,000 on Solid Waste Disposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Company of Minas Gerais (CEMIG), In 2020, has reportedly
spent R$86,000 on disposal of 201 tons of solid waste impregnated
with oil, solvents, EPIs, fiber and glass fiber wastes, septic tank
settlements, asbestos residues, waste contaminated with PCBs, and
insulating mineral oil, according to the Company's Form 6-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "This was 5% less in mass than in 2019. A total
of 8.8 tons of lamps were sent for decontamination and recycling.

"Over the whole of 2020, 39,027 tons of industrial wastes were
allocated for disposal: 97.00% of these wastes were sold or
recycled; 2.50% regenerated, reused or decontaminated; and 0.50%
co-processed, incinerated, sent for treatment (effluents and
sedimentation), or disposed of in industrial landfills.

"Final disposal of wastes was 50.94% lower in 2020, mainly due to
the pandemic, causing a significant reduction in collection of
material from the new Igarapé Advanced Distribution Center. There
was also a reduction in disposal of scrap, due to transformers
being reconditioned and returned to their previous use in the
company.

"Of the total of oil wastes disposed of, 308 tons of insulating
mineral oil were regenerated and reused by the Company.

"All of these waste disposal activities have confirmation by final
disposal certificates."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3d3sci0

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Loses Bid to Reduce Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters.com, reports that Liberty
Mutual must pay the entire amount of an asbestos settlement it
negotiated on behalf of a defunct New Jersey valve manufacturer it
once insured, a New York judge has ruled, rejecting its bid to
reduce its liability on the grounds that it did not provide
coverage for the whole time period at issue.

Justice Arthur Engoron of New York Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled
that so-called pro rata allocation of liability only applies
between insurers and policyholders. Since the policyholder, Jenkins
Bros, had been dissolved in 2004 and there were no other insurers
to share liability, he found, Liberty could not rely on pro rata
allocation to reduce its payment to the asbestos victims.

"I think it's a fantastic result," said Kenneth Frenchman of Cohen
Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna, a lawyer for the asbestos victims.
"Liberty Mutual was attempting to apply the doctrine of pro rate
allocation in a situation where it frankly has no place. You
shouldn't be permitted to allocate liability to the tort victim
himself, and I was very pleased that (Justice) Engoron recognized
that inequity and ruled in favor of justice."

While the case involved only a handful of victims and less than
$400,000, Frenchman said, it could affect the outcome of many more
asbestos cases against Jenkins that Liberty is defending, as well
as asbestos cases against other defunct companies.

Liberty Mutual and one of its attorneys, Eileen McCabe of Mendes &
Mount, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Liberty Mutual has appeared as the real party in interest in
asbestos lawsuits against Jenkins, and negotiated settlements on
its behalf. In 2018, it filed an action seeking a declaratory
judgment that its liability under those settlements should be
reduced to reflect the fact that it did not insure Jenkins from
1980 to 1987.

Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Engoron ruled Thursday that the precedents for pro rata liability
cited by Liberty Mutual all involved disputes between insurers and
policyholders, and so represented "reasoned determinations that the
policyholder should not be relieved of the consequences of its
decision to underinsure or not insure, and that such failure to
manage risk adequately should not become the obligation of the
insurance company."

"However, no such considerations are at play here, where the
individual defendants are the asbestos victims who were not
involved whatsoever in Jenkins Bros' decisions as to when and how
to purchase insurance," the judge wrote.

The case is Liberty Mutual Insurance Co v. Jenkins Bros et al, New
York Supreme Court, New York County, No. 651980/2018.

For Liberty Mutual: Eileen McCabe, Stephen Roberts and Alejandro
Hidalgo of Mendes & Mount

For the asbestos plaintiffs: Kenneth Frenchman, Robin Cohen and
Alexander Sugzda of Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna





                            *********

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 ***