/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210713.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 133

                            Headlines

ABB LTD: Cedar Lane Tech Sues Over Imaging Patents
ACELRX PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
ADKIN'S BLUE RIBBON: Migrant Workers Seek Minimum Wages
AGROPEC TRADING: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, Teamsters Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices
AMAZON.COM INC: Healthcare Workers File Alexa Recording Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Smith Alleges Online Retail Channel Monopoly
AMERICAN GENERAL: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

ANFIELD INTERIORS: Court Terminates Valerio Bid to Certify Class
ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Suit From Mine Employees Over Lead Poisoning
ATERIAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
BARIATRIC HEALTH: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach

BROOKLYN, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair TPT Program
BUCKY'S EXPRESS: Zimmer FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Groundwater Contamination in Shannon
CANDID CARE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CARLOTZ INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline

CARLOTZ INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 6 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Response Deadline Extended to July 26

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CRUM & FORSTER: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEMET'S CANDY: Spurck Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pretzel Product
DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Schall Law Reminds Investors of September 7 Deadline

DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DOWN & FEATHER: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDEN ISLE: Appeals Amendment of Judgment in Skender FLSA Suit
EOG RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement in WFM Suit Gets Initial OK

EQUITY DIRECT: Johnstone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
FACEBOOK INC: Former U.S. President Trump Sues Over Censorship
FISHMAN GROUP: Kline FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Claims Sugarcane Burning Makes Residents Sick
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline

FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Appeals FLSA Class Suit Dismissal
FUJI HANA: Desheng Lin Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deliverymen
FULL TRUCK: Kohn Sues Over Omitted Material Facts on IPO Statement
FUNZALO & CANTEET: Watson Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages
GAIN CAPITAL: Zhang Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Yukon Taillights
GRANITE SERVICES: Campo Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class
GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to N.D. Ga.
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Opposes Ward Bid for Class Certification
HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Strelow Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
HEALTH PLAN: Subject to Anti-Discrimination Provision Under ACA
JAMES RIVER: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
KROGER COMPANY: Reply to Kibler Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 16
L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Class Certification Responses Due July 28

LEGEND ENERGY: Rose Sues Over Mass Layoff of Electrical Technicians
LUMICO LIFE: Shelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa.
MARICOPA, AZ: Luckey Suit Seeks to Certify Two Waiver Classes
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Non-Party Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
MARTIN JUGENBURG: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Patient Privacy

MDL 2992: 10 Debit Card Data Breach Suits Moved to S.D. Cal.
MDL 2993: 13 Crop Input Anti-Trust Suits Transferred to E.D. Mo.
MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Class Suit Moved to District of Kansas
MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 10
MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Use of Non-Invasive Test

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alston Ruling May Benefit Athlete Pay Suit
NCAA: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEW ORIENTAL: October 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NEW YORK, NY: Lamar Advertising Appeals Ruling in Zoning Suit
OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
PACK-FIVE CORP: Faces Osorio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Charges Multiple NSF Fees on Same Item, Vue Says

PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Evaluates Potential Claims
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ROCK 'EM APPAREL: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCKET COMPANIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline

SAM'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Sanchez Says
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reed Suit
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Seattle Bakery Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Pandemic Boarding Policy
SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California

SUPERIOR REFINING: Parties Agree on $1 Million Class Settlement
TD BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees on APPSN Transactions
TPUSA-FHCS: Nattoo Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification
TRINITY TEEN: Seeks Dismissal of Medically Related Class Claims
TWITTER INC: Faces Trump Suit Over Restricted Access on Twitter

UBIQUITI INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UNITED AUTO: Davidson Appeals 2nd Amended Class Suit Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Seeks July 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response
WASHINGTON PRIME: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 23 Deadline
WELLPET LLC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 3

WORLD WRESTLING: Obtains Approval for $39MM Class Action Settlement
[*] Suit Filed After HHS Warns on Medical Imaging Technology Use

                            *********

ABB LTD: Cedar Lane Tech Sues Over Imaging Patents
--------------------------------------------------
Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ABB Ltd., Case No. 21-cv-00594
(W.D. Tex., June 11, 2021) is a patent dispute over:

   Patent No    Date Issued   Description
   ---------    -----------   -----------
   6,972,790    12/06/2005    Host interface for imaging arrays

   8,537,242    09/17/2013    Host interface for imaging arrays

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac Rabicoff, Esq.
     RABICOFF LAW LLC
     73 W. Monroe St.
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (773) 669-4590
     Fax: (888) 958-8463
     Email: isaac@rabilaw.com




ACELRX PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 5 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). AcelRx investors have until August 9, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the
treatment of acute pain. One of its lead product candidates is
DSUVIA, which has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the management of acute pain in adults
that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified
medically supervised healthcare settings.

On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for
DSUVIA. Specifically, the FDA concluded that certain of AcelRx's
promotional communications "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."

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

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AcelRx had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a result, AcelRx 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, 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 AcelRx securities during the Class Period, 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 AcelRx securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Contacts:

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
URL: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com

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

ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04353, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities
between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AcelRx securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 9, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-severe acute pain.

On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of
acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid
analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings,
such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA;
(ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims
and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in
certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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

ADKIN'S BLUE RIBBON: Migrant Workers Seek Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan and Delphina Luna, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Adkin's Blue Ribbon Packing
Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00545 (W.D. Mich., June
25, 2021), seek to recover their unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Michigan
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

Adkin's Blue Ribbon Packing Company specializes in harvesting,
packaging, and shipping blueberries.

Plaintiffs are migrant farmworkers admitted into the United States
under the H-2A and/or H-2B temporary foreign worker visa programs
to perform manual labor as packers and packagers. Adkin's allegedly
breached their employment contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to
pay Plaintiffs the mandatory minimum wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
      Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
      Molly Spaak, Esq.
      MIGRANT LEGAL AID
      1104 Fuller Ave. NE
      Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371
      Phone: (616) 454-5055
      Fax: (616) 454-7022
      Email: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com
             bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com
             mspaak@migrantlegalaid.com


AGROPEC TRADING: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agropec Trading, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Agropec Trading, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05863 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Agropec Trading, LLC doing business as Allivet --
https://www.allivet.com/ -- is a large outlet selling medication
for pets & livestock as well as diagnostic & treatment
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMARIN PHARMA: Delays Drug Competition for Vascepa, Teamsters Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, and
AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13406 (D.N.J.,
July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unfair
or deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust law.

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 (API) 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.

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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         John A. Macoretta, Esq.
         Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
         Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
         SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
         2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300
         Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
         E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                 jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                 dzinser@srkattorneys.com

                 - and –

         Stephen C. Richman, Esq.
         Matthew D. Areman, Esq.
         MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN
         24 Wilkins Place
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (800) 590-4561
         Facsimile: (215) 790-0668
         E-mail: srichman@markowitzrichman.com
                 mareman@markowitzrichman.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton at courthousenews.com reports that Amazon is facing a
federal class action lawsuit filed in Seattle over its Sidewalk
network and claims that the company engaged in "unfair, deceptive"
and "fraudulent business practices" at the expense of its
customers.

Amazon's Ring security cameras and Echo smart speakers that have
the Sidewalk feature can allow other such devices to connect to
them via Bluetooth, allowing them to draw upon a small amount of
their owner's bandwidth.

The company's website says that Sidewalk "creates a low-bandwidth
network" that helps devices with the technology to stay connected.

"Amazon Sidewalk is a shared network that helps devices like Amazon
Echo devices, Ring Security Cams, outdoor lights, motion sensors,
and Tile trackers work better at home and beyond the front door,"
the website says. "When enabled, Sidewalk can unlock unique
benefits for your device, support other Sidewalk devices in your
community, and even locate pets or lost items."

Sidewalk went live on June 8 and automatically connects to other
Sidewalk devices without asking owners their consent to share
bandwidth.

The complaint, filed in the Western District of Washington state,
claims that Amazon is using the bandwidth of consumers to cheaply
build a wireless network.

"Amazon bypasses the expense of creating such an expensive network,
however, by having Sidewalk tap into Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
private Internet connections, using portions of their Internet
bandwidth to maintain connections between the Sidewalk Devices,"
the complaint states.

The complaint says such usage of consumers' bandwidth could lead to
overage charges on their internet bills and the knowledge of opting
out is not readily available.

"Owners and users of the Sidewalk Devices can only stop the unfair
use of their Internet bandwidth if they are aware of the taking of
the bandwidth via Sidewalk, find instructions for disabling
Sidewalk, and take several steps to disable Sidewalk on their
devices," the complaint states. "Owners and users of Sidewalk
Devices who do not opt out and have Sidewalk enabled are not
compensated by Amazon for the use of their bandwidth.

"Additionally, Amazon does not clearly disclose that even if a
customer initially opts out of the Sidewalk network, if they obtain
a new Sidewalk-enabled device, Sidewalk will automatically be
re-enabled, and they will need to opt-out again."

The complaint claims the company committed theft of
telecommunication services and violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

The lawsuit says that Amazon "affirmatively misrepresents that its
consumers are voluntarily sharing and donating their Internet
bandwidth, constituting deceptive acts and practices."

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Healthcare Workers File Alexa Recording Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that four
healthcare workers have filed a class-action lawsuit against
Amazon, alleging that their Alexa devices recorded their
HIPAA-protected conversations, according to a July 2 Newsweek
report.

Five things to know:

1. The suit, filed in a Washington district court, claims that
"Amazon's conduct in surreptitiously recording consumers has
violated federal and state wiretapping, privacy, and consumer
protection laws."

2. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon failed to disclose at the time
the plaintiffs bought their devices that it records and stores
interactions with Alexa. The devices may have recorded and stored
conversations the healthcare workers had with patients that
contained protected health information, the lawsuit alleges.

3. The lawsuit cites an Evanston-based Northwestern University
study demonstrating that certain phrases can alert Alexa and
trigger it to start recording. Alexa may also be triggered if the
speakers are talking in Spanish or if they spoke with an accent not
typical to native-born American speakers.

4. A spokesperson from Amazon told Newsweek that "Alexa and Echo
devices are designed to only detect your chosen wake word (Alexa,
Amazon, Computer, or Echo). No audio is stored or sent to the cloud
unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by
pressing a button)."

5. Alexa's blue light will pop up, indicating that the device has
been awoken, the spokesperson said. Alexa users can opt out of
having their voice recordings included in the recordings that get
reviewed. Users also can elect to not have their recordings saved
at all or to have them deleted every few months, they said. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Smith Alleges Online Retail Channel Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00838 (W.D. Wash., June 23, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's use of monopoly power in the market for online retail
platforms in the United States to restrain prices, resulting to
violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant attained monopoly power
as an online distribution channel in the United States, with
approximately 50% of all electronic commerce sales occurring
through Defendant's website, Amazon.com. After the Novel
Coronavirus-19 pandemic emerged, Amazon's monopolistic grasp over
the relevant market grew - as Amazon's sales skyrocketed by 38% in
2020, says the suit.

Allegedly, the Defendant uses its pervasiveness over the relevant
market to abuse consumers and merchants alike. It also imposes a
"price parity clause" on merchants through its "Amazon Services
Business Solutions Agreement." And, because the merchants' goods
are overpriced due to the existence of the "referral fees," Amazon
is able to undercut the merchants' prices with its own Amazon-label
branded goods - vanquishing competition and eliminating consumer
freedom to purchase the goods they seek in a normal functioning
market free of anticompetitive conduct, the suit asserts.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an e-commerce channel and retail giant with its
principal place of business located in the state of
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Glenn Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          17410 133rd Ave. N.E., Suite #301
          Woodinville, WA 98072-3200
          Telephone: (425) 482-1111
          E-mail: glenn@justiceforyou.com

               - and -

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
          Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com
                  rwallner@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com

AMERICAN GENERAL: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaunda Patterson-Strachan, Esq., of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that while challenges to
insurers' exercises of discretion in setting cost of insurance
rates has been the principal focus of litigation involving
universal life (UL) insurance products for quite some time, a
putative class action filed in a California federal court in
December has the insurer's determination of credited rates in its
crosshairs. LSIMC v. Am. General Life Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-11518
(C.D. Cal.). The plaintiff alleged that American General breached
its UL contracts "by redetermining credited rates based on factors
other than its expectations of future investment earnings."
However, in a June 7 ruling District Judge Stephen J. Wilson
granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the operative complaint --
a first amended complaint that had been filed in response to
American General's initial dismissal motion.

In particular, the plaintiff claimed that American General's
lowering of the interest rates to the guaranteed minimum on many
policies amounted to a breach of a provision in the subject
contracts, which has a clause stating: "Any redetermination of
interest rates will be based only on expectations of future
investment earnings." The amended complaint seized on purported
"admissions" by American General in its initial motion to dismiss
that it designs UL policies "to achieve a profit spread" and
adjusts interests rates "to try to maintain this projected spread,"
and further claims that the contracts have been breached "[b]ecause
neither profit targets nor competitive environment goals are
'expectations of investment earnings.'" In granting American
General's motion to dismiss, Judge Wilson found the allegations of
a profit motive -- which he said was alleged "in conclusory
fashion" -- was, at this stage, "too attenuated from the 3%
interest rate calculation to render the Plaintiff's theory of
breach plausible."

Notably, among the changes in the amended complaint was the
addition of an allegation that American General's 2019 annual
statement shows "a 4.9% annual return -- 1.9% higher than the new
premium crediting rate that AmGen declared in each of 2019 and
2020." Judge Wilson found the allegation to be "[t]he only fact in
the FAC related to Defendant's return on investment." But, as he
further recognized, "[t]hat Defendant received a companywide return
1.9% higher than the credited minimum 3% interest rate, however,
does not by itself give rise to a reasonable inference that
redeterminations before, during, or after 2019 were based on a
factor other than expectations of future investment earnings." The
court also pointed out the plaintiff's failure to "plead facts
suggesting that this 1.9% variance changed over time, or that the
existence of such a variance in a single year reflects a profit or
other impermissible basis for that year's or the next year's
redetermination." Further, the court found that the lack of
allegations in the complaint about American General's investment
returns in other years "is especially important given the policy's
prospective focus -- allowing redeterminations based on
'expectations of future investment earnings.'"

Judge Wilson also addressed the plausibility of the plaintiff's
theory that "any single-year variance between the credited interest
rate and companywide return on investment is not allowed by the
policy," but he not only found no showing by the plaintiff how the
policy supports such an interpretation, he found such an
interpretation "would be inconsistent with the prospective
character of interest rate determinations, and the policy language
emphasizing future expectations." He further noted that
"[i]nvestments can exceed expectations, and an interest rate can be
'based on' expectations without precisely equaling actual
returns."

But, as the order also granted leave to do the same, the plaintiff
has already filed a second amended complaint, and thus the
possibility that the lawsuit might generate more litigation against
issuers of UL polices focused on credited rates remains. [GN]

ANFIELD INTERIORS: Court Terminates Valerio Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valerio v. Anfield
Interiors, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02275 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Debra C. Freeman entered an order terminating motion to
certify class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]



ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Suit From Mine Employees Over Lead Poisoning
------------------------------------------------------------------
IOL reports that a medical doctor who worked in Kabwe, Zambia has
claimed in an affidavit that Anglo American South Africa had been
aware of lead poisining at its mine as early as 1970.

Dr Ian Lawrence, who was stationed where Anglo operated the world's
largest lead mine in the 1970s, said in an affidavit that the
company was aware of lead poisoning to their employees as blood
levels of staff were checked regularly.

Lawrence said that there had been a high number of deaths among
children under the age of five years in the township housing mine
employees.

"I became deeply concerned at the number of deaths among children
under the age of five in the residential township where local
employees lived (the township), particularly children between one
and three years old," Lawrence said.

The class action was filed on behalf of the victims by Johannesburg
and London-based human rights legal firms Mbuyisa Moleele and Leigh
Day in October last year at the Gauteng Division of the High Court
of South Africa.

Lawrence said that he took samples of blood of 500 children under
the age of five who visited the township's clinic between 1969 and
1970 and found many of the results were serious enough to cause
brain damage and even death.

"I do not think the fumes were a major contribution to the problem,
I believe rather that dust from the plant and underground
contaminants were a major source of the pollution," Lawrence said.

The class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 100 000 children and
women poisoned in Kabwe, alleges that between 1925 and 1974, Anglo
American played a huge role in the management of medical, technical
and other services at the mine.

An Anglo spokesperson said on July 4 that in fact the mine operator
was Zambia Broken Hill Development Company (ZBHDC), so matters
relating to the operation of the mine, including employee health,
would have been its responsibility.

The spokesperson said that conflating ZBHDC with Anglo American was
simply incorrect.

"With Anglo American not owning or operating the mine, we do not
have such records – medical or otherwise – relating to the
operation of the mine. Operational information was transferred to
Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines, who took over control of the
operations after nationalisation," said the spokesperson.

July 5 marked the second day of a court hearing into whether Anglo
American can receive a second extension to file its response to the
class action.

Anglo American said the extension was necessary as it had still not
been able to gain access to critical documents and other
information that it needed in order to respond appropriately.

Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele said Lawrence's testimony was a
powerful contribution to the fight for justice for the people of
Kabwe.

"It supports our argument that Anglo failed to take adequate steps
to protect the local community.

"Anglo continues to attempt to distance itself from its
responsibility to the people of Kabwe in direct contrast to its
commitments to provide remediation as part of the Anglo American's
Human Rights Policy," Mbuyisa said.

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day said: "Given its significant
organisational expertise, Anglo needs to explain the circumstances
in which it disposed of all these important Kabwe documents.

"In any event, it is crystal clear from the work of doctos Lawrence
and Clark that a huge problem of lead contamination of the
environment and poisoning of local children occurred under Anglo's
watch before ZCCM came on the scene," Meeran said. [GN]

ATERIAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER)

Investors Affected: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)

Investors Affected: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Danimer Scientific, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal
controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter
alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii)
Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in
oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1

Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHA)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021
and/or purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
September 2020 initial public offering priced at $17.00 per share.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Athira Pharma, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the research conducted by Defendant Kawas, which
formed the foundation for Athira's product candidates and
intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct,
including the manipulation of key data through the altering of
Western blot images; and (2) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and omitted
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made not
misleading.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17392&from=1

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

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

BARIATRIC HEALTH: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bariatric Health &
Wellness, P.C. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bariatric Health &
Wellness, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-05864 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Bariatric Health & Wellness, PC -- https://www.bariatricdirect.com/
-- is a medical group practice located in Tuscaloosa, AL that
specializes in Obstetrics & Gynecology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Gillespie, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that British
Airways Plc settled a U.K. class-action lawsuit involving hundreds
of thousands of customers caught up in a 2018 data breach.

The settlement, for an undisclosed sum, followed the leak of the
personal data of 420,000 customers and staff, including bank
details, contact information and addresses. The deal between
IAG-owned British Airways and law firm PGMBM doesn't include any
admission of liability by the airline.

"The pace at which we have been able to resolve this process with
British Airways has been particularly encouraging and demonstrates
how seriously the legal system is taking mass data incidents," said
Harris Pogust, chairman of PGMBM, said in an emailed statement.

British Airways has been rocked by the impact of the coronavirus
pandemic on its industry. In October, the U.K. Information
Commissioner's Office reduced the airline's fine for the breach
from 183 million pounds ($254 million) to 20 million pounds in the
wake of the pandemic's financial impact.

The case was filed under the European Union's General Data
Protection Regulation, which ramped up potential fines for firms
failing to protect consumers' control of their personal data.
British Airways' rival, EasyJet Plc, also faces a lawsuit led by
PGMBM after exposing private details of nine million passengers.

British Airways said in an emailed statement that it "apologized to
customers who may have been affected by this issue and are pleased
we've been able to settle the group action."

When "the issue arose we acted promptly to protect and inform our
customers," the carrier said. [GN]

BROOKLYN, NY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair TPT Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Major at blackenterprise.com reports that a federal court
ruled three Brooklyn homeowners of color can move forward with a
class action lawsuit to recover their wealth lost through New
York's Third Party Transfer (TPT) program.

The homeowners all lost their residences from alleged illegal
seizures taken in "in rem" foreclosure proceedings under the TPT
program. The city conducted the seizures under the Department of
Housing, Preservation and Development (HPD), which confiscates the
entire property value of a home from the owner, even if the owner
only owed a few thousand dollars in water or sewer charges or
taxes.

HPD would then give the property to development organizations of
the administration's choosing for free or a small fee. Two
nonprofits, the Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund and
BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, are now
defendants in the case according to the Brownstoner.

McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson say
their properties were stolen from them by the TPT program and given
away.

"The TPT program has affected my family in many ways. My family and
our neighbors who should have remained shareholders in the building
have lost real, personal and future assets and value in the
millions of dollars, not even measuring the value of having a home
for the long term," Thomas-Murchison told the BKReader. "My now
deceased mother worked, for close to 25 years, to ensure that our
family would have long-term residency in an already-existing
affordable housing co-op. The City took that away with the stroke
of a pen."

The group wants to represent a class of minority property owners
across the city who have lost their homes to the TPT program
without compensation.

The plaintiffs already won one battle when the city challenged
their right to file a class-action suit, arguing the case should be
argued in state court. The group successfully argued the case is a
federal issue that falls under the 5th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, which requires just compensation for the taking of a
person's property.

When the suit was initially filed, the plaintiff's homes were
valued at $66 million combined. Today, they are worth significantly
more as the neighborhoods and the city has largely been gentrified.
The suit is also seeking the equity value of hundreds of properties
dating back to the 1990s that have been taken under the TPT
program.

Many of the homes, including the plaintiffs' residences, were in
the Crown Heights and Bed-Stuy neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Both are
predominately communities of color with Black Americans and
immigrants from Caribbean countries including Jamaica, Haiti,
Trinidad, Barbados and others. [GN]

BUCKY'S EXPRESS: Zimmer FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE ZIMMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BUCKY'S EXPRESS, LLC, Case No.
21CN-CC00026, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clinton County,
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on July 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-06077-JAM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Bucky's Express, LLC is a consumer services company based in
Nebraska. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Justin M. Dean, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC
         4520 Main Street, Suite 400
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Telephone: (816) 471-1301
         Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
         E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com

CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Groundwater Contamination in Shannon
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in this case are pleased to announce that the
individual claims period will begin on July 10, 2021. The claims
period will run for 12 months and will end on July 10, 2022.

On December 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to grant
leave to appeal to the parties. The January 17, 2020, decision of
the Quebec Court of Appeal ordering Canada and the other defendants
to pay moral and punitive damages in connection with the
contamination of the groundwater in the municipality of Shannon has
therefore put an end to the litigation between the parties.

According to this decision, persons aged 18 years and over on
December 21, 2000, and who resided in certain specific areas of the
municipality of Shannon, Quebec, for at least a month during
certain periods between April 1995 and June 2006 could be entitled
to cumulative compensation ranging from $250 to $64,000, plus
interest and additional indemnity accrued between July 16, 2007,
and the date of payment of the compensation.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was announced, the
parties have been engaged in discussions with respect to the terms
of the protocol that will govern the individual claims process. The
parties worked together throughout the discussions to develop this
protocol and to ensure that the steps it sets out could be carried
out promptly and efficiently.

In the context of said discussions, the parties agreed to propose
the services of a claims administrator to manage the claims
process. This decision was made to ensure a rigorous, fast and
efficient claims process.

The Superior Court of Quebec approved the agreed-upon protocol on
June 30, 2021.

Additional information is available on the website created by the
claims administrator for the Claims Process, at
actioncollectiveshannon.ca. [GN]

CANDID CARE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candid Care Co. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Candid Care Co., Case No.
1:21-cv-05890 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Candid Co. -- https://www.candidco.com/ -- sells direct-to-consumer
clear aligners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARLOTZ INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz publicly traded
securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 7, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to
close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next
two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at
$7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross
profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company
had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500 but reported
$1,182.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to
close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%,
to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less
than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced"
during second quarter 2021 to date.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to
close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a
surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz
was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and
higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross
profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize
returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for
more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering
aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit
per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's
corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments
to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing
wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

                     About Bragar Eagel & Squire

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against CarLotz, Inc. ('CarLotz' or
'the Company') (NASDAQ:LOTZ; LOTZW) and certain of its directors on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz
securities between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lotz.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) due to a surge in inventory during the second
half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a 'logjam' resulting
in slower processing and higher days to sell; (2) as a result, the
Company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3)
to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner
responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company
was offering aggressive pricing; (4) as a result, CarLotz's gross
profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) CarLotz's
corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments
to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing
wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/lotz or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in CarLotz
you have until September 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: LOTZ) securities between December 30, 2020 and
May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CarLotz investors
have until September 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to
close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next
two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at
$7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross
profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company
had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500, but reported
$1,182.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to
close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%,
to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less
than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced"
during second quarter 2021 to date.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to
close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a
surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz
was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and
higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross
profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize
returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for
more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering
aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit
per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's
corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments
to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing
wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased CarLotz securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 7, 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 CarLotz securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

CARLOTZ INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LOTZ) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired CarLotz publicly traded securities between December 30,
2020, and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

On May 26, 2021, the Company's stock price fell 13.4% after the
consignment-to-retail used vehicle marketplace operator announced
its profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner had paused
consignments to the Company. The Company cut its year guidance as a
result of the current business climate, as impacted by the lack of
vehicles from this profit-sharing account, coupled with the
unpredictable timeline of the chip shortage for new cars and its
impact on the wholesale and retail automotive markets.

This announcement follows the release of disappointing financial
results for the first quarter of 2021, as revealed in a May 10
press release issued by the Company. CarLotz stock dropped more
than 20% over two days when it reported first quarter results but
did not provide forecasts for gross profit per unit specifically
for the second quarter. William Blair analyst Sharon Zackfia said
in a report that the omission will cause more "investor angst"
about the visibility on its progress toward its full-year targets.
While management reiterated that GPU has improved significantly on
a sequential basis, CarLotz has missed its original GPU targets for
both the fourth and first quarters. Zackfia said CarLotz is also
seeing constrained inventory levels due to rapidly rising wholesale
prices, which has led to some commercial consignors liquidating via
wholesale instead of consignment.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CarLotz
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
September 7, 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. [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP discloses that purchasers of
CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ; LOTZW) securities between December 30,
2020 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
CarLotz class action lawsuit. The CarLotz class action lawsuit was
commenced on July 8, 2021 and charges CarLotz and certain of
CarLotz's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The CarLotz class action lawsuit, Erdman v. CarLotz,
Inc., No. 21-cv-05906, was filed in the Southern District of New
York and is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the CarLotz class action
lawsuit. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the CarLotz class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
7, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: On or about January 21, 2021, CarLotz became a
public entity via merger with Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp., a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") or blank check
company, formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization,
or similar business combination with one or more businesses.

The CarLotz class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) due to a surge in inventory during the second
half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting
in slower processing and higher days to sell; (ii) as a result,
CarLotz's gross profit per unit ("GPU") would be negatively
impacted; (iii) to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle
sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's
inventory, CarLotz was offering aggressive pricing; (iv)
consequently, CarLotz's GPU forecast was likely inflated; (v) that
CarLotz's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause
consignments to CarLotz due to market conditions, including
increasing wholesale prices; and (vi) as such, defendants' positive
statements about CarLotz's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call,
CarLotz stated that gross profit and GPU "were softer than . . .
expected" due to "the surge in inventory during the quarter and the
resulting lower retail unit profitability." CarLotz also reported
that the additional inventory "created a logjam that resulted in
slower processing and higher days to sell." On this news, CarLotz's
stock price fell more than 8%.

Then, on May 10, 2021, CarLotz announced its first quarter 2021
financial results revealing that GPU fell below expectations. In
particular, CarLotz had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and
$1,500, but reported $1,182. On this news, CarLotz's stock price
fell by more than 14%.

Finally, on May 26, 2021, CarLotz announced an update to its
profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz
revealed that its "profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing
partner informed the Company that, in light of current wholesale
market conditions, it has paused consignments to the Company."
Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60% of the cars
sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less than 50% of
the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced" during second
quarter 2021 to date. On this news, CarLotz's stock price fell an
additional 13%, further 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.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased CarLotz
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the CarLotz class action lawsuit. 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 CarLotz class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the CarLotz class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the CarLotz class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

                     About Robbins Geller

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 https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more
information. [GN]

CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Response Deadline Extended to July 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM DAVIS, et al., v.
CHARTER FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00159-CEA-CRW (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Richardson Wyrick entered an order
granting the Defendants motion for extension of time to respond to
the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective and/or class
certification to and including July 26, 2021 and Plaintiffs' reply
is due on August 9, 2021.

No other deadlines are altered by entry of this Order, says Judge
Wyrick.

Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5s2fw at no extra charge.[CC]

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 5
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama against Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE: CCIV) ("CCIV")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired CCIV securities
between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: In accordance with an order issued by
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, the lead plaintiff deadline has been changed to August 30,
2021. CCIV investors who purchased or acquired CCIV securities
during the Class Period may, no later than August 30, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James
Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435;
toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/churchill-capital-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill

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

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

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

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

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

CCIV investors may, no later than August 30, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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

CRUM & FORSTER: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crum & Forster
Insurance Brokers, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Crum
& Forster Insurance Brokers, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05892
(S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Crum & Forster -- https://www.cfins.com/ -- provides specialty and
standard commercial lines insurance products through our admitted
and surplus lines insurance companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEMET'S CANDY: Spurck Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pretzel Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessicca Spurck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Demet's Candy Company, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:21-cv-05506 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's false, deceptive and misleading representation of its
"White Fudge [Covered Pretzels]" because it lacks the type and
amounts of ingredients consumers expect in fudge.

The complaint asserts that the product lacks the type and amount of
dairy and milk fat ingredients essential to fudge - viz, butter -
and substitutes vegetable oils. The absence of milk fat ingredients
and their substitution with vegetable oils means the resulting
"fudge" provides less satiety, has a waxy and oily mouthfeel and
leaves an aftertaste, says the suit.

Demet's Candy Company, LLC manufactures, labels, markets and sells
pretzels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DIDI GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DIDI): (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares")
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between June 30,
2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your DiDi 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/didi-global-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.

DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch.

On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in
its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new
capital.

On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC")
stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect
national security and the public interest. It also reported that it
had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of
the investigation.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered smartphone app
stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because it
"collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws
and regulations." Though users who previously downloaded the app
could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the app takedown may
have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."

On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of
China; (3) that the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to
conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi ADSs pursuant or
traceable to the IPO and /or securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than September 7, 2021 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Schall Law Reminds Investors of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against DiDi Global
Inc. ("DiDi" or "the Company") (NYSE: DIDI) for violations of the
federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
June 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
September 7, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2UMdFB2 to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. DiDi "had the problem of collecting
personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and
regulations." The Company's app would be subjected to a
cybersecurity review by Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC").
The CAC instructed all app stores in the country to remove the
Company's app. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO
period. When the market learned the truth about DiDi, 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. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE:
DIDI). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired DIDI American Depositary Shares
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering or investors who purchased DIDI securities between June
30, 2021 and July 2, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that DiDi Global and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur
scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (3)
the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a
self-examination of its network security; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down
from app stores in China.

Interested DiDi Global investors have until September 7, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

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

DIDI GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that federal
securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) ("DiDi") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired DiDi:

American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with DiDi's June
2021 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or securities between
June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc., you
may, no later than September 7, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADRs of DiDi Global Inc.

On June 30, 2021, DiDi issued an IPO in the United States, in which
they sold approximately 316,800,000 ADRs at a price of $14.00 per
ADR.

The Registration Statement emphasized that DiDi purportedly
"follow[ed] strict procedures in collecting, transmitting, storing
and using user data pursuant to [its] data security and privacy
policies." In fact, the Registration Statement claimed that DiDi
"collect[s] personal information and other data from [its] users
and use such data in the course of [its] operations only with their
prior consent."

The truth began to emerge on July 2, 2021 when the Cyberspace
Administration of China ("CAC") stated that it had launched an
investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public
interest. Following this news, DiDi's ADR price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per ADR on July 2, 2021.

July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered smartphone app
stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because it
"collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws
and regulations." DiDi was ordered to make changes to comply with
Chinese data protection rules to "ensure the safety of the personal
information of users."

On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked DiDi as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone
the offering because of national security concerns and to "conduct
a thorough self-examination of its network security."

Following this news, DiDi's share price fell $3.04 per ADR, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per ADR on July 6, 2021.

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

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]

DOWN & FEATHER: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Down & Feather
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Down & Feather
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05859 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Down & Feather Company -- https://www.downandfeathercompany.com/ --
specialize in sourcing the finest textiles and Hungarian goose down
to make premium quality down bedding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDEN ISLE: Appeals Amendment of Judgment in Skender FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Eden Isle Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Skender v. Eden Isle
Corporation et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00054-BRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central.

On January 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging
that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants failed to pay him overtime for work performed during
off-the-clock hours. He seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay proper overtime compensation.

The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
May 25, 2021, granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e).

The appellate case is captioned as Steson Skender v. Eden Isle
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-2365, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on August 2, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Eden Isle Corporation and Gary Redd is due
on August 2, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Eden Isle Corporation and Gary Redd are
represented by:

          Daveante Jones, Esq.
          Jane A. Kim, Esq.
          WRIGHT & LINDSEY
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          E-mail: jkim@wlj.com  

               - and -

          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT & LINDSEY
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808  

Plaintiff-Appellee Steson Skender, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 39
          Russellville, AR 72811
          Telephone: (479) 880-0088
          E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

EOG RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement in WFM Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White Family Minerals, LLC
v. EOG Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00409 (E.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Ronald A. White entered an order:

   -- preliminarily approving class action settlement;

   -- approving Form and Manner of Notice; and

   -- setting date for final approval hearing to Magistrate
      Judge Kimberly E. West for Findings & Recommendation
      pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)
      (1).

The nature of suit states contract -- other contract.

EOG Resources is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the
Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.[CC]



EQUITY DIRECT: Johnstone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Direct
Financial LLC, et al. The case is styled as Linda Johnstone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Equity Direct Financial LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 8:21-cv-01177-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2021).

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

Equity Direct Financial, LLC in Irvine, California --
http://www.equitydirectfinancial.com/-- specialize in mortgages,
home loans, mortgage rates, refinance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          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: abacon@toddflaw.com
                 tfriedman@toddflaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Former U.S. President Trump Sues Over Censorship
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Miiller at thetrumpet.com reports that soon after the
January 6 Capitol protests, the most influential companies in the
world conspired to muzzle United States President Donald Trump.
Facebook and Twitter shut down his accounts. Apple, Discord,
Google, Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Shopify, Snapchat, Stripe,
TikTok, Twitch, YouTube and other major platforms banned or
restricted his messages. When Parler insisted on allowing the
president to continue using its forum, Apple and Google stepped in
to punish it by blocking the social networking app from their app
stores. This was overt Big Tech censorship against a sitting
president.

On January 7, former First Lady Michelle Obama encouraged this
censorship, saying, "Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies
to stop enabling this monstrous behavior-and go even further than
they have already by permanently banning this man from their
platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technology
from being used by the nation's leader to fuel insurrection."

Six months later, Donald Trump is still banned from Facebook and
Twitter. But with widespread election rigging in Arizona and
Georgia being exposed and Joe Biden's border catastrophe growing
worse by the day, Mr. Trump is ready to start pushing back against
this egregious censorship.

On July 7, Mr. Trump announced that he was filing a class action
lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, Google and their respective
ceos: Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai. "Today, in
conjunction with the America First Policy Institute," he said. "I'm
filing as the lead class representative, a major class-action
lawsuit against the Big Tech giants including Facebook, Google and
Twitter as well as their ceos - Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and
Jack Dorsey, three real nice guys."

Mr. Trump said he would file his lawsuit in the Southern District
of Florida. He addressed claims that Big Tech companies can censor
whomever they want because they are nominally private entities.
"There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than
the fact that they banned the sitting president of the United
States earlier this year," he said. "While the social media
companies are officially private entities, in recent years, they
have ceased to be private with the enactment and their historical
use of Section 230, which profoundly protects them from liability.
It is in effect a massive government subsidy, these companies have
been co-opted, coerced and weaponized by government actors to
become the enforcers of illegal, unconstitutional censorship."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states, "No
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider." In practice, this statute
protects tech companies from lawsuits over content generated by
users on their sites. It gives Facebook, Twitter, and Google the
right to moderate content. Still, it does not provide them with the
responsibility to do so. Mr. Trump claims that Section 230 makes
Big Tech companies dependent on the U.S. government, and therefore
more willing to engage in government-sponsored censorship that
violates freedom of speech. Legal experts do not think Mr. Trump's
lawsuit has a chance in court, so it is likely that his July 7
announcement is more of a publicity stunt to relaunch his political
career by focusing people's minds on Big Tech censorship.

Whether or not these companies have a legal right to censor people,
Big Tech censorship is still a danger to America. For eight years,
behavioral psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein has warned that Google
can easily determine the outcome of elections by adjusting its
search algorithms to favor one political party over another.
Research shows that Google handles over 86 percent of all search
queries worldwide. And when Google's search results come up, 95
percent of the clicks are on the very first page of search results.
When Google pushes a site off the first page, very few will ever
click on it.

"Google's search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences
of undecided voters by 20 percent or more-up to 80 percent in some
demographic groups-with virtually no one knowing they are being
manipulated," Epstein wrote in a 2015 editorial "How Google Could
Rig the 2016 Election."

Epstein based his calculations on experiments he conducted with
Ronald Robertson and published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Epstein told Fox News on Nov. 23, 2020, that he believed search
engine manipulation shifted a "bare minimum" of 6 million votes to
Joe Biden during the 2020 election. If true, Mr. Trump would have
won the popular vote and the electoral vote if Google had not
biased news coverage against him.

Former Google employee Zachary Vorhies went public as a
whistleblower in 2019, leaking over 950 pages of internal Google
documents to Project Veritas and the Justice Department. The
information confirmed that Google had biased its algorithms to
promote liberalism and suppress conservatism. It also revealed that
Google has blacklists of search terms and a blacklist of websites.

Vorhies warned, "[T]he reason why I collected these documents was
because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the
company, and I realized that they were going to not only tamper
with the elections but use that tampering with the elections to
essentially overthrow the United States."

For 230 years, the U.S. has been a constitutional republic where
people freely elect the representatives who govern them. Now
Google's board of directors is trying to change that-not by
abolishing elections but by gradually increasing its control over
what people learn and know. If it can manipulate what people think
is true, it can fundamentally change America into whatever it
wants!

Bible prophecy reveals how the devil uses a host of people to cast
truth to the ground. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince
of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the
place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him
against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast
down the truth to the ground . . . . " (Daniel 8:11-12).

Antiochus iv Epiphanes fulfilled this prophecy when he desecrated
the temple in Jerusalem with an idol of himself. But the book of
Daniel was written for the end time (Daniel 12:4). This prophecy
about Antiochus is also being fulfilled in God's Church and in
America in our time.

Strong's Concordance defines "host" as "a mass of persons (or
figuratively, things), especially reg. organized for war (an army)
. . . . ." Depending on the context, the expression can refer to an
army of demons, angels or men. The host referred to in Daniel 8 is
an army of demons and evil men who help an end-time Antiochus in
God's Church and an end-time Antiochus in the United States of
America.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explains in America Under
Attack that the spiritual Antiochus "cast down the truth to the
ground" inside God's Church, and a political Antiochus is doing the
same thing in the United States. The most anti-Bible president in
American history, Barack Obama, fulfills the role of the political
Antiochus. He is out of office now, but he and his powerful allies
have been at work in the mainstream media trying to, as Vorhies
said, "essentially overthrow the United States."

A host of bureaucrats, military leaders, intelligence agents, media
moguls, tech entrepreneurs, Wall Street financiers and Chinese
spies are helping this Antiochus-type cast truth to the ground.
This network is the biggest threat to America today. It aims to
destroy the United States, its Judeo-Christian history, its
constitutional form of government, and the biblical principles this
form of government is based on.

God exposes the corruption in U.S. politics so people have a chance
to repent before a lawless spirit destroys America by replacing the
rule of law with the horrifying rule of powerful deception and
brutal force. When people do not sincerely love the truth, they
come to believe lies (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

Like the ballot audits in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton
County, Georgia, Donald Trump's class action lawsuit against
Facebook, Twitter and Google is a vital part of this exposure!

For more information on the threat that Big Tech companies pose to
America, please read our articles "The Obama Media Empire Strikes
Back" and "The Biggest Threat to American Democracy." And for more
information about the role Donald Trump is playing in Bible
prophecy, please read "What Will Happen After Trump Regains Power,"
by Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry. [GN]

FISHMAN GROUP: Kline FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD KLINE Sr., LINDA
KLINE, and IRREONA BYRD, On behalf of themselves and All others
similarly situated, v. FISHMAN GROUP PC, RYAN FISHMAN, MARC
FISHMAN, ALEXANDRA ICHIM, FENTON OAKS, LLC dba FENTON OAKS MHC, And
PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. OF MICHIGAN d/b/a PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11272-NGE-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs and putative class plaintiffs ask the Court
granting their motion for class certification and appointment of
class counsel.

This case arises, in relevant part, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), the Michigan Occupation Code (MCO), the
Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA), and Unjust
Enrichment, Negligence, and Conversion pursuant to the common law.


The Plaintiffs and the putative class are allegedly obligated to
pay debts now owed or due to Defendant Creditors. The Plaintiffs'
alleged obligations owed or due arise from transactions in which
the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of
the transactions were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r2WSFL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alyson Oliver, Esq.
          Christopher Brown, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
          1647 W. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Rex Anderson, Esq.
          REX ANDERSON PC
          9459 Lapeer Road No. 1011
          Davison, MI 48423
          Telephone: (810) 653-3300
          E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net

FLORIDA: Lawsuit Claims Sugarcane Burning Makes Residents Sick
--------------------------------------------------------------
cbs12.com reports that the sugar industry is a multi-billion dollar
business that employs thousands of people statewide, and for about
half the year, Florida sugarcane farmers set their crops on fire.

Sugarcane burning is a cheap and effective way to harvest one of
the state's most important crops, but concern is growing that too
much smoke can cause health issues for people who live and work
near the cane fields.

The Glades region is key to sugarcane production, and "big sugar"
is the top employer in town.

Now, some say the burns are making them sick.

"Doctors talk about how people in the Glades come to them in
September and October because they know they're about to have
respiratory issues for the next six months," Matthew Moore, an
attorney at Berman Law Group, told CBS12 News. Moore is the lead
attorney on a class-action lawsuit claiming that sugarcane burning
is affecting the health of Glades residents.

Michael Brauer, an internationally recognized air quality expert,
agrees that the pollutants in the air caused by these burns can be
very harmful to people who live in nearby communities.

"This is quite serious stuff," Brauer said. "Half the year of high
pollution is quite extreme."

A spokesperson for the U.S. Sugar Corp told CBS12 News that the air
quality in the Glades in in compliance with the Clean Air Act,
writing in an email, "the Glades communities enjoy some of the best
air quality in the state of Florida, with Palm Beach and Hendry
counties ranking among the top of all of Florida's 67 counties."

The government does have one air monitor in Belle Glade monitoring
the air quality all year long, but some are concerned that might
not be sufficient.

"Basically that state monitor is probably not picking up the spread
of the smoke," Brauer said.

During an independent investigation, the Palm Beach Post and
ProPublica partnered to test the air quality in the region to see
whether the government-run air sensor was missing any harmful
pollutants. They used their own sensors and reported that the
single air monitor doesn't always account for short spikes in
pollution that occur during a burn.

U.S. Sugar says the air monitor in Belle Glade is effective and
accurate, and they criticized the Post/ProPublica effort, writing
"the Palm Beach Post story relies on data from amateur-grade air
monitors they stuck in a Pahokee resident's yard, not
professionally set up or following the protocols outlined by the
EPA." For a full statement, click here.

Meanwhile, after overcoming numerous challenges to his suit, Moore
is now gearing up to face these companies in court.

"Sugar keeps coming back and coming back, trying to pick at our
lawsuit and so far we've prevailed," Moore told CBS12 News.

Moore says he hopes these companies will ultimately switch to a
more environmentally responsible and health-conscious method for
harvesting sugar. One option, is what he calls 'mechanical
harvesting,' otherwise known as 'green harvesting.' This is a
process by which machines with cutting blades remove the outer
foliage from sugarcane instead of burning the leaves off.

"Burning is a cheap way to do it," he said. "But it remains
completely perplexing why they stick to this burning when there's a
viable alternative that's fairly easy for them to switch."

In the early 1990's, the Department of Florida Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) made some changes to the state's burning
regulations. The changes came after complaints from residents in
Royal Palm Beach and Wellington, and did now allow for burning when
the winds blew eastward towards costal cities.

Since then, the rules have been updated. Agriculture Commissioner
Nikki Fried began introducing 'improvements' to the state's
prescribed burning program in 2019. Among the changes was an
initiative to re-zone the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)
beginning in 2021. The majority of the EAA lies within Palm Beach
County, and in a press release, Fried's team noted "the zones have
been redrawn to lessen the potential smoke impact across all
communities."

Still, people CBS12 News spoke to in the Glades have not noticed a
difference in the smoke concentration since the new regulations and
re-zoning went into effect. [GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on July 5 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT DNMR:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

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

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT FREQ:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company's Phase 2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's
expectations as the results revealed no discernable difference
between FX-322 and the placebo. In spite of the disappointing
results, the Company continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while
releasing positive statements in earnings calls, press releases,
SEC filings, and pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's
potential. These statements materially misled the market and
artificially inflated the value of Frequency's common stock.

RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RLX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17383&from=1
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 9, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company's then-existing exposure to China's ongoing campaign to
establish a national standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring
them into line with ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's
reported financials were not nearly as robust as the offering
materials projected, nor were they indicative of future results. As
a result, investors purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated
prices.

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

CONTACT:

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

FRONTIER MANAGEMENT: Wright Appeals FLSA Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joshua Wright filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY, HALEY QUAM,
and AIESHA LEWIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR
LIVING LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING LLC, dba GREENHAVEN ESTATES
ASSISTED LIVING, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD, in the
U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 15, 2021, Judge
John A. Mendez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Joshua Wright, Loretta Stanley, Haley Quam, and Aiesha Lewis
("Plaintiffs") filed the putative class action against the
Defendants over several of their wage and hour policies. The
Defendants operate a chain of retirement and assisted living
communities.

Plaintiff Wright worked as a medication technician at one of the
assisted living locations in California from April 12, 2018, until
March 15, 2019. Stanley worked as a lead medical technician and
caregiver at a facility in Oregon from December 2018, until
September 2019. Quam worked as a caregiver at a facility in
Washington from September 2017, until September 2018. Lewis worked
as a caregiver at a facility in Illinois from July 2017, until
October 2017. The Plaintiffs, collectively, allege that the
Defendants' wage and hour practices violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

Plaintiff Wright, on behalf of the California class, alleges
violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code and
behavior amounting to unfair business practices in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code. Quam, on behalf of the
Washington class, alleges violations of Washington labor law and
the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Lewis, on behalf of the
Oregon class, alleges a host of labor violations pursuant to Oregon
law. Stanley, on behalf of the Illinois class, alleges violations
of Illinois labor law, consumer fraud, and deceptive business
practices. The Plaintiffs' state law claims are similar in that
they generally allege that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate them and denied them several employee entitlements like
meal and rest periods and accurate, itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the dismissal order
entered by Judge Mendez.

The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Wright, et al. v.
Frontier Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-16052, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 22,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Joshua Wright Mediation Questionnaire was due June
29, 2021;

   -- Appellant Joshua Wright opening brief is due on August 16,
2021;

   -- Appellees Frontier Management, LLC, Frontier Senior Living,
LLC and GH Senior Living, LLC answering brief is due on September
15, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHUA WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com  

Defendants-Appellees FRONTIER MANAGEMENT, LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR
LIVING, LLC, and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC, DBA Greenhaven Estates
Assisted Living, are represented by:

          Barbara Iole Antonucci, Esq.
          Sarah Hamilton, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 918-3006
          E-mail: bantonucci@constangy.com
                  shamilton@constangy.com   

               - and -

          Anthony Sbardellati, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 909-7775  
          E-mail: asbardellati@constangy.com

FUJI HANA: Desheng Lin Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deliverymen
-------------------------------------------------------------
DESHENG LIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUJI HANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Fuji Hana
Kosher Japanese Restaurant d/b/a Fuji Hana; LORRAINE GINDI, ESTATE
OF ISADORE GINDI, by executor RAYMOND BETESH, ISADORE NATKIN, and
JACK COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03832 (E.D.N.Y., July 7,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked,
failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to keep
records, failure to provide time of hire wage notice, failure to
provide wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and misappropriated tips.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deliveryman at
512 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York from January 01, 2006 to June 21,
2021.

Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
under the name Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant located at 512
Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         John Troy, Esq.
         Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324

FULL TRUCK: Kohn Sues Over Omitted Material Facts on IPO Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS EDUARDO KOHN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL TRUCK ALLIANCE CO. LTD.,
PETER HUI ZHANG, SIMON CHONG CAI, SHANSHAN GUO, GUIZHEN MA, WENJIAN
DAI, RICHARD WEIDONG JI, JENNIFER XINZHE LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES,
COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL
CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS
(ASIA) L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED and CLSA
LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 654232/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 7,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false
and misleading registration statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in order to attract investors to purchase Full
Truck Alliance American Depositary Shares (ADSs) on its initial
public offering (IPO) on January 23, 2021. Specifically, the
registration statement allegedly failed to disclose that Full Truck
Alliance was the subject of a cybersecurity review by the Chinese
government that threatened the company's ability to operate and
grow its proprietary platform. Rather than disclose these facts,
the registration statement claimed that the company complied with
all data privacy laws and was committed to the protection and
security of user data.

When the truth emerged, Full Truck Alliance's ADSs fell to a low of
only $14.89 per ADS on July 6, 2021, before closing at $17.75 per
ADS and continuing to fall the next trading day. This intraday low
represented a nearly 22% decline from the price at which Full Truck
Alliance's ADSs had been sold to the investing public in the IPO
less than two weeks previously, says the suit.

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. is a company that operates a digital
freight platform based in Guizhou, China.

Cogency Global Inc. is a provider of registered agent service based
in New York, New York.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.

China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities
Limited is a wealth management firm based in Hong Kong, China.

Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is a wealth management firm based in
Hong Kong, China.

UBS Securities LLC is an investment bank based in New York, New
York.

Huatai Securities (USA), Inc. is a broker dealer, headquartered in
New York, New York.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a provider of banking and
financial services, headquartered in New York, New York.

Nomura Securities International, Inc. is a financial services
company, headquartered in New York, New York.

China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited is a financial
institution based in China.

CLSA Limited is a capital markets and investment group based in
Hong Kong, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 367-7100
         Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and –

         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 674-4674
         Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
         E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and –

         Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
         JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
         1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 292-5690
         Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
         E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com

FUNZALO & CANTEET: Watson Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVIS WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUNZALO & CANTEET, INC. d/b/a "Right at
Home", ZUBIN KAPADIA, SANDRA P. QUARTUCCIO, PHILIP QUARTUCCIO and
JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03833 (E.D.N.Y., July
7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, violations of Wage Parity Act, the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, failure to pay spread of hours premium, failure to
maintain accurate records, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health
aide/maid from about October 30, 2020 until about April 15, 2021.

Funzalo & Canteet, Inc. is a home health care services company,
with its principal place of business at 400 Post Ave. Suite 302,
Westbury, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         William C. Rand, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
         501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 286-1425
         Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
         E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

GAIN CAPITAL: Zhang Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jun Zhang filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled JUN ZHANG, a.k.a., JUNE ZHANG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAIN
CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3-20-cv-09426, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 4, 2021, Judge
Brian R. Martinotti issued an Opinion:

   a. granting Defendant Gain Capital Holdings ("GCH")'s Motion
      to Dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non
      conveniens; and

   b. denying as moot GCH's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Jun
      Zhang's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

GCH is a global provider of trading services and solutions with
customers located in over 180 countries. Its shares are traded on
the New York Stock Exchange and it has offices in New York,
Illinois, Ohio, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, China,
U.A.E., Poland, and Singapore. GCH uses a global digital trading
platform that can be accessed through the internet and mobile
devices. Its retail customers are composed of "self-directed
traders" who execute trades on their own behalf.

In 2018, these self-directed traders represented approximately
99.7% of GCH's retail trading volume. Trades are executed through
GCH's GAIN Trader proprietary trading platform. GCH has several
operating subsidies, including a Cayman Islands company named Gain
Global Market, Inc. ("GGMI").

The Plaintiff is a self-directed trader who has been using GCH's
GAIN Trader platform to trade derivatives of commodity futures
since 2017. When the Plaintiff opened his account through GCH's
website, forex.com, he had to fill in his personal information and
set up a username and password. The Plaintiff does not remember
signing any contract for opening the account, and the entire
process took him only a few minutes. To his understanding, GCH's
platform allows its users to buy and sell futures derivatives
offered by GCH -- it is not an agent which buys and sells futures
on behalf of the users.

The Plaintiff alleges the action arose from the negative pricing of
WTI futures. On April 3, 2020, the CME Group announced to its CME
Globex and Market Data customers that effective April 5, 2020,
futures and options including crude oil will be flagged as eligible
to trade at negative prices. Historically, negative pricing for
commodity trading has existed for many years, but the CME Group did
not allow it until April 5, 2020. On April 8, 2020, CME Group
published an advisory notice which stated, in relevant part, that
if major energy prices continued to fall towards zero in the
following months, CME Clearing had a tested plan to support the
possibility of negative options and enable markets to continue to
function normally. The notice specifically mentioned WTI Crude Oil
futures, RBOB Gasoline futures, and Heating Oil futures for
possible negative pricing.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the dismissal order entered by
Judge Martinotti.

The appellate case is captioned as Jun Zhang v. Gain Capital
Holdings Inc., Case No. 21-2206, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JUN ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, AKA June Zhang, is represented by:

          Jing J. Li, Esq.
          LILAW INC
          1905 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 200
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (650) 521-5956

               - and -

          Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
          1 School Street
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 595-8887

Defendant-Appellee GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Michael M. Rosensaft, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
          575 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 940-6631
          E-mail: michael.rosensaft@kattenlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Yukon Taillights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors by a
plaintiff who says the taillights on their K2XX-platform GMC Yukon
are faulty.

This lawsuit, which was first reported on by Car Complaints, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by a plaintiff named Rhonda Small. The plaintiff claims the
factory taillights in their K2XX-platform GMC Yukon have faulty LED
light strips that may cause the brake and/or taillights to fail.
These lights may also have a faulty connection inside the light
assembly or a defective circuit board, which can lead to similar
issues with the brake and taillights.

GM issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) in November of 2019
for certain 2015-2016 model year GMC Yukon SUVs to address a
problem with these vehicle's taillights. The TSB, entitled "Tail
Lamps Inoperative," indicated the stop and tail functions inside
the taillamps may experience various issues and instructed dealers
"to replace tail lamps if they are found to be inoperative." The
class action lawsuit says later model year GMC Yukon vehicles
should have been included in this TSB, which only involved 2015 and
2016 model year vehicles.

As noted by Car Complaints, the plaintiff says the problems with
the taillights can be traced back to the "defective design of the
alloy base circuit used to maintain continuity," in the taillights
of affected vehicles.

"The alloy's inability to expand and contract due to the current
design causes the Tail Lamp Assembly Defect, whereby the alloy
breaks, interrupts the current from maintaining continuity, and
results in failure when the circuit trace inside the housing
cracks," the lawsuit says. "The tail lamp assembly should have had
expansion and contraction points to prevent premature failure."

This lawsuit also says the taillights can experience similar issues
if enough moisture is allowed to enter the light assembly. If this
condition occurs, owners may also observe moisture or a clear white
film forming on the inside of the taillight lense(s).

The plaintiff claims GM has actively tried to hide these defects
and has left GMC Yukon owners on the hook for costly repairs. The
filing also alleges this problem is so widespread that it has led
to a backorder of replacement parts across the country.

We'll provide an update on this class-action proceeding as it moves
through the courts. [GN]

GRANITE SERVICES: Campo Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIO CAMPO, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. GRANITE SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00223-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all employees of Granite Services and FieldCore (except
      for EHS employees who worked in Texas) in the past three
      years who were paid "straight time for overtime;"

   2. directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel
      within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
      containing the names, the last known addresses, phone
      numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members
      within the defined class;

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendant's counsel by first-class mail, e-mail, and text-
      message;

   4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendants with 60 days from the date the
      notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become
      Opt-In Plaintiff; and

   5. any other relief that is just and appropriate.

Granite Services provides professional engineering services. The
Company provides service solutions to the power generation
industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TT4PkV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
           C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
           MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
           8581 Peters Road, Suite 4000
           Plantation, FL 33324
           Telephone: (954) WORKERS
           Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
           E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                    rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                - and -

           Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
           Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
           JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
           11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
           Houston, TX 77005
           Telephone: (713) 352-1100
           Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
           E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                    adunlap@mybackwages.com

                - and -

           Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
           BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
           8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
           Houston, TX 77046
           Telephone: (713) 877-8788
           Facsimile: (710) 877-8065
           E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00274, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on July 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-TCB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the Unfair
Competition Law including failure to pay overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide
compensation for missed meal and rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records, and waiting time penalties.

Granite Services International, Inc. is a professional engineering
services company doing business in Florida.

FieldCore Services Solutions, LLC is an independent industrial
field services company based in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         P.O. Box 4979
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
         E-mail: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

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

GUIDANT GLOBAL: Opposes Ward Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WARD, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a
GROUP INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Defendants Guidant Global, Inc. and Corporate Employment Resources,
Inc. oppose the Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff William Ward seeks to certify a nationwide class of
Defendant's employees who were paid "straight time for overtime."
While Plaintiff was paid "straight time for overtime," Bartech's
practice is legal under the FLSA and therefore Ward cannot show the
requisite widespread violation of law.

Moreover, Plaintiff's proof falls well short of what is required to
show that the class he seeks to represent is similarly situated,
and there are a high number of individualized determinations that
would need to be made. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion should be
denied, the Defendants say.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wzbduS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Pavlick, Esq.
          Gregory N. Blase, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          210 Sixth Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 355-6275
          Facsimile (412) 355-6501
          E-mail: Michael.Pavlick@klgates.com
                  Gregory.Blase@klgates.com

HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ashley Popa filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harriet Carter Gifts,
Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation and Navistone, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2-19-cv-00450, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated against Defendants alleging that they
violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Control Act of 1978 by unlawfully intercepting her data while she
shopped online.

According to the complaint, in early 2018, Popa visited Harriet
Carter's website, www.harrietcarter.com, where she provided her
email address, searched for pet stairs, and added one or more items
to her online cart but ultimately did not purchase anything.
Although this interaction seems simple enough, it was
simultaneously accompanied by various underlying communications
between Popa's Safari web browser, Harriet Carter's website server,
and a marketing technology company's -- Navistone's -- servers. It
is from the interplay between these underlying communications that
Popa brings this action alleging that "Harriet Carter procured
Navistone to automatically and secretly spy on, and intercept,
Harriet Carter's website visitors['] electronic communications with
Harriet Carter in real-time." Popa alleges that both Harriet Carter
and Navistone violated Section 5703 of WESCA because Navistone
unlawfully intercepted her communications with Harriet Carter.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order, Memorandum
Opinion and Judgment dated June 17, 2021, granting Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Ashley Popa v. Harriet Carter
Gifts Inc., et al., Case No. 21-2203, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ASHLEY POPA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com  

Defendants-Appellees HARRIET CARTER GIFTS INC, a Pennsylvania
corporation; and NAVISTONE INC, a Delaware corporation, are
represented by:

          Carrie H. Dettmer Slye, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 852-2626
          E-mail: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com  

               - and -

          Emily B. Thomas, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          2929 Arch Street
          12th Floor, Cira Centre
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 564-8368
          E-mail: ethomas@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Bertoni, Esq.
          Eamonn Hart, Esq.
          David Swetnam-Burland, Esq.
          BRANN & ISAACSON
          184 Main Street, P.O. Box 3070
          Lewiston, ME 04243
          Telephone: (207) 786-3566
          E-mail: dbertoni@brannlaw.com
                  ehart@brannlaw.com
                  dsb@brannlaw.com   

               - and -

          Devin J. Chwastyk
          Rachel R. Hadrick, Esq.
          MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK
          100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166
          Harrisburg, PA 17108
          Telephone: (717) 237-5482
          E-mail: dchwastyk@mwn.com
                  rhadrick@mcneeslaw.com

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Strelow Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jennifer Strelow filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK, DMD, P.S.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage
relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay
Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going
concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the
lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Strelow, et al. v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 21-35478, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June
23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Jennifer Strelow Mediation Questionnaire was due
June 30, 2021;

   -- Appellant Jennifer Strelow opening brief is due on August 17,
2021;

   -- Appellee Hartford Casualty Insurance Company answering brief
is due on September 16, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JENNIFER STRELOW, DMD, is represented by:

          Kathryn M. Knudsen, Esq.
          RUIZ & SMART PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1220
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 203-9100

               - and -

          Sarah Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005

HEALTH PLAN: Subject to Anti-Discrimination Provision Under ACA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lacie Pierson, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
federal judge ruled that The Health Plan of West Virginia is
subject to compliance to a specific provision under the Affordable
Care Act that prohibits sex discrimination, including against
transgender Americans.

The Health Plan of West Virginia is a private company that provides
health insurance services for the state. U.S. District Judge Robert
Chambers on June 28 denied a motion from The Health Plan to dismiss
a lawsuit from two transgender men who say their state-funded
health insurance won't cover hormone replacement therapy solely
because they are transgender.

Christopher Fain and Zachary Martell filed a lawsuit challenging
blanket exclusions of coverage for gender-confirming health care in
West Virginia's health plans, the state's Medicaid program and the
Public Employees Insurance Agency, or PEIA, in November 2020.

The case is pending in U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of West Virginia.

Martell receives health care coverage through his husband, Brian
McNemar, who is a public employee and receives benefits through
PEIA.

Their respective health care insurance providers have denied Fain
and Martell, both of Huntington, coverage for their testosterone
prescriptions because neither West Virginia Medicaid nor PEIA
covers "treatments associated with gender dysphoria," they said in
the class-action lawsuit.

Not only have Martell and McNemar had to pay out of pocket for the
coverage, but Martell, at times, has either had to delay or forgo
treatment, he said in the lawsuit.

The men are seeking a permanent injunction that would require the
state agencies to provide coverage for treatments for all
gender-confirming health care treatment, as well as other
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

In the motion to dismiss the case, attorneys for The Health Plan
argued that the health insurance company should be dismissed as a
defendant because Martell and McNemar didn't allege that their
specific health care plan was supported by federal money through
the Affordable Care Act, meaning it wasn't subject to the
anti-discrimination provision in the law.

The Health Plan's attorneys also argued that Martell's claim
against the company should be dismissed because his claim is
through his husband's health insurance, making him a secondary
party to any issues with the plan.

The Health Plan's attorneys specifically relied on a definition of
"health program or activity" as it pertains to Section 1557 of the
Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care
on the basis of sex and other characteristics.

The Trump administration narrowed the definition of "health program
or activity" to include entities "principally engaged in the
business of providing health care.

In denying the motion, Chambers said that, without clarity in the
law from Congress, existing legal precedent keeps the definition of
"health program or activity" open to interpretation. He noted that
The Health Plan did receive federal financial assistance through
its Medicare Advantage program, making it accountable to the
provisions of Section 1557.

"Congress clearly intended to prohibit discrimination by any entity
acting within the 'health' system," Chambers said in his order.
"Here, The Health Plan's role as a health insurance provider
undoubtedly implicates the health of persons falling within the
scope of [Affordable Care Act] protections."

In addition to The Health Plan of West Virginia, other defendants
named in the lawsuit are Bill Crouch, secretary of the state
Department of Health and Human Resources; Cynthia Beane,
commissioner for the state Bureau of Medical Services; PEIA
director Ted Cheatham; and the DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services.
[GN]

JAMES RIVER: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against James River Group Holdings,
Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) and certain of
its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class
Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased James River common stock between August 1, 2019 and
May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged
thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action is captioned: Employees'
Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth dba Fort Worth Employees'
Retirement Fund v. James River Group Holdings, Ltd, et. al.,
3:21-cv-00444 (E.D. Va.).

James River is a Bermuda-based holding company that owns and
operates a group of specialty insurance and reinsurance companies.
In 2014, James River ramped up its Commercial Auto Division by
underwriting a new type of insurance policy that covered Rasier LLC
("Rasier"), a subsidiary of the ride-sharing company Uber
Technologies, Inc. (together with Rasier, "Uber").

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2)
James River was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves
that materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber
claims; (3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its
unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling
the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

The truth emerged through two disclosures that caused James River's
stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial losses.
First, on October 8, 2019, James River announced that it had
delivered a notice of early cancellation, effective December 31,
2019, for all insurance policies issued to Uber, though the Company
remained contracted to provide coverage for future claims related
to the period the Company's Uber policies were in effect (known as
"runoff"). The Company also advised of an adverse development
between $55 and $60 million-primarily related to Uber policies for
the 2016 and 2017 underwriting years. In response to this news,
James River's stock price fell $11.06 per share, or more than 22
percent. Significantly, despite the runoff coverage commitment,
Defendants assured investors throughout the Class Period that James
River's issues with Uber were behind it and the Company had
adequately reserved. These misrepresentations and omissions caused
the Company's stock to continue trading at artificially inflated
prices.

Then, on May 5, 2021, eighteen months after the Company announced
its cancellation of the Uber contract, and after repeated
assurances to investors that the legacy contract posed no
challenges, James River surprised the market by disclosing an
additional $170 million of unfavorable reserves related to the Uber
policies. In response to this news, James River's stock price
dropped $12.27 per share, or more than 26 percent.

If you purchased James River common stock during the Class Period
and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply
to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia no
later than September 7, 2021. The lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.

You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in the Class Action.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN]

KROGER COMPANY: Reply to Kibler Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kibler v. Kroger Company,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00509 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A.
Brimmer entered an order granting motion for extension of time to
file response/reply to first motion to certify supervisors class on
or before July 16, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kroger is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in
1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the United States' largest
supermarket by revenue, and the second-largest general retailer.
[CC]

L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Class Certification Responses Due July 28
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Umbrino, et al., v.
L.A.R.E. Partners Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-06559
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order
regarding motion to certify class:

   -- Responses are due on or before July 28, 2021.

   -- Replies are due on or before August 4, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

LEGEND ENERGY: Rose Sues Over Mass Layoff of Electrical Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ROSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LEGEND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-00124 (W.D. Tex., July 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and
Notification Act by terminating the Plaintiff's employment without
advance written notice as part of a mass layoff ordered by the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an electrical
technician from September 2020 to May 15, 2021.

Legend Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Curt Hesse, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre
         440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
         Houston, TX 77002-1055
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net

LUMICO LIFE: Shelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and ASSURANCE IQ, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-06494, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on July 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03045-JMY to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system
without prior express written notice.

Lumico Life Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business at 175 King Street, Armonk, New York.

Assurance IQ, Inc. is a provider of software solutions, with its
principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
         KEOGH LAW, LTD.
         55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 726-1092
         Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
         E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

MARICOPA, AZ: Luckey Suit Seeks to Certify Two Waiver Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel Luckey and Michael
Calhoun, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, and
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, v. Allister Adel, in her
official capacity as County Attorney for Maricopa County, Case No.
2:21-cv-01168-JJT—ESW (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying two classes:

   1. The "Pre-Waiver Class"

      "All current and future people whom the Maricopa County
      Attorney's Office 5 (MCAO) has charged and assigned to
      Maricopa County's Early Disposition 6 Courts (EDCs) and
      who are subject to MCAO's blanket policy, practice, or
      custom of making or threatening to make plea offers
      harsher in response to people exercising their right to a
      preliminary hearing and/or trial, but who have not yet
      made the decision to waive their preliminary hearing or
      reject their initial plea offer; and

   2. The "Post-Waiver Class"

      "All current and future people whom the MCAO has charged
      and assigned to Maricopa County's EDCs, and who are
      subject to MCAO's blanket policy, practice, or custom of
      making or threatening to make plea offers harsher in
      response to people exercising their right to a preliminary
      hearing and/or trial, but who have waived their
      preliminary and/or rejected their initial plea offer.

This action seeks to protect people accused of crimes in the EDCs
from the Defendant's unconstitutional policy of making plea offers
"substantially harsher" in retaliation for defendants asserting
their rights to a preliminary hearing and/or trial (the
"Retaliation Policy"). Arizonans are guaranteed a right to trial
under the U.S. Constitution and guaranteed a preliminary hearing
under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona statutes.

In Maricopa County, people charged with felonies by information and
not a grand jury are first taken before a magistrate judge for an
initial appearance. The initial appearance is a non-adversarial
proceeding at which the magistrate, among other things, (1)
determines whether the person is indigent for purposes of assigning
a public defender; (2) sets dates for
28 a status conference and follow-up preliminary hearing, and (3)
decides whether the person will be detained while awaiting those
dates.

Maricopa County is located in the south-central part of the U.S.
state of Arizona. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated its population
was 4,485,414 as of 2019, making it the state's most populous
county, and the fourth-most populous in the United States,
containing about 62% of Arizona's population.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yOtAgN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Somil Trivedi, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          915 15 th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 715-0802
          E-mail: strivedi@aclu.org

               - and -

          Jared G. Keenan, Esq.
          Victoria Lopez, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          E-mail: jkeenan@acluaz.org
                  vlopez@acluaz.org

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Non-Party Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as TODD HALL, KEVIN
BRANCA, and GEORGE ABDELSAYED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
3:21-mc-80165-TSH, Julie Drassinower, a non-party, filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
7, 2021 a motion to quash a deposition subpoena that was issued to
her on June 10, 2021 by Defendant Marriott International, Inc. in
the case captioned Todd Hall et al. v. Marriott International,
Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG, that is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California's consumer protection laws by engaging in false and
deceptive advertising of its hotel rooms, services, and amenities.

Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational company
that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties, headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland. [BN]

The Non-Party is represented by:                
     
         Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
         Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
         Lilach Halperin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
         651 Arroyo Drive
         San Diego, CA 92103
         Telephone: (619) 696-9006
         Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
         E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 lilach@consumersadvocates.com

                - and –

         Robert L. Teel, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
         1425 Broadway
         Seattle, WA 98122
         Telephone: (866) 833-5529
         Facsimile: (855) 609-6911

                - and –

         L Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

MARTIN JUGENBURG: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Patient Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018, Dr. Martin Jugenburg
(the self-styled "Dr. 6ix") operated surveillance video cameras
throughout his clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute,
located in the toney Fairmont Royal York Hotel. The cameras were
placed not only in public areas, but within consultation and
examination rooms, and in the operating room. The Information and
Privacy Commissioner found in a September 2019 report that the
clinic's operation of the video surveillance system breached the
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

On November 28, 2019, the law firms of Howie, Sacks & Henry,
Waddell Phillips and Beyond Law launched a proposed class action
against Dr. Jugenburg and his professional corporation, alleging
that patient privacy had been breached. The privacy breach is
alleged to have occurred by Dr. Jugenburg surreptitiously taking
video of his patients without their consent through the network of
surveillance cameras, including during their private doctor-patient
consultations while patients were nude or semi-nude, and during
surgeries. The action claims compensation for Dr. Jugenburg's
patients for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
confidence, breach of trust, intrusion upon seclusion and invasion
of privacy, among other liabilities. None of these allegations have
yet been proven in court.

The action has now been certified to proceed as a class action in
respect of the claims arising from the non-consensual use of
surveillance cameras. A court-approved notice of the class action
will delivered to all patients who attended Dr. Jugenburg's clinic
for any surgical or non-surgical consultations, treatments,
procedures, or follow-up appointments between January 1, 2017 and
December 13, 2018.

More information about the class action and how it may affect you
if you were a patient at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute
between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018 is available on the
law firms' websites.

When originally filed, the lawsuit also included allegations that
Dr. Jugenburg posted some individuals' images without consent
online, through his clinic's website or social media platforms such
as Snapchat and Instagram. The court did not permit these claims to
proceed as part of the class action. Any such claims will have to
be pursued through individual lawsuits. The legal team of Howie,
Sacks & Henry, Waddell Phillips and Beyond Law are available to
discuss whether any individual has a claim for such privacy
breaches.

Patients who attended Dr. Jugenburg's Toronto Cosmetic Surgery
Clinic between January 1, 2017 and December 13, 2018 or patients
who want to discuss individual claims arising from Dr. Jugenburg
publishing their images on the internet can contact the legal team
at 1-877-771-7006 or reception@waddellphillips.ca.

                    About Howie, Sacks & Henry

Howie, Sacks & Henry advances mass tort claims and class actions on
behalf of people injured by dangerous products, pharmaceuticals and
medical devices.

For more information, call our firm at 1-877-771-7006, or email
vlord@hshlawyers.com.

                   About Waddell Phillips PC

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation is a boutique law firm,
specializing in plaintiff-side class actions. The principals of the
firm have helped victims in a wide range of cases, including
product liability, consumer protection, residential schools,
franchise disputes, and securities misrepresentations.

For more information, call our firm at 647-261-4486, or email
reception@waddellphillips.ca.

                      About Beyond Law LLP

Beyond Law LLP is a Toronto-based litigation firm focusing on
serious personal injury cases including medical malpractice,
wrongful death and insurance disputes. The firm prides itself on
its hands-on and personalized approach. [GN]

MDL 2992: 10 Debit Card Data Breach Suits Moved to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the data breach litigation titled, "In Re: Bank of America
California Unemployment Benefits Litigation," MDL No. 2992, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers eight actions from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and one each
from the Eastern and Northern Districts of California, all to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Larry A. Burns
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The actions present common factual questions arising from the
allegation that Bank of America, the entity contracted by
California to distribute unemployment benefits to eligible
recipients, failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during
the pandemic and unlawfully froze or denied access to funds in
recipients' debit card accounts. Common factual questions include
the nature of Bank of America's relationship with the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) with respect to
administering unemployment benefits and responding to claims of
fraud, its policy and practices for responding to fraud reports
from recipients of EDD benefits, in particular, the process for
conducting investigations in response to error claims and its
alleged decision to freeze their debit card accounts on a mass
basis in late 2020. Additionally, nearly all actions share
questions of fact as to Bank of America's data security practices.


The panel concluded that the claims and proposed classes overlap
extensively but with substantive differences that will make
informal coordination unwieldy. The Southern District of California
is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation being a
less-frequently utilized district, where seven potential tag-along
actions are pending.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3jZqqCA

MDL 2993: 13 Crop Input Anti-Trust Suits Transferred to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the anti-trust litigation, "In Re: Crop Inputs Antitrust
Litigation," MDL No. 2993, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers seven
actions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, five from the District of Minnesota and one from the
District of Kansas, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Stephen R. Clark, Sr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The actions allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act involving Defendants' distribution process that keeps crop
input prices inflated at anti-competitive levels, denied farmers
access to relevant market information, including transparent
pricing terms that would allow competition and better-informed
purchasing decisions and information about seed relabeling
practices that would enable farmers to know if they are buying
newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a new
brand name and sold for a higher price. Defendants allegedly
conspired and coordinated to boycott online Crop Inputs sales
platforms because of the threat these posed to their market
position and price control.

The panel concluded that Eastern District of Missouri is the
appropriate transferee district for this dispute since Defendant
Bayer CropScience is based there. Several other defendants also
have a significant presence in Missouri. Documents and witnesses
relevant to plaintiffs' claims may be found there.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3jVVMtN

MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Class Suit Moved to District of Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as C.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Med-Data Incorporated, Case No. 21CV01716 was
transferred from the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 8,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02301-DDC-GEB to
the proceeding.

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

MedData -- https://www.meddata.com/ -- is a leading provider of
technology-enabled revenue cycle management services designed to
engage patients, empower hospitals and health systems, and improve
financial outcomes throughout the entire healthcare continuum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
          BURGESS LAW FIRM, PC
          4505 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 471-1700
          Fax: (816) 471-1701
          Email: mitch@burgesslawkc.com

               - and -

          Phyllis A. Norman, Esq.
          NORMAN & GRAVES
          4505 Madison Avenue, Suite 220
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 895-8985
          Fax: (816) 895-8988
          Email: phyllis@ngkclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore A. Kardis, Esq.
          WALLACE SAUNDERS AUSTIN BROWN & ENOCHS CHARTERED - OP
          10111 W. 87th Street
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Phone: (913) 752-5572
          Fax: (913) 888-1065
          Email: tkardis@wallacesaunders.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to Sept. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hampton v. MONARCH
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00011 (M.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order granting consent
motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification
and re-setting the deadline for class certification motion to
September 10, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

Monarch Recovery operates as a collection agency.[CC]



MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Use of Non-Invasive Test
------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Boisvert and Zalika Rizmal, writing for ABC News, report
that some people involved in a class action against two fertility
services over the use of a non-invasive test which may have
incorrectly classified embryos as abnormal have been told their
embryos are still being stored.

The lawyer representing about 200 affected parties in Victoria's
Supreme Court said the mistake had resulted in some women choosing
to be implanted with another person's embryo, while others have
lost precious months of fertility.

The class action launched last December alleges Melbourne-based
Monash IVF and Adelaide-based Repromed breached their duty of care
by failing to tell patients about the pitfalls of a type of testing
that does not require a biopsy.

There are two ways to conduct such testing: the first method is
through a biopsy, which involves taking a tissue sample from an
embryo, a method that is considered invasive.

The second method is called non-invasive pre-implantation genetic
testing and involves collecting DNA from the culture that the
embryo has been growing in while in the laboratory.

The inaccuracy of the test -- used by the two services between May
2019 and October 2020 -- was discovered last October.

Patients were informed of the issue after many had already made the
choice to donate the embryos to science or destroy them.

Lawyer Michel Margalit said some clients had discovered that some
of their embryos were still in storage.

Those that had been donated could still be retrieved, but the
others were lost forever.

"They acted on the advice that their embryos were abnormal or had
been destroyed," Ms Margalit said.

"Some people obtained donor embryos and are now pregnant with
children that aren't necessarily genetically related to them, or
that had a whole host of other treatments, so it's a very painful
time for our clients."

She said they were not told about the pitfalls of the experimental
testing regime.

"In this case, there was an alternative -- a reliable test, a
biopsy method -- and women were steered away from that method, to
this non-invasive method and they just didn't know the mess they
were walking into," she said.

Decision up to patients
Monash IVF and Repromed have now stopped using non-invasive
pre-implantation genetic testing.

Repromed medical director Professor Kelton Tremellen said the test
turned out to be not as accurate as the company had hoped.

He said some of the embryos that could now be used might still be
abnormal.

"What we're trying to do is say, look, unfortunately, we've now
recognised that the test is not as accurate as it was originally
portrayed to us and that we want to give these individuals the
opportunity to make a decision now what they want to do with those
embryos," he told ABC Radio Adelaide.

"Some people will say 'I simply don't want to use them, we've moved
on'.

"Others will say, 'look, we'll accept the risk and transfer them
and effectively consider them to be embryos that haven't been
tested at all'."

He said he and other scientists had "lost sleep" worrying about the
effect on patients.

"Rather than hide this stuff from patients, our staff have
contacted them saying, 'look, those embryos are still in storage,
we've now found out this test is not as accurate as we'd hoped,
what would you like to do with them?'" he said.

"Rather than sweeping it under the carpet, we're trying to be open
and socially responsible by having full disclosure." [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alston Ruling May Benefit Athlete Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Papscun, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a federal
lawsuit in Pennsylvania that seeks to win collegiate athletes the
right to compensation as employees is one of the first to consider
the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision against the NCAA's limits
on education-related benefits for sports stars.

The proposed collective and class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania argues the National
Collegiate Athletic Association's amateurism rule, barring
pay-for-play arrangements for student athletes, violates the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. Judge John Padova
set a July 6 deadline for the parties to submit supplemental memos
addressing the high court's June 21 decision in NCAA v. Alston.

Paul McDonald, an attorney who's representing plaintiffs from
universities including Cornell, Fordham, and Villanova, said
similar compensation litigation didn't progress far enough to allow
student athletes to argue their case against the NCAA's amateurism
bylaws, which are facing increased legal and legislative pressure
nationally. He said he believes the high court's unanimous decision
in Alston means game on.

"I would like to think the decision is beneficial to our case, but
don't want to assume that challenges will succeed," McDonald, of P
L McDonald Law LLC, said. "I think it does mean the athletes get a
fair shot, their day in court."

The Supreme Court in Alston rejected the NCAA's bid for broad
antitrust immunity, granting current and former collegiate athletes
a partial victory by permitting them to be compensated with
education-related benefits like computers, internships, and
academic achievement awards.

A concurrence from Justice Brett Kavanaugh opened the door to
further challenges by arguing the NCAA and member schools are
blocking pay for student athletes whose skills are key to the
multi-billion dollar collegiate sports industry.

The decision added momentum to the larger debate over compensation
rights for collegiate athletes. The NCAA responded by issuing a
stopgap policy to allow athletes to earn money from use of their
name, image, or likeness -- a last-ditch effort as a series of
so-called name-image-likeness laws took effect in multiple states
July 1.

While the Alston decision on its own doesn't mean pay-for-play is
suddenly on the table, McDonald and other lawyers for the
student-athlete plaintiffs in the case contend it stripped away the
main defense the NCAA used to convince courts in past FLSA
litigation not to implement tests to determine whether collegiate
athletes are in fact employees.

"Alston will make sure that our case, or any other -- whether it
fails or succeeds -- will be based on the facts," McDonald said.
"The most important aspect of Alston at 30,000 feet is that it
really reaffirms that the NCAA's rules aren't law. They're just an
organization saying, 'This is how we want to characterize the
people who work for us.'"

Building on Past Lawsuits
The current and former student athletes in the Pennsylvania case,
led by former Villanova University football player Ralph "Trey"
Johnson, are suing the NCAA and 25 universities, including
Princeton and Penn State. They contend they are employees under the
FLSA and state law and are due the rights and protections afforded
to employees, including minimum wages and overtime pay.

"Student Athletes -- engaged in athletic work that is unrelated to
academics; supervised by full-time, well-paid coaching and training
staff; and integral to the billion dollar Big Business of NCAA
sports -- are student employees as much as, and arguably more than,
fellow students employed in Work Study programs," their complaint
said.

It is at least the fourth case in recent years in which student
athletes have cited the FLSA in challenging the NCAA's argument
that student athletes must work for free due to the tradition of
amateurism that defines the "economic reality" of collegiate
sports.

That defense is tied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit's 1992 decision in Vanskike v. Peters, which ruled that
federal inmates aren't entitled to minimum wages for prison labor.
The 13th Amendment banned slavery, but it exempted those convicted
of crimes. In previous cases, the NCAA has used the exception to
get cases dismissed before the court could apply employment tests,
Johnson's attorneys said.

The nonprofit argues that because players are defined by the
context they play in -- the economic reality of amateurism -- their
circumstances preclude the need for employment tests.

The NCAA didn't respond to emails seeking comment on the lawsuit.
One attorney for the NCAA and the co-defendant universities
declined to comment; others didn't respond to emailed inquiries.

"With the variety of state laws adopted across the country, we will
continue to work with Congress to develop a solution that will
provide clarity on a national level," NCAA president Mark Emmert
said in a July 1 press release about the name-image-likeness rule
change. "The current environment -- both legal and legislative --
prevents us from providing a more permanent solution and the level
of detail student-athletes deserve."

The memorandum Johnson's lawyers plan to file will argue that the
NCAA's defense in Johnson is analogous to its approach in Alston,
said plaintiffs' attorney Michael Willemin. That means the high
court's decision invalidates the NCAA's claims that amateurism is a
shield, he said, and that the athletes' lawsuit should survive the
current motion to dismiss and instead proceed to discovery.

"Maybe the test comes out in the NCAA's favor, maybe in the
plaintiffs', but you can't just not do the law because they are
amateurs," Willemin, a partner at Wigdor LLP, added.

Paths to Compensation
A decision in favor of Johnson and his fellow student athletes
would be the "fastest route to destroying the concept of
amateurism," said Angela de Cespedes, a sports lawyer with Saul
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP. She questioned whether such an outcome
could hold up on appeal, however.

Victory for the plaintiffs wouldn't mean simply monetary
compensation, said Rutgers University labor professor Rebecca
Givan. It could lead to other employee rights, such as the right to
form unions.

"The intermediate question here is, 'How many advances and rights
can these athletes gain short of a clear-cut ruling that they are
employees?'" Givan said.

The Supreme Court's decision didn't address those questions, Givan
said, but Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence seemed to argue that
athletes are in fact workers.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not
to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their
product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,"
Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law,
it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The
NCAA is not above the law."

The stakes in the Johnson case are more nuanced than what the
Supreme Court had to consider in Alston, de Cespedes said. But the
theme is the same: Students generate enormous revenue but are
barred from sharing in the profits.

"I don't think the Supreme Court came out against amateurism," de
Cespedes said. "They said we can do both—preserve and compensate.
They rejected the notion that amateurism is the be-all, end-all
argument to justify everything."

Classifying student athletes as employees is a slippery slope and
could lead to complex questions over compensation for high school
players and those on the college level who aren't in Division I,
she said.

A major shift toward employee status could even be interpreted as
extending to any activity a student participates in that may be
plausibly argued as generating revenue for a university—an
approach with no hard limits, she added.

"It is highly improbable that any activity independently run by
students (e.g., student organizations) or by staff not expressly
hired for the sole purpose of conducting the business of sports"
would pass an employment test, McDonald wrote in an email. The
slippery slope isn't as much of an issue as it might seem, as the
clear criteria set by employment tests would preclude any
confusion, he said.

The case is Johnson v. The Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, E.D.
Pa., No. 2:19-cv-05230.

(Updated with quote from attorney Paul McDonald in final paragraph.
Earlier version corrected court decision in 13th paragraph.) [GN]

NCAA: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Troy Harris,
Bryan long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01998-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 8, 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 that
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Rodney
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01994-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., July 8, 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: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Lance
Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01996
(S.D. Ind., July 8, 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 that
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant appears pro se.


NEW ORIENTAL: October 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on July 5 disclosed that
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary
Shares of New Oriental Education and Technology Group Inc. (NYSE:
EDU):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADS") OF NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY
GROUP INC. ("NEW ORIENTAL" OR THE "COMPANY") BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28,
2016 AND DECEMBER 1, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey that a hearing will
be held on October 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Katherine Hayden, United States District Judge of the District of
New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Courtroom PO 05, Newark, NJ 07101 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$3,150,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to thirty-three percent of the Settlement Amount ($1,039,500)
plus interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $150,000,
and a Compensatory Award to Plaintiffs of no more than $10,000
collectively (or $2,500 each to Lead Plaintiffs Amy Chan, Steven
Wade, Shunfeng Cheng, and Elburn Irish) should be approved; and (4)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 1, 2020 (the
"Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ADSs of New Oriental between
September 28, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release
and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in New Oriental ADSs. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action ("Notice")
and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of
Claim"), you may obtain copies by visiting www.strategicclaims.net
or by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866)
274-4004 or at info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must electronically submit a properly
completed Proof of Claim by 11:59 p.m. on October 26, 2021 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. If you are unable to electronically submit a Proof of
Claim, you may mail a Proof of Claim at your own expense. If you
are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked no later than October 26, 2021 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by
any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is postmarked or hand-delivered no later than September 28,
2021, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members
of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and postmarked or
hand-delivered no later than September 28, 2021, to each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07101

Lead Counsel
Laurence M. Rosen
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102

-or-

Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
New York, NY 10016

Counsel For Defendants
Scott D. Musoff
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit
www.strategicclaims.net or write to Lead Counsel at the above
address. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: June 4, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Lamar Advertising Appeals Ruling in Zoning Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LAMAR ADVERTISING OF
PENN, LLC, Petitioner v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FIDEL DEL VALLE, and
THOMAS FARIELLO, Respondents, Case No. 155436/2019, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.

According to the complaint, the Petitioner is a registered Outdoor
Advertising Company. At all relevant times, Petitioner was a
tenant, and maintained outdoor signage, at a premises located at
1595 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York. On August 31, 2017,
the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) issued three
summonses to petitioner, alleging that it violated Administrative
Code Section 28-105.1 by displaying signs without a permit.

DOB is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions
of the [New York City Zoning Resolution] Zoning Resolution related
to the placement of advertising signage throughout the City of New
York.

Petitioner Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC is now seeking an appeal
from the Decision and Order of the Honorable Debra A. James of the
Supreme Court, New York County, dated December 7, 2020, dismissing
its petition without costs and disbursements.

The appellate case is captioned as In the Matter of the Application
of Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC For a Judgment Pursuant to the
Provisions of Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; FIDEL F. DEL VALLE, as Commissioner
and Chief Judge of the NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIALS AND HEARINGS; and THOMAS FARIELLO, as Acting Commissioner of
the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, Case No. 2021-02224, in
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, First Judicial Department, filed on June 22, 2021.[BN]

Petitioner LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, LLC is represented by:

          Patrick J. Kilduff, Esq.
          TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
          1350 Broadway, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 216-8000

Respondents THE CITY OF NEW YORK; FIDEL F. DEL VALLE, as
Commissioner and Chief Judge of the NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS; and THOMAS FARIELLO, as Acting
Commissioner of the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, are
represented by:

          James E. Johnson, Esq.
          THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street, Room 5-179
          New York, NY 10007

OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen") (NASDAQ: OCGN) between
February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17404&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.

Ocugen, Inc. NEWS - OCGN NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the information
submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was
insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"),
(ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Ocugen,
you have until August 17, 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 Ocugen securities between February
2, 2021 and June 10, 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/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17404&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]

ORPHAZYME A/S: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Orphazyme A/S ("Orphazyme" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ORPH)
and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-03640, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Orphazyme
American depositary shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about
September 29, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Orphazyme
securities between September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired (a)
Orphazyme ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the IPO, and/or (b) Orphazyme securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 7, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Orphazyme is a biopharmaceutical company that develops therapies
for the treatment of neurodegenerative orphan diseases. The Company
conducts its U.S. operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Orphazyme US, Inc., which is focused on U.S. regulatory review and
preparing for the Company's first potential U.S. commercial launch,
including legal, commercial, finance, advocacy relations,
regulatory, and medical affairs functions.

Orphazyme's lead drug candidate is arimoclomol, which is in
clinical development for four orphan diseases, including
Niemann-Pick disease type C ("NPC"), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
("ALS"), and Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM"). In August 2017,
Orphazyme initiated a multicenter randomized 1:1, double-blinded,
placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial for assessing efficacy
and safety of arimoclomol citrate 400 mg three times per day in
patients with IBM; in August 2018, Orphazyme initiated a 2:1
randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical
trial assessing efficacy and safety of arimoclomol citrate 400 mg
three times per day in patients with ALS; and in September 2020,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") accepted Orphazyme's
new drug application ("NDA") for arimoclomol for NPC.

On September 4, 2020, Orphazyme filed a registration statement on
Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on September 28, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement").

On September 29, 2020, pursuant to the Registration Statement,
Orphazyme's ADSs began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market
under the ticker symbol "ORPH." That same day, Orphazyme filed a
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(collectively, the "Offering Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Orphazyme conducted the IPO,
issuing 3,966,146 of its ordinary shares to the U.S. public in the
form of 3,966,146 ADSs at the Offering price of $11.00 per ADS,
while concurrently offering 3,650,000 of its ordinary shares in
Europe in a private placement to qualified investors, for total
approximate proceeds of $77,913,174 to the Company before expenses
and after applicable underwriting commissions.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating IBM as Defendants
had represented; (ii) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
ALS as Defendants had represented; (iii) the arimoclomol NDA for
NPC was incomplete and/or required additional evidence and data to
support the benefit-risk assessment of that NDA; (iv) as a result
of (iii), the FDA was unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA for
NPC in its present form; (v) the Company's overall business
prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were
significantly overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Offering
Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class
Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
its phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of
[IBM] . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints."

On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $3.59 per ADS, or 28.97%,
to close at $8.80 per ADS on March 29, 2021.

On May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS.]" The press
release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal trial . . . did not
meet its primary and secondary endpoints to show benefit in people
living with ALS."

On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $2.81 per ADS, or 32.83%,
to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021.

Then, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release announcing
receipt of a Complete Response Letter from the FDA following the
agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for the treatment of
NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the
arimoclomol NDA for NPC "based on needing additional qualitative
and quantitative evidence to further substantiate the validity and
interpretation" of certain data and "that additional data are
needed to bolster confirmatory evidence beyond the single phase 2/3
clinical trial to support the benefit-risk assessment of the NDA."

On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADS, or 49.66%,
to close at $7.33 per ADS on June 18, 2021.

Finally, on June 21, 2021, investor resource website Seeking Alpha
reported that "Orphazyme [was] cut to sell at Guggenheim after [the
Company's] regulatory snub" by the FDA, stating, among other
things, that "[w]ith a $1.00 price target for the stock indicating
a downside of 86.4%, Guggenheim notes that there is 'little
optionality left in the stock,' and adds 'it might make sense to
wind down the company.'"

On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $0.81 per ADS, or 11.05%,
to close at $6.52 per ADS on June 21, 2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Orphazyme ADSs
continued to trade below the $11.00 per ADS Offering price,
damaging investors.

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

PACK-FIVE CORP: Faces Osorio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIGIO OSORIO-PALMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACK-FIVE CORP. d/b/a MINI STAR RESTAURANT,
IONNA PAKKOU, ANDROULLA PAKKOU, MARIA PAKKOU, and CHARALAMBOS
PAKKOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03831 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, failure to timely pay all
wages owed, and failure to provide proper wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked as a food preparation employee and line cook
at the Defendants' restaurant located in Queens, New York from 2000
through in or around October 2020.

Pack-Five Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Mini Star Restaurant, with its principal place of business at
30-02 Steinway St., Astoria, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
         Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
         PELTON GRAHAM LLC
         111 Broadway, Suite 1503
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 385-9700

PENTAGON FEDERAL: Charges Multiple NSF Fees on Same Item, Vue Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PANGNHIA VUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-NONE-SAB
(E.D. Cal., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and
violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The case arises from the Credit Union's improper practice of
routinely charging its customers multiple insufficient funds (NSF)
fees for the same item. The credit union promises its customers
that if their account balance drops too low to cover a particular
item such as a check, debit, or electronic bill payment, it will
charge the customer a single $30 NSF fee per item. As a result of
the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
have sustained monetary damages.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union is a retail banking services
provider, with its principal place of business in Alexandria,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Taras Kick, Esq.
         Jeffrey Bils, Esq.
         THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
         815 Moraga Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90049
         Telephone: (310) 395-2988
         Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
         E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                 Jeff@kicklawfirm.com

               - and –

         Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia Gold, Esq.
         KALIEL GOLD PLLC
         1875 Connecticut Avenue NW
         10th Floor
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com

PROVENTION BIO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 5 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Provention Bio, Inc.
securities between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Provention investors have until July 20, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

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

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

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

If you purchased Provention securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than July 20, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Provention securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.

URL: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com.

Contact Information:
info@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Evaluates Potential Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The investor rights attorneys at Goldman Scarlato & Penny, PC law
firm ("GSP") are evaluating potential claims for compensation on
behalf of investors who purchased in RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:
RLX) American Depository Shares (ADSs) in its initial public
offering ("IPO") and suffered losses. The GSP attorneys' aim is to
seek compensation for RLX investors individually, rather than in a
class action. Each investor's situation must be individually
evaluated before representation is offered. Institutional investors
and family offices may consider individual representation.

RLX Technology is a e-vapor company founded in 2018 and
headquartered in China. In January 2021, the company published a
Prospectus offering 116,500,000 ADSs approved for listing on the
New York Stock Exchange at $12 per ADS.

In March 2021, the Chinese regulators announced restrictions on
e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, causing the price per
share to decline from a $19.46 per ADS on March 19, 2021, to $10.15
per ADS on March 22, 2021. The price was further affected in June
2021 when RLX reported its first quarter earnings and announced
results that disappointed many investors. On June 30, 2021, the
price per RLX share was $8.73.

RLX Investors May Be Able to Pursue Individual Claims

Investor rights attorneys Alan Rosca and Paul Scarlato have been
investigating certain alleged misrepresentations and omissions by
RLX Technology in connection with its IPO and are preparing to take
action on behalf of some of the RLX investors and seek compensation
for their losses, separately from any pending class action.
Investors in RLX interested in filing individual claims may contact
attorneys Rosca or Scarlato for a free, no-obligation evaluation of
their options at 888-998-0530, rosca@lawgsp.com or by leaving a
message on
https://investorlawyers.org/rlx-technology-investor-center/.

The GSP investor rights attorneys have decades of combined
experience representing investors who lost money as a result of
investment misconduct. They take most cases of this type on a
contingency fee basis and advance the case costs. There are no fees
or costs if no recovery.

Visit https://investorlawyers.org for more information about the
firm and GSP attorneys' background and admissions to practice law.
[GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased RLX Technology Inc.
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").


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

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 or otherwise acquired 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 if you
meet certain legal requirements. 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 these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contacts:

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com
URL: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com

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

ROCK 'EM APPAREL: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock 'Em Apparel Co.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Rock 'Em Apparel Co., Case No.
1:21-cv-05891 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021).

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

Rock 'em Apparel Co. -- https://rockemsocks.com/ -- is located in
Orlando, Florida who primarily operates in the Sports Apparel
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCKET COMPANIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 6 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Rocket
Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.

Class Period: February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in RKT:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17405&from=5

Rocket Companies, Inc. NEWS - RKT NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Rocket
Companies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale margins
were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle
for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale
market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner
Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above
were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins
were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six
months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market
conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to
achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated
due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins
had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business operations and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Rocket Companies you have until August 30, 2021 to petition
the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Rocket Companies securities during
the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the RKT lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

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

SAM'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Sanchez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB,
an Arkansas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05122 (C.D.
Cal., June 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and
Professions Code.

Mr. Sanchez alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages
and liquidated damages, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed
to pay overtime wages, failed to pay all wages owed at termination
of employment, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements, and engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in El Monte, California,
from approximately August through October of 2019 as an "Associate"
and held the position of "Cashier."

Sam's Club is an American chain of membership-only retail warehouse
"clubs" owned and operated by Walmart.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reed Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Scientific Games Corp. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DONNA REED, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES
CORP., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00565-RSL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant Scientific Games owns and operates
Internet casinos that are illegal under Washington law. It is one
of several related cases before this Court alleging functionally
identical claims against the Defendant's industry peers.

Scientific Games and its subsidiary SciPlay own and operate a
cohort of social casino games featuring slot machine-style
gameplay, including Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot
Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots. These slot games are, for good
reason, prohibited in Washington.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated June
17, 2021, denying Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Donna Reed v. Scientific Games
Corp., Case No. 21-35482, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Scientific Games Corporation Mediation
Questionnaire was due June 30, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 23, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on August 23, 2021;

   -- Appellant Scientific Games Corporation opening brief is due
on October 1, 2021;

   -- Appellee Donna Reed answering brief is due on November 1,
2021; and

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

Defendant-Appellant SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, a Nevada
corporation, is represented by:

          Sean C. Grimsley, Esq.
          Daniel Taylor, Esq.  
          BARTLIT BECK, LLP
          1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
          Denver, CO 80202

               - and -

          David T. Martin, Esq.
          Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.  
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          E-mail: dmartin@perkinscoie.com
                  nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                  kosullivan@perkinscoie.com

Plaintiff-Appellee DONNA REED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          Cecily Shiel, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: cshiel@tousley.com    

               - and -

          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Seattle Bakery Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Seattle Bakery, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK DMD PS,
et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage
relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay
Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going
concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the
lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Seattle Bakery, LLC, et al. v.
Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd, et al., Case No. 21-35479, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June
23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants CSQBKR2018, LLC, Piroshky Baking Company, LLC,
Piroshky Piroshky Bakery, LLC, SCRBKR2017, LLC and Seattle Bakery,
LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due June 30, 2021;

   -- Appellants CSQBKR2018, LLC, Piroshky Baking Company, LLC,
Piroshky Piroshky Bakery, LLC, SCRBKR2017, LLC and Seattle Bakery,
LLC opening brief is due on August 20, 2021;

   -- Appellee Sentinel Insurance Company Limited answering brief
is due on September 20, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants SEATTLE BAKERY, LLC; CSQBKR2018, LLC;
PIROSHKY PIROSHKY BAKERY, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; PIROSHKY BAKING COMPANY, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; and SCRBKR2017, LLC, are represented by:

          Brent W. Beecher, Esq.
          HACKETT BEECHER & HART
          601 Union Street, Suite 2600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 787-1828

Defendant-Appellee SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED is
represented by:

          Matthew S. Adams, Esq.
          FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS
          901 5th Avenue, Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 689-8500

               - and -

          Sarah Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Pandemic Boarding Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Maszczynski, writing for Paddle Your Own Kanoo, reports
that an Ohio couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against Spirit
Airlines because the low-cost carrier's pandemic boarding policy
stopped them from getting onboard their flight ahead of other
passengers. If successful, the lawsuit could make thousands of
other Spirit Airlines customers eligible for compensation.

Anthony Pochiro and Barbara Kuhns claim the Florida-based airline
sold them queue jump 'Shortcut Boarding' for an extra fee knowing
that the passes would be of no use because COVID-19 rules meant
that the airline was boarding its planes in strict order from
back-to-front.

Shortcut Boarding lets customers get onboard in Group 2 ahead of
most other passengers and at just $5.99 it seems like a reasonable
upgrade to snag overhead bin space and settle in before the hoards
of other passengers arrive. [GN]

SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Springville Partners
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Springville Partners
LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-05526 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2021).

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

Springville Partners -- https://springvillepartners.com/ -- offers
merchant cash advances, lines of credit, invoice factoring, and
unsecured business loans.[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


SUPERIOR REFINING: Parties Agree on $1 Million Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Lovrien at grandforksherald.com reports that a proposed
class-action settlement could make evacuees of the April 26, 2018,
Husky Energy refinery explosion eligible to receive $150 in
compensation.

According to the settlement agreement dated June 24, the
plaintiffs, Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin and Christopher Peterson, and
defendant Superior Refining Co. agreed to a settlement totaling
$1.05 million, which is pending approval by a judge in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Much of Superior, Wis., was forced to evacuate for 18 hours when an
explosion, likely caused by a faulty valve, caused a fire at the
refinery. The evacuations were based on the fear of a hydrogen
fluoride release, though none escaped the tank.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit the plaintiffs filed in 2018,
claiming that while Husky allowed evacuees to file claims for
evacuation expenses -- transportation, lodging and lost wages -- as
well as separate claims for bodily harm, the reimbursements were
"skewed" to people who could afford the up-front costs of a hotel
room.

Court documents estimate nearly 21,000 people over 18 are eligible
to file a claim, but the settlement funds would only be able to
fulfill 5,833 claims at $150 per person. A household would be
eligible for up to $300. Under certain circumstances, individuals
may receive up to $200 and households up to $400.

The documents show the settlement money would be split three ways:

-- $875,000 would go toward individual claims;
-- a maximum of $169,000 would be used for administrative and
notice costs, including mailers and advertisements;
-- and $6,000 would be awarded to the three class representatives
-- the people who originally filed the lawsuit.

If there are leftover funds, up to $75,000 would be paid to the
Superior Douglas County Family YMCA.

The case had been headed for a trial and approval of the settlement
would prevent that.

The plaintiffs also accused the refinery of displaying negligence
and cited preliminary reports from the U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board as evidence the refinery failed to
maintain equipment and that led to the blast.

While J. Gordon Rudd Jr., the attorney for the plaintiffs,
maintained the case was "meritorious," he acknowledged it could be
difficult to prove in trial as the court said the "Class
Representatives may need to obtain individualized evidence of
causation and damages."

"Such a process would increase the possibility that class members
may not participate due to the burden of trial compared to the
relatively small individual awards or that class members who do
participate lack sufficient evidence of their losses," attorneys
wrote.

The refinery said it will "fully support" the settlement though it
does not agree with the plaintiffs' characterization of the case's
facts and procedural history.

"(Superior Refining Company) refutes that it was negligent or that
its actions caused the explosion, and would vigorously defend
itself throughout the remainder of this litigation," the company
said. "Indeed, the only so-called 'evidence' of negligence that
plaintiffs could point to in the complaint was the U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's report, which does not
prove negligence and is not admissible at trial."

In the original complaint filed in August 2018, one evacuee said he
was unable to afford a hotel and spent the night in Canal Park with
his family, while another plaintiff said his children's school was
canceled the next day, forcing his wife to miss work and lose
wages, the complaint said.

The complaint also said one plaintiff's mother was in hospice and
had to be evacuated, after which "she was no longer eating or
talking and her health quickly deteriorated." She died May 3, 2018.
[GN]

TD BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees on APPSN Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE BURNS and RUBY HAYES, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. CAM-L-002029-21 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Camden Cty., July 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, the New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, and the New York General Business
Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's improper practice of charging
overdraft (OD) fees on authorize positive, purportedly settle
negative (APPSN) transactions. Pursuant to the Defendant's account
documents, it should only charge OD fee on transactions where there
are insufficient funds to cover them. Despite putting aside
sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time
those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses OD
fees on those same transactions when they purportedly settle days
later into a negative balance. Further, TD Bank also breaches its
duty of good faith and fair dealing when it charges OD fees even
when customers did not overdraw their accounts.

TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank, headquartered in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
         Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
         GOLOMB, SPIRT, & GRUNFELD
         1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 985-9177

TPUSA-FHCS: Nattoo Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE NATTOO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TPUSA-FHCS, INC.,
a Foreign Profit Corporation (d/b/a) TELEPERFORMANCE USA, Case No.
2:20-cv-14207-SMM (S.D. Fla.), he Hon. Judge Shaniek M. Maynard
entered an order:

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
      collective action and to facilitate notice to potential
      class members; and

   -- directing the Parties to confer and file a joint proposed
      Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs incorporating the
      Court's ruling within seven days of the date of this
      Order.

The Court onditionally certify and facilitate notice to the
following proposed class:

   "current and former call center employees of Defendant who
   were employed/classified as customer service representatives
   or sales agents or held similar job titles and worked for
   Defendant at any time in Defendant’s Port St. Lucie office
   from June 2017 through resolution of this case."

In the Plaintiff's Reply, the Plaintiff agrees to the 45 day opt-in
period, rather than its proposed 90 day opt-in period. The
Plaintiff also agrees to send notice by personal email and
first-class mail and agrees to add defense counsel's names to the
Notice. The Plaintiff further agrees to add a section in the Notice
regarding the rights and obligations associated with
being a putative class member. The Plaintiff does not address
Defendant's objections to providing them with social security
numbers or phone numbers. The Plaintiff also does not address the
scrivener's error on page five of the proposed Consent to Join, or
Defendant's desire to include the names of other plaintiff' lawyers
so potential class members will know they are not required to hired
Plaintiffs' counsel.

Based on the parties' agreement, the Court instructs as follows:
(1) The Notice shall be distributed by personal email and
first-class mail only; (2) The opt-in period shall be 45 days; (3)
The Notice shall include the names and contact information of
defense counsel; (4) The Notice shall include a section discussing
the rights and obligations associated with becoming a member of the
putative class; and (5) Putative class members may electronically
sign the Consent to Join forms. Regarding the remaining issues, the
Court sees no reason social security numbers and phone numbers
should be disclosed.

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's request not to provide that
information to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are instructed to correct
any scrivener's errors included in the proposed Notice. Lastly,
only the names of counsel of record in this case shall be
referenced in the Notice. The Notice shall, however, include a
section explaining that putative class members have a right to seek
independent counsel.

On June 24, 2020, the Plaintiff Jermaine Nattoo filed a Complaint
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against
Defendant TPUSA-FHCS, Inc., a foreign profit company doing business
as Teleperformance USA.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant operates call centers
throughout the United States and fails to pay its customer service
representatives for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Complaint
alleges the existence of an FLSA class as well as a class under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wJKb45 at no extra charge.[CC]

TRINITY TEEN: Seeks Dismissal of Medically Related Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Wolfson, writing for Cody Enterprise, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by about 25 class action members and
four listed plaintiffs against Clark troubled teen centers Trinity
Teen Solutions and Triangle Cross Ranch has received pushback from
these entities in federal court.

The suit brought by former residents of these facilities alleges
two counts of forced labor, trafficking, federal racketeering,
negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, for
compensatory award of no less than $5 million and compensation for
legal expenses. Trinity Teens is run by Angela and Jerry Woodward.
Triangle Cross is run by Angela's father Jerry Schneider.

All of the defendants made motions for all claims to be dismissed
against them, and attorneys for Trinity Teen Solutions said even if
the claims were legitimate, they exceeded the statute of
limitations when brought before the court.

Trinity Teen is requesting the court consider it "a health care
provider" and treat all medically related claims brought against it
be dismissed. Denver law firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP,
representing Trinity Teen, said any claims of abuse should be under
Wyoming Department of Family Services jurisdiction or treated as
medical malpractice and as a seperate issue in regards to claims of
withheld or deficient treatment.

Wyoming recognizes a claim for negligent infliction only when it is
brought forth by a close family member of a victim who observes the
infliction of serious bodily injury or death, or its immediate
aftermath.

Although Trinity Teen and Triangle Cross said their residents had
to perform chores and other ranch activities at their facilities,
they said no abuse took place under their care, nor did any tasks
that could have led to post-traumatic stress disorder as some of
the plaintiffs claim to have.

Triangle Cross also said parents of the plaintiffs were fully aware
their children would be performing chores and other rigorous
activities on the ranch.

"As plaintiffs' complaint concedes, the residents were responsible
for helping to care for the ranch's land, equipment, and
livestock," John Matthews of White & Steele P.C. wrote on behalf of
Triangle Cross. "Such conduct is the very definition of ranch
chores."

Brice Timmons, attorney for the plaintiffs, responded and said this
analysis neglects that abuse and undeserved obligation allegedly
took place within the administration of these tasks. Timmons also
said the defendants are not protected from liability by obtaining
parental consent.

"This is a patently bizarre argument for it would mean that anytime
a parent left a child with a childcare provider that they consented
to anything the childcare provider did," he wrote.

Triangle Cross opposed the only plaintiff bringing claims against
it from being allowed to proceed under a pseudonym and protective
order, saying they did not meet any exceptional circumstances that
grant anonymity.

John Doe had claimed his "tenuous psychological recovery" would
"almost certainly" be damaged if his identity were revealed,
according to court documents, casting his parents and himself into
"severe embarrassment."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly Rankin denied the pseudonym request on
Feb. 11.

The very next day the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint,
adding two identified plaintiffs who attended Triangle Cross and
asserting new allegations.

Church work

The original filing claimed the girls at Trinity Teen had to
provide weekly cleaning and set-up services for local churches like
the Our Lady of the Valley Church in Clark that is owned by the
Diocese of Cheyenne, but initially did not claim the churches were
aware of the situation.

The new complaint alleges at least four different priests were
aware of what the plaintiffs said was the forced human labor taking
place at the Valley Church.

The Diocese said there was no proof of this.

The Diocese also submitted a motion to dismiss all claims brought
against it in the original and amended complaints, stating it has
no affiliation with Triangle Cross or Trinity Teens, and there is
no proof that any priests or other staff members were made aware of
any abuse or forced labor occurring.

Society of Our Most Lady of the Holy Trinity and Monks of the Most
Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel also submitted motions to
dismiss charges against them to the court.

The new plaintiffs are former Triangle Cross attendees, Colorado
resident Andrew Scavuzzo and Florida resident Ehan Jelinek.
Scavuzzo is currently in a romantic relationship with a woman who
attended Trinity Teens.

Scavuzzo said after turning 18, he was inducted into the adult
program at Triangle Cross, which involved branding him with a cross
on his right arm. He said he was provided no medical care for this
despite his requests, and the wound quickly became infected.

When his parents came and visited him, Scavuzzo said they were
extremely alarmed by the branding and immediately removed him from
the program. Later, he needed four surgeries to repair the injury.

Scavuzzo and Jelinek's other claims were similar to those already
made in the case, involving coerced labor and forced deprivation.

In its response, Triangle Cross described these claims as
"conclusory allegations without any factual support."

Monasteries

Jelinek said he and other boys at Triangle Cross were forced to
complete substantial mechanical and construction work building a
monastery owned by the Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of
Mount Carmel, without any safety equipment of any kind.

"Class members would perform work on buildings as high as 40 feet
without safety harnesses or hard hats," the complaint alleges.

The plaintiff claims that after the original filing of the lawsuit,
the New Mount Carmel Foundation, the funding arm for the monastery,
removed the majority of its website from the internet and described
itself as a "land holding company" as a way to separate itself from
the monastery.

The plaintiffs alleged the foundation is guilty of criminal tax
evasion, claiming highly unrealistic ongoing construction costs.

At the end of 2019, the foundation possessed $29 million in net
assets, according to the complaint, of which the complaint alleges
the Schnieders and Woodwards provided substantial donations, and
therefore the foundation played a role in benefiting from the
forced labor.

"And despite years of construction, the Foundation has not yet
realized one dollar of appreciation in the value of its buildings,
instead, continuing to capitalize the assets as though it were a
land developer operating on a long-term construction contract," the
complaint alleges.

The complaint said this was done by the foundation to avoid taxes
or to conceal profits made at Trinity Teens and Triangle Cross.

In its response, the monks said the plaintiffs are conflating their
construction activities, and are confusing the work Trinity Teen
and Triangle Cross residents did with another project being built
near Meeteetse those residents never helped out with. They also
said there is no proof the foundation knew about or benefitted from
any coerced labor.

In tax documents, the foundation claimed $7.1 million in
architecture fees in 2014 and $12.9 million in 2015.

"This suggests that the Foundation claims to be constructing a
complex that will ultimately cost approximately $200 million," the
complaint said.

The foundation responded to this assertion that it is building a
custom-gothic-stone monastery that justifies these expenses. [GN]

TWITTER INC: Faces Trump Suit Over Restricted Access on Twitter
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States,
LINDA CUADROS and AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER,
INC., and JACK DORSEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22441 (S.D.
Fla., July 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the First Amendment and declaratory judgement of
unconstitutionality of Section 230 and the Communications Decency
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants permanently banned the
sitting President of the United States from their platform for
exercising his constitutional right of free speech on January 7,
2021. The Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff Donald Trump at the
behest of, with cooperation from, and with the approval of,
Democrat lawmakers.

Plaintiff Donald Trump asks the court to declare that Section 230
on its face is an unconstitutional delegation of authority and that
the Defendants' actions directed at him and putative Class members
are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free
speech, to order the Defendants to restore his Twitter account, as
well as those deplatformed putative Class members, and to prohibit
the Defendants from exercising censorship, editorial control, or
prior restraint in its many forms over the posts of Plaintiff Trump
and putative Class members.

Twitter, Inc. is a social network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
         Vargas Gonzalez, Esq.
         BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP
         815 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Third Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 631-2528
         E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com

                - and –

         John P. Coale, Esq.
         THE DUDEHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
         2901 Fessenden St. NW
         Washington, DC 20008
         Telephone: (202) 255-2096
         E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com

                - and –

         Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr.
         THE DUDEHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
         2721 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2A
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (504) 616-5226
         E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com

                - and –

         John Q. Kelly, Esq.
         Michael J. Jones, Esq.
         Roland A. Paul, Esq.
         Ryan S. Tougias, Esq.
         Sean M. Hamill, Esq.
         IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA
         170 Mason Street
         Greenwich, CT 06830
         Telephone: (203) 661-6000
         Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
         E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com
                 mjones@ibolaw.com
                 rpaul@ibolaw.com
                 rtougias@ibolaw.com
                 shamill@ibolaw.com

UBIQUITI INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 6 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ubiquiti Inc.
(NYSE: UI) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.

Class Period: January 11, 2021 and March 20, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in UI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17400&from=5

Ubiquiti Inc. NEWS - UI NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Ubiquiti Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed the
data breach in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained
administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to,
among other things, all databases, all user database credentials,
and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as
a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely
access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Ubiquiti you have until July 19, 2021 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ubiquiti securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the UI lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at
212-616-4899 or click this link.

                       ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

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

UNITED AUTO: Davidson Appeals 2nd Amended Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jerry Davidson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled JERRY DAVIDSON, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AUTO
CREDIT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01263-LMB-JFA, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2, 2021, Judge
Leonie M. Brinkema granted United's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The parties do not dispute the facts alleged in the Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"), and agree that the dispositive issue is whether
the Defendant's Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement,
through which the Plaintiff, who was an active member of the United
States military, financed his purchase of a 2011 GMC Acadia SUV on
Oct. 13, 2018, is covered by the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), 10
U.S.C. Section 987 et seq.

The Plaintiff describes United as one of the ten largest non- prime
automobile lenders in the United States, having over 4,500 auto
dealer customers and financing over $350 million in auto loans to
more than 53,000 borrowers. He alleges that United has violated
multiple provisions of the MLA.

Specifically, the SAC alleges that the Defendant violated Section
987(c)(1) by failing to make mandatory disclosures of various fees
including a $250 processing fee, a $350 fee for Guaranteed Asset
Protection ("GAP") insurance, and a $129.61 charge for prepaid
interest (Count I); violated Section 987(c)(1) by failing to
disclose the true cost of credit because the true military annual
percentage rate ("MAPR") for the Plaintiff was 26.31% and not
22.99% as written in the Contract (Count II); and violated Section
987(e)(3) by requiring borrowers to submit to arbitration (Count
III).

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the dismissal order
entered by Judge Brinkema.

The appellate case is captioned as Jerry Davidson v. United Auto
Credit Corporation, Case No. 21-1697, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JERRY DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com  

               - and -

          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          E-mail: rglezakos@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com  

               - and -

          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 East Cumberland Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com    

Defendant-Appellee UNITED AUTO CREDIT CORPORATION, a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq.
          Abraham Colman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Frampton, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 896-2414  
          E-mail: raymond.kim@hklaw.com
                  abe.colman@hklaw.com
                  zac.frampton@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Y. Chuang, Esq.
          REED & WICKER, PLLC
          321 West Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202-0000
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          E-mail: rchuang@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Esq.
          Ariel Simone Wossene, Esq.  
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          1650 Tysons Boulevard
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 720-8075  
          E-mail: travis.sabalewski@hklaw.com
                  ariel.wossene@hklaw.com

UNITED STATES: Seeks July 30 Extension to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR D. TORRES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS W. HARKER,
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ACTING), UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00306-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Defendant Thomas W. Harker asks the Court to enter an
order enlargng the response deadline to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel by 14 days, to
July 30, 2021.

The Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff on the substance of this
motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), and Plaintiff consents to
the relief sought. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), Defendant's
response is currently due on July 16, 2021.

The Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of two weeks due
to the pre-planned leave schedule of counsel and the press of other
work. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement
until July 30, 2021 to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion.

The United States Navy is the maritime service branch of the United
States Armed Forces and one of the eight uniformed services of the
United States.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i6QKsa at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq.
          Andrew Carmichael, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrlich, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          1100 L Street NW, Room 11502
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 305-7583
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
          E-mail: Joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov

WASHINGTON PRIME: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers on behalf of all purchasers of Washington Prime Group,
Inc. (NYSE: WPG) securities between November 5, 2020 and March 4,
2021, for remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WPG
is a self-managed and self-administered real estate investment
trust ("REIT") that owns properties and conduct operations through
Washington Prime Group, L.P. ("WPG, L.P."). WPG is the sole general
partner and holds approximately 84.7% of the partnership interests
of WPG L.P.

If you suffered a loss due to Washington Prime Group, Inc.'s
misconduct, click https://bit.ly/3r3RMce.

Washington Prime Group, Inc. (WPG) Misstated its Financial
Condition

According to the complaint, during the class period, WPG failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) WPG's financial condition was
deteriorating substantially; (2) there was substantial uncertainty
about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure
obligations as they came due; and (3) as a result, the positions
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 16, 2021, WPG disclosed that its operating partnership,
WPG L.P., had "elected to withhold an interest payment of $23.2
million due on February 15, 2021 with respect to WPG L.P.'s
outstanding Senior Notes due 2024," and that "WPG L.P. has a 30-day
grace period to make the interest payment before such non-payment
constitutes an 'event of default.'" The Company further advised
that, in an event of default, certain counterparties to the senior
notes "could accelerate the outstanding indebtedness due . . .
making such indebtedness due and payable, which would result in a
cross-default with respect to some of WPG L.P.'s or the Company's
other indebtedness." On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$4.59, or 38%, to close at $7.49 per share on February 16, 2021.

Then, on March 4, 2021, Bloomberg reported that WPG "is preparing a
potential bankruptcy filing as time runs out to avert default after
it skipped an interest payment on its debt, according to people
with knowledge of the plans." On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $3.77, or 60%, to close at $2.51 per share on March 4,
2021.

On March 16, 2021, after the market closed, WPG disclosed that it
had entered into a forbearance agreement with respect to the Senior
Notes due in 2024 and stated there was substantial doubt as the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The Company
confirmed that it had engaged in discussions for a financial
restructuring.

If you purchased shares of Washington Prime Group, Inc. (WPG)
between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, you have until July 23,
2021, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

WELLPET LLC: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties Parties agree to extend the deadlines 30
days as follows:

                                 Current          Proposed
                                 Deadline        New Deadline

-- Plaintiff's amended          Sept. 2, 2021     Oct. 3, 2021
   damages reports

-- Plaintiff's renewed          Sept. 2, 2021     Oct. 3, 2021
   class certification
   motion

-- Defendant's rebuttal         Oct. 28, 2021     Nov. 29, 2021
   reports

-- Defendant's opposition       Oct. 28, 2021     Nov. 29, 2021
   to Plaintiff’s amended
   damages reports and
   renewed class
   certification motion

-- Plaintiff's reply in         Nov. 24, 2021     Dec. 27, 2021
   support of his renewed
   class certification
   motion

On May 4, 2021, the Parties participated in a productive conference
with Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. In anticipation of another
forthcoming settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero, the
Parties entered into a stipulation on May 27, 2021, to extend
expert and class certification deadlines. The Court entered an
order consistent with the Parties' stipulation. Subsequently, the
settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero scheduled for
June 15, 2021 was continued to July 1, 2021.

WellPet is a pet food company formed by the combination of Wellness
Natural Pet Food, Holistic Select Natural Pet Food, Eagle Pack
Natural Pet Food and Old Mother Hubbard Natural Dog Snacks,
purchased by Berwind Corporation.

A copy of the Parties motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r3QvCb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com


The Attorneys for the Defendant WellPet LLC, are:

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0291
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com

WORLD WRESTLING: Obtains Approval for $39MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ravens, writing for Wrestling News, reports that WWE and a
group of investors have been given approval by a judge to move
forward with a $39 million settlement regarding a class action
lawsuit filed by the Firefighters' Pension System of the Kansas
City, Missouri Trust.

The group alleged that WWE executives deceived investors regarding
their business in Saudi Arabia by artificially inflated their stock
and that senior execs sold more than $280 million of their shares
at "fraud inflated prices."

The lawsuit also alleged the company did not disclose failed
negotiations with the Saudi government over their TV deal as well
as WWE not being able to expand in that region, despite claiming
otherwise to their investors.

Last November, an SEC filing by WWE revealed that the company
closed on a $39 million settlement for a class action lawsuit

Bloomberg Law reports the final approval was given by Judge Jed S.
Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The deal represents around 18.2% of estimated classwide
damages.

The judge previously rejected WWE's bid to dismiss the suit in late
2020 and then the settlement was approved in March of this year.
The settlement cast includes everyone who acquired WWE common stock
from February 7, 2019 through February 5, 2020, and lost money as a
result.

Labaton Sucharow LLP of New York City will get $7.02 million in
attorney's fees, which is 18% of the settlement fund, in addition
to more than $468,000 as reimbursement for litigation expenses.

The Firefighters' Pension System of the Kansas City, Missouri Trust
will receive more than $6,200 as a reimbursement for their
expenses. It should be noted that WWE did not admit any fault to
the allegations. [GN]

[*] Suit Filed After HHS Warns on Medical Imaging Technology Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
beckershospitalreview.com reports that two patients filed a class
action against two radiology companies after more than 1 million
patients who received care at hospitals nationwide may have been
exposed because of vulnerabilities in medical imaging archiving
software.

Five things to know:

In mid-2019, cybersecurity researchers analyzed 2,300 medical
images hosted by picture archiving communications systems, which
hospitals use to share medical images and data, according to court
documents.

The researchers discovered flaws in Northeast Radiology and
Alliance HealthCare's service that allegedly permitted unauthorized
access to more than 1.2 million patients' protected health
information. The PHI that was exposed allegedly includes 61 million
X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, medical test results, patient names, Social
Security numbers and more.

The researchers contacted the radiology companies, but their
warnings were ignored, the court documents said.

Two Northeast Radiology patients are suing the radiology firms on
behalf of themselves and the class members to settle damages caused
by the breach, the court filings said. The researchers who
discovered the breach said the value of the damages exceeds $1
billion and might be as high as $3.3 billion, due to the risk of
theft from exposure and a large number of alleged victims.

In a June 29 news release, HHS warned that about 130 hospitals and
health systems were using PACS, with more than 2 million patients
and 275 million medical images and PHI potentially exposed. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***