/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210330.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 30, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 58

                            Headlines

217 BOURBON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bancroft Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ingram Claims
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Morris Sues Due to the Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Orticerio Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products

ACORN OUTDOOR: Morton Suit Seeks to Certify Forestry Worker Class
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 27 Deadline
ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in Wage-and-Hour Suit File a Court Motion
ALLIANCE COAL: AROP Loses Bid to Dismiss Branson Class Suit

ALORICA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andre Suit Alleges
AM COMMUNICATIONS: Coffman Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Contractors Settle Wage-Theft Lawsuit for $8.2M
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Vaccaro Gets Leave to Amend Labor Complaint
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Seeks Texas Appeals Court Review in Berry Suit

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Martinek Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
ANZIE BLUE: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
APACHE CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 26 Deadline
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Reminds of May 29 Deadline
ATHENEX INC: Klein Reminds of May 3 Plaintiff Deadline

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: PF Sunset Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class
AVANTI LINENS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AVATARA LLC: Richardson Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
BELLUS HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 17 Deadline
BEST IN TOWN: Manasco Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages & Retaliation

BILL MUNCEY: Cal. App. Affirms $17K Attys. Fees in Caballero Suit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Braverman Suit
BOSTON PRIVATE: Coffman Challenges Proposed SVB Financial Merger
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Barrows Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Class Certification Sought in Brown Suit

BUFFALO GAMES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Claims
BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Wins Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
C P SECURITY: Grable Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
CAINE & WEINER: Swiecicki Sues Over Deceptive Collection Notices
CARVANA LLC: Koeppen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California

CENTENE CORP: Oliver FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Suit Moved to N.D. New York
CIGNA HEALTH: Neufeld Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA & RICO Classes
CLEVELAND BIOLABS: Litwin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Certify Order in Securities Suit Nixed

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Feltzs Seeks to Certify Class Action
CROWN ASSET: Khan Files Suit in Maryland Court
CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Okays Plaintiff Bid for Class Certification
CULTURAL CARE: Initial Cert. for FLSA Collective Action Sought
CVS PHARMACY: Lokey Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit

CVS PHARMACY: Zamora Brings Suit to Cal. Supreme Ct.
CYTODYN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Offices of Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline

DAYLIGHT FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hammer Suit Alleges
DEL'S GRASS: Ibarra Sues Over Unpaid Truck Drivers' Overtime
DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Mey TCPA Suit
DME JANITORIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cisneros Suit Alleges
DUN HUANG: Chen Suit Seeks Collective Action Status Under FLSA

EBIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EGM ELECTRIC: Rondon et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EHANG HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline
ELG METALS: Rachal Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
EMERSON COLLEGE: Ex Student Sues over 'Insufficient' Learning

EQUITY TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Andreasson Claims
FEDEX CORP: Overpeck Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Dismiss Martinez's Class Complaint Denied
FIVE STAR ADVERTISING: Court Certifies Class in Wendell TCPA Suit
FUBOTV INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline

FUBOTV INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Henry Suit Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels
GLEN PARK: Larson Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unlawful Termination

GOBRANDS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
GOLO LLC: Bubak Files Suit in W.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Sparks Sues Over Online Illegal Gambling Games
GREGORY FUNDING: Gasper Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
HEMATOGENIX LABORATORY: Wazwaz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

HUDAPACK METAL: Bid for Settlement Approval in Kelly Due April 16
HUDSON HALL: Restaurant Staff Gets NYLL Claims Class Certification
ILLUMINA INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Final Nod
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment on Thomas' Tort Claims Flipped
INFINITY Q: The Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline

INFINITY Q: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
KALEO HOLDINGS: Cadeau Files Placeholder Bid for Class Status
KEY ENERGY: Ward Seeks Unpaid Service Supervisors' Overtime Wages
KROGER CO: Faces Cochran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
LHC GROUP: George Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 17 Deadline
MADSKY MRP: Faces Blumenauer Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MAPLEBEAR INC: Online Grocery App Overcharges Customers, Suit Says
MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrews Suit Claims

MOTHERSHIP ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Arnold Says
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 26 Deadline
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Picou Suit transferred to in N.D. Illinois
NEENAH PAPER: Scarfe ERISA Suit Seeks Severance Pay for Employees

NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NEW JERSEY: Final Approval of Settlement Sought in J.M. Suit
NEW YORK GYPSUM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bray Suit Claims
NISSAN MOTOR: Customer Rejects 'Offensive' Settlement Offer
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Darish & Hymowitz Securities Suits Consolidated

NRA GROUP: Ray et al. Sue Over Deceptive Collection Letter
ONTRAK INC: Farhar Sues Over Decline of Securities Market Value
OWNERS INSURANCE: Certification of Missouri Citizen Class Sought
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: NMSIC Named Lead Plaintiff in Local 464A Suit
PLUG POWER: Faces Smolicek Suit Over Drop in Share Price

PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUM PBC: David Files Suit in N.D. California
PNC BANK: Lyons Appeals Consumer Credit Suit Ruling to 4th Cir.
PROBUILD COMPANY: Sengvong Class Action Deal Gets Initial Approval
RAY MOLES: Colores Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein FDCPA Class Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
RESORT SALES: Albin Suit Seeks to Certify Class
REVIVAL RUGS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBERTSON'S READY: Ellsworth FCRA Suit Goes to C.D. California

SANEPPAS BAR: Faces Bailey Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Misclassifies Employees, Gibbs Suit Claims
SPOKEO INC: Website Uses Personal Info in Ads, Greene Suit Says
STAPLES INC: Bonahoom's Warranty Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
STARCHILD INTERVENTIONS: Faces Gonzalez-Arellano Suit in California

SYNGENTA CORP: B & H Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of I.P. FLSA Suit Dismissal Bid
UNITED STATES: Mismanages Freedmen Minor Trust Funds, Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Writ of Mandamus Petition in Graca v. Souza Denied
US SECURITY: De La Cruz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

VALLEY PROTEINS: Underpays Raw Materials Drivers, Hollis Suit Says
VANPORT WAREHOUSING: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
VIVINT SOLAR: Li Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to C.D. Utah

W.S. BADCOCK: Manuel TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WASHINGTON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schumacher Suit
WELK RESORT: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in Ashcraft Suit
WELLPET LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Zeiger Suit to 9th Cir.
WELLS FARGO: June 25 Claims Filing Deadline Set

WHITE HOUSE: Haldy Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORLDWIDE WHOLESALE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
XOOM ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina

ZUORA INC: Roberts Suit Seeks to Certify Class

                            *********

217 BOURBON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bancroft Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY BANCROFT; and ARIEL SHARONE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 217 BOURBON, LLC and
JESSE WADE YEOMANS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00545 (E.D. La.,
Mar. 17, 2021) is an action arising out of the Defendants' failure
to pay minimum wage and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.

217 BOURBON, LLC owns and operates the Bourbon Street Drinkery, a
bar in New Orleans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
          Daniel A. Meyer, Esq.
          BRUNO & BRUNO, L.L.P.
          855 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 525-1335
          Facsimile: (504) 562-6775
          E-mail: dmeyer@brunobrunolaw.com


3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Ingram Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HORACE INGRAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00828-RMG
(D.S.C., March 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00812-RMG
(D.S.C., March 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Morris Sues Due to the Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00810-RMG
(D.S.C., March 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit contends.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Orticerio Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ORTICERIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company, ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.,
DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00791-RMG
(D.S.C., March 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

ACORN OUTDOOR: Morton Suit Seeks to Certify Forestry Worker Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTY MORTON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ACORN OUTDOOR
SERVICES, INC., and JUSTIN PENICK, Case No. 9:20-cv-00245-MJT (E.D.
Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying a collective with the following definition (the
Collective):

   "Forestry Workers employed by Acorn Outdoor Services, Inc.,
who,
   in the three years prior to the date of the Court's Order
   granting this Motion, were paid hourly, received additional
   compensation calculated at 1.25 times their regular hourly rate,

   and worked more than 40 hours in any workweek."

The Parties agree that "Forestry Workers" in the above Collective
definition shall mean those employees whose work primarily involved
operations in the field such as prescribed burning, reforestation,
and timberland management. The Parties further agree that "Forestry
Workers" shall not include those employees whose work primarily
involved driving vehicles for Acorn that required a Commercial
Driver's License (CDL).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tX3ZQ8
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 501
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark D. Temple, Esq.
          Paul M. Knettel, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
          E-mail: mtemple@bakerlaw.com
                  pknettel@bakerlaw.com

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc.
("AgEagle" or the "Company") (NYSE: UAVS) and reminds investors of
the April 27, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in AgEagle stock
or options between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/UAVS.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon and in fact never
had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than correct the
public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon, defendants
were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had a
partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report revealing
that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by . . .
AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS
insiders to defraud US investors."

On this news, shares of AgEagle fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.

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

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

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

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS) ("AgEagle")
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired AgEagle securities
between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021

Website:https://www.ktmc.com/ageagle-aerial-systems-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eagle

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

AgEagle is a commercial drone company that is engaged in the
design, engineering, and manufacturing of commercial drones, as
well as in providing drone services and solutions to the
agriculture industry.

Throughout the Class Period, AgEagle signaled to investors that
AgEagle had partnered with Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") to
manufacture and assemble drones for the delivery of consumer
goods.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon
and in fact never had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than
correct the public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon,
the defendants were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle
had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

As a result of the foregoing, AgEagle securities lost significant
value, directly harming AgEagle investors.

AgEagle investors may, no later than April 27, 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]

ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs in Wage-and-Hour Suit File a Court Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA and
IRINA IRINEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALL AMERICAN HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., Case No.
500500/2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the New York State
Supreme Court, County of Kings, on March 22, 2021.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated home attendants appropriate minimum
wages, overtime, and spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked.

Plaintiffs Maktumma Teshabaeva and Irina Irineva worked for the
Defendant as home attendants from approximately March 26, 2014
through March 28, 2014 and from approximately December 20, 2014
through August 13, 2015, respectively.

All American Homecare Agency, Inc. is a provider of nursing and
home health aide services located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
         Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
         VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
         40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 943-9080
         Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
         E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

ALLIANCE COAL: AROP Loses Bid to Dismiss Branson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY BRANSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE COAL,
LLC, WEBSTER COUNTY COAL, LLC, ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, LP,
ALLIANCE RESOURCE OPERATING PARTNERS, LP, WARRIOR COAL, LLC, RIVER
VIEW COAL, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00155-JHM
(W.D. Ky.), Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division,
denied without prejudice Defendant Alliance Resource Operating
Partners' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

According to the Amended Complaint, three coal mines in western
Kentucky systemically underpaid their employees for several years.
The Plaintiffs, employees of those coal mines, brought the
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class
action under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act to recover unpaid
wages.

The Plaintiffs sued six Defendants: Three coal mines that allegedly
underpaid them and three parent companies.  The three parent
companies are Alliance Coal LLC, AROP, and Alliance Resource
Partners, LP ("ARLP").  ARLP is at the top of the web—it owns
98.989% of AROP, which in turn owns 99.999 percent of Alliance
Coal.  Alliance Coal owns all three coal mines.  All three parent
companies are incorporated in Delaware and have the same principal
place of business in Oklahoma.

AROP, the "middle" parent Defendant, moves to dismiss the case
against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.  It claims it is not
at home in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, nor has it purposefully
availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the
Commonwealth.  In an affidavit supporting the motion to dismiss, an
AROP representative asserted that AROP has no employees or
officers, is licensed to conduct business in Delaware and Oklahoma
only, and has no Kentucky office.

The Plaintiffs, relying on publicly available information, assert
that AROP is amenable both to general jurisdiction and specific
jurisdiction in the Commonwealth.  In making this argument, they
put forth two separate theories.  First, they claim AROP is subject
to general jurisdiction because it is "at home" in Kentucky.
Second, they argue AROP is both subject to general jurisdiction and
specific jurisdiction as an "alter ego" of its parent company,
ARLP, and its subsidiary Alliance Coal.

General Jurisdiction

AROP is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business in Oklahoma.  But AROP's principal place of business is
not very insightful because, according to AROP, it has no officers
or employees.  Even though AROP has no officers or employees,
someone is making AROP's business decisions and running its
business operations.

The Plaintiffs believe that person is in Kentucky.  They produced
some information to support that claim: (1) the individual who
submitted AROP's jurisdictional affidavit, R. Eberly Davis,
previously stated under oath that he was a Kentucky resident and
(2) Dun & Bradstreet's corporate profile for AROP lists Joseph W.
Craft III as AROP's "Key Principal"; the Plaintiffs assert Craft is
a Kentucky resident.

Judge McKinley notes that if one or more of these individuals
handles most or all of AROP's business operations from Kentucky,
AROP could be "essentially at home" in the Commonwealth.  On the
record so far, he cannot say the Plaintiffs have made the required
prima facie showing.  They have, however, provided enough evidence
to warrant jurisdictional discovery.

Alter Ego Theory

Turning to the Plaintiffs' alter ego theory, Judge McKinley finds
that the Plaintiffs have yet not made the required prima facie
showing that AROP is an alter ego of the other Alliance entities.
Notably, they alleged no facts suggesting ARLP controls AROP's
daily business activities or that AROP keeps the same records as
the other entities.  Certain facts that the Plaintiffs allege do
not weigh heavily on the federal alter ego test.

The Judge believes jurisdictional discovery is warranted, however,
on a potential alter ego relationship between ARLP and AROP.  The
two partnerships share the same address, work in the same industry,
and Joseph Craft III and R. Eberly Davis (the two individuals
affiliated with AROP) are on ARLP's leadership team.  These
similarities warrant an inference that ARLP and AROP share a "unity
of interest and ownership" sufficient to create an alter ego
relationship.  If jurisdictional discovery reveals that AROP is a
shell company for ARLP, it could provide a basis for imputing
ARLP's Kentucky contacts to AROP for personal jurisdiction.

Conversely, however, discovery is not warranted on the relationship
between AROP and the Alliance subsidiaries.  The Plaintiffs have
not made a showing that AROP, a company with few if any employees
or officers and no evident business operations, was controlling the
day-to-day functions of Alliance Coal and the other subsidiaries.

The Judge also finds that jurisdictional discovery is warranted for
the relationship between ARLP and AROP on the Plaintiffs' state law
claims.  However, he holds that the Plaintiffs have not provided
evidence that AROP "dominates" the subsidiaries such that the
subsidiaries are AROP's alter ego.  The Plaintiffs do not allege
AROP treats the subsidiaries as part of itself, exerts day-to-day
control over the subsidiaries' operations, or undercapitalizes the
subsidiaries.  Therefore, he will not grant jurisdictional
discovery into the relationship between AROP and the subsidiaries.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge McKinley denies without
prejudice AROP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction.  No later than July 1, 2021, the parties will
complete discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Following jurisdictional discovery, AROP may file a renewed motion
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uy5p65wr from
Leagle.com.


ALORICA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andre Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CHERICE ANDRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALORICA INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00509 (Mar. 18, 2021) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Andre was employed by the Defendant as customer support
representative.

Alorica Inc. is a global leader in customer experience solutions.
The Company supports the world's respected brands with the best
talent and resources necessary to create insanely great
experiences, as well as delivers a host of world-class services for
industries of all kinds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


AM COMMUNICATIONS: Coffman Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AM COMMUNICATIONS,
LTD., JAMES JOHNSON, LLC, AND JAMES JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00637 (N.D. Ohio, March 22, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Revised Code for failure to pay the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated cable installers all earned minimum and
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a cable installer from
approximately 2014 through approximately November 2020.

AM Communications, Inc. is a provider of cable installation
services based in Crawford County, Ohio.

AM Communications, Ltd. is a provider of cable installation
services based in Crawford County, Ohio.

James Johnson, LLC is a cable installation services company based
in Stark County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
         BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
         P.O. Box 97066
         Phoenix, AZ 85060
         Telephone: (480) 382-5176
         E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                 chris@bendaulaw.com

                  - and –

         James L. Simon, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
         6000 Freedom Square Dr.
         Independence, OH 44131
         Telephone: (216) 525-8890
         Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
         E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Contractors Settle Wage-Theft Lawsuit for $8.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Khashimova Long at Seattle Times reports that Amazon and
Seattle-area delivery contractors have agreed to an $8.2 million
class-action settlement with drivers who alleged wage theft when
they were delivering the commerce giant's packages.

The settlement stems from a 2017 suit brought by two drivers, Gus
Ortiz and Mark Fredley. The drivers weren't directly employed by
Amazon -- they worked for an intermediary company, Jungle Trux, one
of hundreds of third-party logistics outfits that Amazon has
contracted with in the past decade to speed deliveries to
customers' doorsteps.

In their lawsuit, Ortiz and Fredley said Amazon was just as
culpable as Jungle Trux in forcing them to work without lunch or
rest breaks to deliver between 150 and 200 packages a day to Amazon
customers. The drivers said they were never paid for the missed
breaks. An attorney for Jungle Trux declined to comment.

The drivers wore Amazon uniforms, followed Amazon's rule book for
package delivery, and were supervised by Amazon employees,
according to the lawsuit.

"The lack of rest and meal breaks was part of the culture for
Amazon delivery drivers," said Seattle driver Henry Abreu in the
lawsuit. "It was just the way it was. Amazon assigned us a certain
number of packages that we were required to deliver in the time
allotted by Amazon and according to Amazon's instructions.

"If we did not finish within the allotted time," he said, "Amazon
would issue negative marks against us." Abreu, who worked for the
now-defunct Amazon contractor Delivery Force, said he urinated in a
bottle he kept in the van during delivery shifts because he didn't
have enough time to use the restroom.

Abreu and other drivers working for similar Seattle-area Amazon
delivery contractors said they were expected to show up to work at
4 a.m. but not allowed to clock in until 90 minutes later,
according to declarations in the lawsuit.

Catherine Pettigrew, a Tacoma-based driver for Amazon contractor
Progistics Distribution, said in a declaration filed in the suit
that Progistics issued her paychecks, but Amazon handled most other
aspects of her employment. The company trained her, screened her
employment application, and briefed her before and after the start
of each shift.

Meanwhile, "Amazon did not make any effort to arrange my route or
my schedule to ensure that I received a paid rest break," she
said.

Progistics did not immediately respond to questions.

In a statement, Amazon said it does not tolerate violations of
labor laws by its delivery contractors.

"Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct
labor violations, we terminate contracts," said Amazon spokesperson
Leah Seahy.

Drivers received notice last month of the $8.2 million settlement,
of which just over $5.5 million is slotted to be paid to drivers as
compensation for missing wages. The deal is subject to final
approval by a King County Superior Court judge later this spring.

Amazon critics have said contracting for delivery services rather
than hiring drivers directly makes it easier for the company to
evade responsibility for labor law violations and liabilities like
traffic accidents. Amazon itself provided seed funding to Jungle
Trux, Progistics, Delivery Force and five other delivery
contractors named in the suit as part of an Amazon program to spur
the formation of delivery outfits with a sole focus on delivering
packages from the company's warehouses to customers' doorsteps.

Similar class-action suits against Amazon and its delivery
contractors are ongoing in Texas, Ohio, Colorado, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Illinois and Maryland, according to
Vice, which first reported news of the settlement with Seattle-area
drivers.

Meanwhile, California this month fined Amazon and another of its
delivery contractors nearly $6.5 million for wage-theft violations
affecting 718 workers. The state's labor commissioner found drivers
were forced to work through meal and rest breaks to complete their
routes and often worked longer than their scheduled shift without
additional pay, resulting in "frequent minimum wage, overtime, meal
break, rest period and split-shift violations."

And last month, Amazon agreed to pay $61.7 million in tips withheld
from its Flex gig drivers, who deliver for the company's Prime Now,
Amazon Fresh and Whole Foods services in their personal vehicles,
after an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.[GN]

AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Vaccaro Gets Leave to Amend Labor Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE VACCARO, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 18-11852 (FLW) (D.N.J.), Judge Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings.

The case is a putative class action brought by current and former
employees against the Defendant seeking compensation under the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq., for
time spent undergoing mandatory post-shift security screenings at
Amazon facilities in New Jersey and for time spent on meal breaks.
On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant action in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, and on July 19, 2018,
Defendant removed the case to the Court.

On June 29, 2020, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The
District Court denied the Defendant's motion with respect to the
post-shift security screenings but dismissed the Plaintiff's claim
regarding unpaid meal breaks.

The Initial Pretrial Conference was held on Aug. 18, 2020, and the
parties were directed to proceed with the first phase of a
bifurcated discovery process.

The Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") to add an additional named Plaintiff, Jennifer Chiu, and a
claim that the Defendant failed to pay Ms. Chiu and putative class
members for pre-shift COVID-19 screenings at the Defendant's
warehouses or "fulfillment centers."  The Defendant opposes the
motion, arguing that the amendments are futile because "COVID
screenings are not compensable because they are not 'work'" under
the NJWHL.

The SAC alleges that proposed named Plaintiff Chiu was required to
"submit to COVID-19 screenings on the Defendant's premises prior to
clocking in" that included having her temperature taken and
answering questions "including but not limited to whether she has
been in contact with any person infected by COVID-19."  Chiu and
other employees of the Defendant who were and are subject to such
screenings were/are not compensated for this time at a fulfillment
center.  At a minimum, the Plaintiff argues that the proposed claim
should survive at this stage of litigation and discovery should be
permitted into who primarily benefits from the COVID-19
screenings.

The Defendant argues that the pre-shift COVID-19 screenings are not
"work" under the NJWHL because work must primarily benefit the
employer; therefore, the Plaintiff's proposed amendments to the
First Amended Complaint are futile.  The Defendant argues, the
COVID screenings "predominantly" protect, employees, their
families, and the general public.  The health and safety benefits
of the screenings "predominate over" the economic benefits Amazon
receives from preventing absenteeism and keeping its facilities
open.  The Defendant asserts, however, that "whether time is spent
predominately for the employer's benefit or for the employee's is a
question dependent upon all the circumstances of the case."  It
also argues that wage and hour laws do not and should not
"discourage employers from taking this type of proactive measure"
and potentially reduce efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Judge Bongiovanni concludes that in this motion to amend, where it
is clear that the mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings are
"controlled or required by the employer," the question is whether
they "primarily benefit the employer" under the second prong of the
Court's definition for "place of work" under N.J.A.C. 12:56-5.2(a).
The Plaintiff argues that the screenings primarily benefit the
Defendant since they will reduce absenteeism due to COVID spreading
or required quarantines and prevent an entire facility from closing
due to an outbreak.  The Defendant argues that these screenings
primarily benefit employees and the broader public by protecting
them from the highly contagious virus, as shown by the Governor's
encouragement and then requirement that it undertake such
screenings based on CDC guidance.  It admits, however, that the
question of whether an activity is primarily for the employer's
benefit or the employee's benefit "is a question dependent upon all
the circumstances of the case."  As a result, the Plaintiff is
entitled to discovery on this issue, and the proposed amendment is
not futile.

For these reasons, Judge Bongiovanni granted the Plaintiff's motion
to amend.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/k7y2fksy from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN CAMPUS: Seeks Texas Appeals Court Review in Berry Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants American Campus Communities, Inc., et al., filed an
interlocutory appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled BETH BERRY & BROOKE BERRY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN CAMPUS
COMMUNITIES, Defendants, Case No. DC-18-01636, in the Texas
Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Dallas County.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action against the Defendant for violating the Plaintiffs'
rights as a tenant under the Texas Property Code, which requires a
residential lease to include language in underlined or bold print
that informs the tenant of the remedies under the Texas Property
Code.

American Campus Communities, Inc. owns and operates on and off
campus housing properties within close proximity to colleges and
universities. The Company provides development and construction
services for student housing properties owned by universities,
charitable foundations and others. American Campus Communities also
provides third party management and leasing services.

The appellate case is captioned as American Campus Communities,
Inc., et al. vs. Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and Hailey
Hoppenstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 03-21-00119-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals,
Third Court of Appeals, March 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and
Hailey Hoppenstein, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael J. Hindman, Esq.
          N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
          Theodore B. Lyon Jr., Esq.
          Rebecca E. Bell, Esq.

Defendants-Appellants American Campus Communities, Inc., et al.,
are represented by:

          Leanna Anderson, Esq.
          Spencer Hamilton, Esq.

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Martinek Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARTINEK v. AMTRUST
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, AND
LEAH KARFUNKEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-08030-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead
Plaintiff Martinek will move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order:

   1. certifying the following Class:

      "All persons who purchased Series A preferred stock of
      AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., or AmTrust's
      Depositary Shares representing 1/40th of a share of either
      AmTrust's Series B, C, D, E or F preferred stock on the
      open market on a U.S. stock exchange from January 22, 2018,
      to January 18, 2019,  inclusive (the "Class Period"),
      excluding present and former executive officers
      of AmTrust and any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate
      of AmTrust, Barry D. Zyskind, George Karfunkel, and
      Leah Karfunkel and their immediate family members
      (collectively, the "Excluded Persons"), and the legal
      representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such
      Excluded Person."

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
      Class;

   3. appointing Wolf Popper LLP as Class Counsel for the Class;
      and

   4. granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem

      just and proper.

AmTrust Financial Services is an industry-leading insurance
provider, focusing on small business insurance solutions with an
emphasis on workers' compensation coverage.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fostOu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Lead Plaintiff And the Putative Class, are:

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600

ANZIE BLUE: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY PAIGE MCCAY, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ANZIE BLUE,
LLC, DEREK VAN MOL, and, MARCIE VAN MOL, Case No. 3:21-cv-00078
(M.D. Tenn.), the Parties stipulate to the following provisions and
jointly move the Court for entry of an order granting the following
relief:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b) consisting of:

      "all hourly-paid front of the house Anzie Blue employees,
      including Bartenders, Cashiers, Baristas, Runners and
      Coordinators, who have worked at any time since March 12,
      2018;"

   2. approving the Notice and Consent Form for distribution to
      individuals in the Collective;

   3. directing the Defendants, within 7 days following the
      granting of this joint stipulation, the Defendants will
      provide to Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet
      containing the name, last known mailing address, last known
      e-mail address, and dates of employments for each member of
      the Collective;

   4. directing the Plaintiff and her counsel that within seven
      days of receiving the Collective List from the Defendants, to

      issue the approved Notice and Consent Forms to potential
Opt-
      In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and e-mail, at their initial
      expense without prejudice to seeking reimbursement, and shall

      include a self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the
      initial mailing; and

   5. providing for an opt-in period of 60 days from the mailing of

      the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form;

A copy of the parties joint stipulation dated March 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31oiDE5 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory H. Oakley, Esq.
          OAKLEY LAW PLLC
          104 Woodmont Boulevard, Suite 201
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 209-9814
          Facsimile: (615) 866-3675
          E-mail: goakley@oakley-law.com

               - and -

          Gary R. Clark, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY
          300 N LaSalle Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 715-5040
          Facsimile: (312) 715-5155
          E-mail: gary.clark@quarles.com

APACHE CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Apache Corporation.
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ:APA)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13888&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021
Class Period: September 7, 2016 - March 13, 2020

Allegations against APA include that: (i) Apache intentionally used
unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of
available oil and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the
proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill
and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the
amounts purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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

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

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Reminds of May 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Astrazeneca Plc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

AZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

AZN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2020 -
November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Astrazeneca Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the
Company's COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical
manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) clinical
trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the
validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the
clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (c)
certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a
second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the
second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled
to be delivered according to the original trial design; (d)
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (e) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e)
above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in
accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards
and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the
clinical trials was of limited utility; and (g) as a result of
(a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial
use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

ATHENEX INC: Klein Reminds of May 3 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ATNX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13887&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Athenex, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA
presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results
of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19
conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read
process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the
BICR; (iv) the Company's Phase 3 study that was used to file the
NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population
with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S.
population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical
trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until May 3, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: PF Sunset Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PF SUNSET VIEW, LLC dba
PLANET FITNESS, PF RIVERVIEW, LLC dba PLANET FITNESS, PF SKIPPER
VIEW, LLC dba PLANET FITNESS, and PF WATER VIEW, LLC dba PLANET
FITNESS individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
9:20-cv-81224-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class:

      "All insureds with an in-force commercial property insurance
      policies issued by Atlantic Specialty in the State of Florida

      between March 1, 2020 and the present that contained Business

      Income and Extra Expense Coverage;" and

   2. appointing Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of
      Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP as Class Counsel in this
action.

Atlantic specialty insurance company provides specialty insurance
services. The company offers a combination of insurance products
for both commercial and personal lines, as well as professional,
marine and environmental insurance.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cynQQ6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Balkan, Esq.
          John B. Patterson, Esq.
          BALKAN & PATTERSON, LLP
          1877 S. Federal Highway, Suite 100
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-9191
          Facsimile: (561) 750-1574
          E-mail: adam@balkanpatterson.com
                  john@balkanpatterson.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.coms

AVANTI LINENS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avanti Linens, Inc.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Avanti Linens, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02531 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021).

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

Avanti -- https://www.avantilinens.com/ -- was founded in 1969,
they manufacture and provide towels, rugs, shower curtains, and
table linens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AVATARA LLC: Richardson Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL RICHARDSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVATARA LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00009159 (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
March 3, 2021) challenges systemic illegal employment practices of
Avatara resulting in violations of the California Labor Code
against individuals who worked for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges, that Defendants, jointly and severally, have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in the Defendants' failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements to their employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 2020 to
January 11, 2021.

The Plaintiff was and is the victim of the policies, practices, and
customs of the Defendant complained of in this action in ways that
have deprived him of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code
section 226.

Avatara is the leading source for cloud computing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

BELLUS HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of BELLUS Health Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

BLU Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bellus-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ:BLU)

BLU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 5, 2019
- July 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bellus-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, BELLUS
Health Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: while BLU-5937's "high selectivity"
contributed to the drug causing little to no taste alteration in
chronic cough patients, that high selectivity also contributed to
the drug potentially being less efficacious and thus likely not be
able to meet the primary endpoint of the Company's Phase 2 trial.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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


BEST IN TOWN: Manasco Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages & Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN MANASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST IN TOWN, INC. d/b/a THE FURNACE, an
Alabama corporation, GREGORY L JACKSON, an individual; GRAHAM G.
JACKSON, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00381-JHE (N.D.
Ala., March 12, 2021) brings this collective action complaint
seeking damages due to the Defendants' alleged evasion of the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as dancer/entertainer for the Defendants
at various times between 2017 and March 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants improperly classified him
and other similarly situated entertainers as "independent
contractors", thereby failing to pay them minimum wage for any
hours they worked at their establishment and overtime wages at one
and one-half time their regular rate of pay for any hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. Instead, they were compensated exclusively
through tips from the Defendants' customers. However, they were
required to share their tips with the Defendants and other
non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including managers, disc jockeys, and house moms, the Plaintiff
adds.

Aside from unlawful tip pooling, the Defendants would impose late
fees of approximately $140 every time the Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers failed to appear at their scheduled time.
Allegedly, the Defendants would often schedule dancers at
inconvenient times for the purpose of charging and collecting late
fees, and would suspend, fine, fire, or otherwise discipline
entertainer for non-compliance with their rules regarding dancing.

Moreover, the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff with termination
when he complained to the Defendants multiple times regarding the
club's taking of her monies earned from customers and the unsafe
working conditions at the Furnace, and also fined the Plaintiff for
complaining and then subjected her to knowingly burdensome
schedules in order to charge her late fees. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered panic
attacks which required medical attention. Subsequently, the
Defendants fired the Plaintiff around early March 2021.

In addition, the Defendants failed to maintain records of wages,
fines, fees, tips and gratuities and/or service charges paid or
received by their entertainers, the suit says.

Best in Town, Inc. d/b/a The Furnace operate an adult-oriented
entertainment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Tortorici, Esq.
          SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C.
          100 Centerview Drive, Suite 205
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Tel: (205) 978-4211
          E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com

                - and –

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Tel: (310) 507-7924
          Fax: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@krsitensenlaw.com

                - and –

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Tel: (713) 554-2377
          Fax: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


BILL MUNCEY: Cal. App. Affirms $17K Attys. Fees in Caballero Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISMAEL CABALLERO, Plaintiff and Appellant v. BILL
MUNCEY INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. D076628 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division One, affirms the trial court's order
awarding the Plaintiff $17,234 in attorney fees.

In December 2016, Caballero, who worked as a cook at Galley at the
Marina restaurant, sued Fran Muncey, an individual he believed to
own and operate the restaurant, and Bill Muncey Industries, the
corporate entity responsible for the restaurant, for various wage
and hour violations and for violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL").  Caballero filed the suit as a class action and as a
private attorney general action (Bus. Prof. Code, Section 17204).

The Plaintiff alleged four causes of action: (1) failure to pay
overtime compensation (Labor Code, Sections 203, 510, 515, subd.
(d), & 1198); (2) failure to provide meal and rest period breaks
(Section 226.7); (3) failure to provide itemized wage statements;
and (4) violation of the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et
seq.).

Mr. Caballero requested a default judgment against Fran in February
2017; the default judgment was later vacated in March 2017.
Shortly thereafter, Caballero amended the complaint to name Muncey
Industries in place of DOE 1.  Fran and Muncey Industries filed
separate answers.

The case eventually proceeded to trial in May 2018.  Following
trial, the jury concluded Fran had no liability, but Muncey
Industries failed to pay overtime wages and violated wage statement
requirements.  Judgment was entered against Muncey Industries for
unpaid overtime and wage statement violations in the amount of
$6,958.36.

Mr. Caballero subsequently moved for attorney fees in the amount of
$168,749.47, representing the full value of the services, based on
his success on the overtime and wage statement causes of action
against Muncey Industries.  The court awarded $17,234, explaining
it had apportioned the attorney fees based on Caballero's limited
success; the court also recognized that some of the billing entries
may have been excessive or duplicative.

Mr. Caballero appeals, contending the court improperly apportioned
the attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals concludes the trial court did not abuse its
discretion.  It opines that trial court is in the best position to
value the professional services provided.  In the case, it
concluded that the attorneys' requested hourly rate was reasonable,
but it recognized that some of the billing entries were excessive
or duplicative, and it reduced the total amount of recovery due to
Caballero's limited success.  It was within the court's discretion
to reduce the overall award to account for the limited amount of
success, both in terms of causes of actions and defendants.

Further, Caballero's limited recovery of less than $7,000 in
compensatory damages and penalties in comparison to the $168,749.47
sought in attorney fees further supports the trial court's decision
to reduce the award.  The Appellate Court cannot say the amount
awarded is so small under the circumstances that it shocks the
conscience.

The Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $69,750 in the
matter on the basis that the appeal is frivolous and totally
lacking in merit, creating a professional obligation not to pursue
it, and due to the distortion of the record.  The Defendants also
point out that Caballero's briefing violates the California Rules
of Court.

The Court of Appeals agrees with the Defendants that Caballero's
appellate briefs fail to comply with the California Rules of Court
in a number of respects.  Caballero does not follow format
requirements: He does not use roman font style or italicize or
underscore case names.  Caballero also fails consistently to
support references to matters in the record by a citation to the
volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.
Although the opening brief includes some citations to the record,
it does so sporadically.

Further, as the Appellate Court previously addressed, although
Caballero repeatedly claims he prevailed on the UCL claim, he fails
to cite to the record for this claim, and the record does not
reflect that judgment was reached on this cause of action.  It
cautions Caballero's attorneys to be more precise in the future.
While it agrees with the Defendants that Caballero's appellate
briefing fails to comply with California Rules of Court in several
respects, the Appellate Court declines to award sanctions on this
basis.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment.  The
parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4nkjnf3z from Leagle.com.

Fine & Associates, Ali Razi -- alirazi@yahoo.com -- and Paul K.
Fine -- fine_associates@hotmail.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Ramey Litigation Group and Christopher L. Ramey for Defendants and
Respondents.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Braverman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARRY BRAVERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. SA CV 16-00966 TJH (PJWx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Terry J. Hatter of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, granted BMW's
motion for summary judgment.

On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against Defendant BMW, alleging that its model years 2014 to 2016
i3 Rex electric car equipped with the "Range Extender" option
contains a design defect which, inter alia, causes the Class Car to
suddenly decelerate when its battery's charge drops to a certain
level, and that BMW hid that defect from consumers.

The Plaintiffs alleged 40 claims related to breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, consumer protection, and
fraudulent concealment under various federal, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
and Washington laws.  In July, 2018, the parties stipulated to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Colorado and Georgia claims.

On March 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification on
their breach of implied warranty, consumer protection, and
fraudulent concealment claims for the Class Cars leased or
purchased in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.

The Plaintiffs sought to uniformly apply California law to all the
putative class members, arguing that the common law and statutes of
those states were substantially similar to the following California
laws: (1) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Secitons 1790, et seq.; (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (3) False Advertising statute,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500; (4) Unlawful Business
Practices statutes, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq;
and (5) common law fraud.  They , also, sought certification on
their derivative federal implied warranty claim under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.

On May 19, 2020, the Court denied the motion for class
certification because, inter alia: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to
establish that California law could be uniformly applied to all
putative class members and all Class Cars because the Plaintiffs
failed to meaningfully analyze whether the statutes of the other
states are substantially similar to California's statutes; and (2)
the Plaintiffs failed to meaningfully analyze whether the class
should be certified under any other state's laws.

Nevertheless, the Court held that certification was proper for the
Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss claims for the Class
Cars acquired in California.  However, it recognized that if it
"were to certify only the Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly and
Magnuson-Moss claims] for California-acquired Class Cars, the scope
of the Plaintiffs' case would be drastically changed" and,
therefore, left it to Plaintiffs to decide whether to reduce the
scope of their case.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Barry Braverman, Hakop Demirchyan, Joel
Green, Dr. Glynda Robertson, Edo Tsoar, and Peter Weinstein, who
purchased their respective Class Cars in California, moved for
class certification only as to their Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss
claims.  However, intervening Ninth Circuit precedent held that a
Magnuson-Moss class claim may not be certified with fewer than 100
putative class members.  Because the Plaintiffs, in the instant
case, sought to certify a class of fewer than 100 putative class
members, they withdrew their request to certify their Magnuson-Moss
claim.  Consequently, on Sept. 30, 2020, the Court granted the
motion to certify only as to the Song-Beverly claim.

Consequently, the only certified class claim is the Plaintiffs'
claim under Song-Beverly.  In addition, the Plaintiffs' individual
claims based on California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan,
Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and federal law remain
pending.

BMW, now, moves for summary judgment as to all of the Plaintiffs'
claims, while the Plaintiffs, now, move for partial summary
judgment as to two of BMW's affirmative defenses.

Judge Hatter first considers whether the Plaintiffs' claims survive
BMW's motion for summary judgment before he considers whether BMW's
affirmative defenses are viable. He states that when considering a
motion for summary judgment on a claim where the nonmoving party
has the burden of proof at trial, the motion will be granted if the
nonmoving party fails to produce evidence to establish a prima
facie case.  The moving party, however, has the initial burden to
show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence to
establish a prima facie case.  If the moving party's burden is met,
then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, with
admissible evidence, a prima facie case.

The Judge holds that BMW has satisfied its initial burden and,
therefore, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs to establish a prima
facie case for each of their claims.  At this juncture, he cannot
weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.  Further, he
must accept the nonmoving party's facts as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor.
As he noted, the overarching theory as to all of the Plaintiffs'
claims is that the Class Car contains a design defect and that BMW
omitted, or otherwise concealed, the defect from consumers in an
effort to sell or lease the Class Car for more money than it is
actually worth.  Accordingly, the threshold issue as to all of the
Plaintiffs' claims is whether the Class Car contained a design
defect.

In support of their contention that the Class Car contained a
design defect, the Plaintiffs relied on, inter alia, the opinion of
their engineering expert, Patrick Donahue, and their own
declarations that they experienced the sudden deceleration.
However, the Plaintiffs' proffered evidence falls short of proving
that the Class Car contained a design defect.

Mr. Donahue did not opine that the Class Car's design was
defective.  Rather, he opined only that the Class Car was designed
to function as the Plaintiffs' alleged -- that at a certain battery
charge level and in certain driving conditions, the Class Car would
decelerate.  Donahue did not opine that such a design was defective
and, indeed, stated that he was not opining as to whether the
design was defective.

In response to BMW's argument that Donahue failed to offer a design
defect opinion, the Plaintiffs pointed the Court to excerpts of
Donahue's deposition transcript, wherein Donahue testified that the
deceleration he experienced "was quite significant when he drove"
an exemplar Class Car, and that there are "certain situations where
this performance could present some safety problems."

The Judge, however, finds that the deposition transcript excerpts
were not properly authenticated because the court reporter's
certification is missing.  The Plaintiffs' attorney's declaration
that the proffered excerpts are a true and correct copy of portions
of Donahue's deposition transcript is insufficient.  The
Plaintiffs, also, failed to satisfy their alternative burden of
demonstrating that this evidence could be presented in an
admissible form at trial.  Consequently, the Judge need not
consider Donahue's unauthenticated deposition transcript excerpts.
Nevertheless, even if, arguendo, he were to consider those
excerpts, Donahue testified only that the Class Car functioned the
way that it was designed -- he did not testify that the design was
defective.

The Plaintiffs, also, argued that an expert's opinion that the
design is defective is not required to establish a prima facie
case, and that they had sufficiently carried their burden of
proving the alleged design defect based on, inter alia, their own
personal experiences.

The Judge disagrees.  He holds that whether a car is defectively
designed is "beyond the common knowledge of the average layman."
Even if, arguendo, expert testimony were not required to prove a
design defect, the other evidence the Plaintiffs proffered prove
only that the Class Cars operate as the Plaintiffs alleged --
again, falling short of establishing that the design was
defective.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Hatter concludes that because the
Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the Class
Car contained a design defect, they, also, failed to establish a
prima facie case for any of their claims.  Consequently, the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment challenging the
sufficiency of BMW's affirmative defenses is moot.

Accordingly, the Judge (i) granted BMW's motion for summary
judgment, (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment, and (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion
for an order approving the form and manner of the Class Notice.

The Judge entered judgment in favor of Defendant BMW and against
Plaintiffs Dean Rollolazo, Glynda Roberson, Brandon Redmond, Adeel
Siddiqui, Dimitar Aatanasov, Robert Desatnik, Edo Tsoar, Joel
Green, John Lingsweiler, Eric Wonderly, Charles Olsen, Lawrence
Curcio, Barry Braverman, Peter Weinstein, Steve Ridges, and Hakop
Demirchyan.  The Plaintiffs will take nothing as to their
individual claims as well as to the sole certified class claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/8zr3ds5j from Leagle.com.


BOSTON PRIVATE: Coffman Challenges Proposed SVB Financial Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE COFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON PRIVATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS,
INC.; ANTHONY DECHELLIS; STEPHEN M. WATERS; MARK F. FURLONG; JOSEPH
C. GUYAUX; DEBORAH F. KUENSTNER; GLORIA C. LARSON; KIMBERLY S.
STEVENSON; LUIS A. UBINAS; and LIZABETH H. ZLATKUS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01791 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2021) is an action
brought by Plaintiff against Boston Private Financial Holdings,
Inc. ("Boston Private" or the "Company") and the members of Boston
Private's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual
Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Boston Private will be acquired by
SVB Financial Group ("SVB") (the "Proposed Transaction").

According to the complaint, on February 11, 2021, SVB filed a Form
S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the
SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Boston
Private stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the projections for each of Boston Private and SVB and
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's
financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"); and
(ii) the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Defendants
authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Registration
Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Unless remedied, Boston Private's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured, the suit says.

Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. is a financial holding
company. The Company's subsidiaries offers a variety of banking,
commercial, and residential lending services, as well as trust and
investment management services to its domestic and international
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


BRINKER RESTAURANT: Barrows Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Savannah Barrows, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Savannah Barrows and Michael
Mendez, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-144, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York (Syracuse).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, "spread of hours"
compensation, uniform maintenance payments, unpaid tips and
gratuities, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Laws and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brinker Restaurant Corporation operates as Chili's Grill and Bar in
Clay, New York.  Barrows worked for Brinker as a shift manager
while Mendez worked as a food runner. They were required to share
their tips, thus, rendering their pay below the mandatory rate.
Brinker failed to pay them weekly and denied them wage statements,
notes the complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dated February
18, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case and
compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Barrows v. Brinker Restaurant
Corporation, Case No. 21-606, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, March 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Savannah Barrows and Michael Mendez,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com  

Defendant-Appellee Brinker Restaurant Corporation, DBA Chili's
Grill & Bar, is represented by:

          Kristi Rich Winters, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          677 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 512-8727
          E-mail: kristi.winters@jacksonlewis.com

BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Class Certification Sought in Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH NORMAN BROWN III,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WAYNE
IVEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, Case
No. 6:21-cv-00477-GKS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying a class.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the class are prevented from
exercising their First Amendment Right to freedom of speech.

Broward County is located in southeastern Florida, United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dcDrUt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BUFFALO GAMES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUFFALO GAMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02165-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a
member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

The Plaintiff contends that he has encountered multiple access
barriers when he visited the Defendant's website on or around
August 2020 by using a popular screen reading software called
Nonvisual Desktop Access with the intent of browsing and
potentially making a purchase. The Website allegedly lacked of a
variety of features and accommodations which effectively denied him
and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons
access similar to that of a sighted individual.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons access
to the Website and be able to complete a desired transaction as
sighted individuals do.

Due to the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access
barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been harmed. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks damages, fees,
costs, and injunctive relief.

Buffalo Games, LLC is a board games and puzzle manufacturing
company that owns and operates the website www.buffalogames.com.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Wins Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH LICHTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS CONTROL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 04476 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
denies the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Mr. Lichter brings the putative class action against Bureau of
Accounts Control ("BAC"), a debt collection agency, alleging a
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA").  In his Complaint, Lichter
initially alleged that on Aug. 3, 2016, he obtained personal
medical services from a provider named New Jersey Urology, LLC.
However, BAC alleged that it was actually Bergen Urological Assoc.,
PA that provided services to Lichter on Aug. 3, 2016.

It is undisputed that on that date, Lichter signed two documents on
Bergen Urological letterhead that explained Bergen Urological's
financial policy and outlined the procedure for dealing with
Lichter's insurance company.  BAC alleges that Lichter thereafter
defaulted on a balance owed to Bergen Urological stemming from
these services in the amount of $1,025.  After Lichter allegedly
defaulted on this debt, Bergen Urological assigned the alleged debt
to BAC for collection.  Lichter denies ever having owed any debt to
Bergen Urological.

On Dec. 28, 2018, BAC mailed Lichter a letter, identifying itself
as a debt collector and Bergen Urological as Lichter's creditor.
BAC's letter explained that Bergen Urological requested that BAC
collect a past due amount of $1,025 for services provided to
Lichter on Aug. 3, 2016.  BAC claims Lichter never responded to its
letter, though Lichter claims he disputed it.  The Plaintiff's
Response to Defendant's Additional Statements and Material Facts.

On Feb. 2, 2019, BAC sent Lichter another letter, again identifying
itself as a debt collector and Bergen Urological as Lichter's
creditor.  This letter again explained that BAC was attempting to
collect on the balance due to Bergen Urological.  Again, BAC claims
that Lichter never responded to the letter.

Throughout this time, BAC maintained records detailing its efforts
to collect the alleged debt from Lichter.  Specifically, on Feb.
12, 2019, BAC's records describe a phone call with Lichter's wife.
The following week, on Feb. 18, 2019, BAC's records transcribe a
message from an individual named "Judy," in which Judy states
"Please cancel this account as a corrected claim needed to be sent
to the insurance company in a timely manner and our follow up team
failed to do so therefore the balance will be written off as the
patient should not have been liable for it."  On Feb. 18, 2019, the
record reflects that BAC cancelled the account and charged a
cancellation fee to Bergen Urological.

On May 16, 2019, Lichter filed the instant action, alleging that
BAC violated the FDCPA.  Lichter's core allegation is that BAC's
letter was false because, in fact, he owed no debt to Bergen
Urological.  On May 4, 2020, following discovery, Lichter moved for
summary judgment.  On June 4, 2020, BAC filed an opposition and
cross-motion for summary judgment.

In his Complaint, Lichter initially argued that he actually owed
the disputed debt to New Jersey Urology, not to Bergen Urological.
Thus, he alleged, BAC's Feb. 2, 2019 letter attempting to collect a
debt for Bergen Urological violated the FDCPA.  In support of his
motion for summary judgment, however, Lichter's argument morphed
slightly.  Instead of arguing that he actually owed a debt to New
Jersey Urology, Lichter argued that if he owed any debt, he owed it
to New Jersey Urology.

However, Lichter's argument evolved once more after BAC introduced
its business records as an exhibit to its cross-motion.  Lichter
finally argues that the undisputed evidence shows that he did not
owe a debt at all -- not to New Jersey Urology, and not to Bergen
Urological.  As such, Lichter contends, the Court should find that
BAC violated the FDCPA by falsely representing that he owed a debt
to Bergen Urological.

In opposition to Lichter's motion and in support of its
cross-motion for summary judgment, BAC maintains that the
undisputed facts show that Lichter did owe a debt to Bergen
Urological.  BAC separately argues that it did not intend to
misrepresent the existence of any debt.  Therefore, according to
BAC, its Feb .2, 2019 letter to Lichter did not violate the FDCPA.

The parties do not dispute that Lichter has satisfied the first two
elements of his FDCPA claim: (i) that Lichter is a consumer who
allegedly owes the debt; and (ii) that BAC is a debt collector
under the FDCPA.  Because it is undisputed that Lichter is a
consumer and that BAC is a debt collector, the only open question
is the final element of Lichter's FDCPA claim: Whether BAC has
engaged in any act or omission in violation of FDCPA requirements.

Judge Ramos concludes that, on the undisputed facts, Lichter has
proven his prima facie case of BAC's FDCPA violation.  The parties
agree that Lichter is a consumer and that BAC is a debt collector,
satisfying the first two elements of Lichter's claim.  And the
undisputed facts further show that BAC made a false representation
as to Lichter's alleged debt when it mailed him a letter seeking to
collect a debt on behalf of Bergen Urological, although he owed no
debt to that entity.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ramos grants Lichter's motion for
summary judgment and denies BAC's cross-motion for summary
judgment.  He directs the parties to appear for a status conference
on April 16, 2021 at 11:30 a.m.  The conference will be held
remotely and by telephone; the parties are instructed to dial (877)
411-9748 and dial access code 3029857#.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 16 and 20.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/22cr4ukp from Leagle.com.


C P SECURITY: Grable Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GRABLE and ARTHUR REDDING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C P SECURITY GROUPS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00095-MTT (M.D. Ga., March 19,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs overtime pay and minimum wages at required rate and
retaliation after they questioned their compensation.

Mr. Grable and Mr. Redding are employed by the Defendant as
security officers since June 2019 and 2014, respectively.

C P Security Groups Inc. is a private security services company,
with its principal office address located at 832 Walnut Street,
Suite A, Macon, Bibb County, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Kenneth E. Barton III, Esq.
         John M. McCall, Esq.
         COOPER, BARTON & COOPER, LLP
         170 College Street
         Macon, GA 31201
         Telephone: (478) 841-9007
         Facsimile: (478) 841-9002
         Email: keb@cooperbarton.com
                jmm@cooperbarton.com

CAINE & WEINER: Swiecicki Sues Over Deceptive Collection Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEFF SWIECICKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, INC.,
d/b/a CAINE & WEINER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00584-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, March 12, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices that violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has incurred a liability to Progressive Insurance
related to an unpaid automobile insurance premium sometime in 2019.


In an attempt to collect the alleged debt, the Defendant sent a
Letter Notice to the Plaintiff on or about January 27, 2021 and
another dunning notice via email from the Defendant's employee
Yanalte Jovel on January 28, 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that both
notices from the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the
full "mini Miranda" notice as required by the FDCPA because it
failed to specifically inform the Plaintiff with any information
related to their rights under the FDCPA to challenge the validity
of the debt, and overshadows the "disclosures" which prevents the
Plaintiff from knowing he could click a hyperlink to obtain the
required disclosures.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and
deceptions in attempting to collect debts, the Plaintiff and other
Class Members have suffered emotional distress and anguish.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated consumers respectfully
requesting that the Court enter judgment in favor of them against
the Defendant for the allegations asserted, and award to them
actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs
plus interest, and grant all further and other relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.

Caine & Weiner Company, Inc. d/b/a Caine & Weiner, Inc. is a debt
collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Tel: (216) 373-0539
          Fax: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


CARVANA LLC: Koeppen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONELL KOEPPEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CARVANA, LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG20084625, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01951 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and
the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely
paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unfair business practices.

Carvana, LLC is an online used car retailer based in Tempe,
Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
         E-mail: raragon@littler.com

CENTENE CORP: Oliver FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENASHA OLIVER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CENTENE CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00199-RLW
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Collective FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
      text message) to the FLSA Collective; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to identify the Fair Labor Standards

      Act (FLSA) Collective by providing their names, last known
      addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers,
      and email addresses in electronic and importable format
      within 10 days of the order.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u1Xzj4
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative Class/Collective
action members, are:

          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          Alana Karabal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MH 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
                  akarabal@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Gary Burger, Esq.
          500 N. Broadway, Suite 1860
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 542-2222
          E-mail: gary@burgerlaw.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Suit Moved to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned George Moore, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Charter
Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-1867 was moved from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on March 24,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-mc-00025-LEK-CFH to
the proceeding.

A Motion to Quash Subpoena was filed in the case.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- https://corporate.charter.com/ --
is an American telecommunications and mass media company with
services branded as Charter Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Fax: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Kabat, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Phone: (404) 400-7300
          Fax: (404) 400-7333
          Email: mkabat@kcozlaw.com

CIGNA HEALTH: Neufeld Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA & RICO Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY NEUFELD and AUBREY
SREDNICKI, KEVIN JACQUES, NICHOLAS MARSHALL, WILLIAM NINIVAGGI,
TROY TERRY, JOYCE WOOD, ROBERT BURNS, TIMOTHY RUTHERSBY, and NATHAN
WHEATLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:17-cv-01693-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the following two Classes:

   Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Class:

   "All individuals residing in the United States and its
   territories who:

   (A) Were enrolled in a health benefit plan or policy subject to
       ERISA that was administered by Cigna Health and Life
       Insurance Company or its affiliates that provided:

       -- that a member "may be required to pay a portion of the
          Covered Expenses"; and

       -- that "The term Covered Expenses means the expenses
          incurred by or on behalf of a person for the charges
          listed below if they are incurred after he becomes
          insured for these benefits"; and

      --  that "The term ‘charges’ means the actual billed
charges;
          except when the provider has contracted directly or
          indirectly with Cigna for a different amount"; and

   (B) Obtained services, equipment, or supplies, other than drugs,

       from a provider in CareCentrix’s network that were priced
on
       a fee-for-service basis; and

   (C) Were charged a deductible payment, coinsurance payment, or
       copayment for those services, equipment, or supplies based
       on a rate that was greater than the rate in the contract
       between CareCentrix and the provider.

   Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Class


   "All individuals residing in the United States and its
   territories who:

   (A) Were enrolled in a health benefit plan or policy that was
       administered by Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company or
       its affiliates that provided:

       -- that a member "may be required to pay a portion of the
          Covered Expenses"; and

       -- that "The term Covered Expenses means the expenses
          incurred by or on behalf of a person for the charges
          listed below if they are incurred after he becomes
          insured for these benefits"; and

       -- that "The term ‘charges’ means the actual billed
charges;
          except when the provider has contracted directly or
          indirectly with Cigna for a different amount"; and

   (B) Obtained services, equipment, or supplies, other than drugs,

       from a provider in CareCentrix’s network that were priced
on
       a fee-for-service basis; and

   (C) Paid a deductible payment, coinsurance payment, or
copayment
       for those services, equipment, or supplies that was based on

       a rate that was greater than the rate in the contract
       between CareCentrix and the provider.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order to appoint
Plaintiffs Neufeld, Jacques, Marshall, Ninivaggi, Terry, Wood,
Burns, and Ruthersby to serve as Class Representatives for the
Classes, and to appoint co-lead Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs, participants in health plans administered by Cigna
Health and Life Insurance Co., brought this class action against
Cigna, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

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

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w7j2sz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Meghan S. B. Oliver, Esq.
          Charlotte Loper, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: moliver@motleyrice.com
                  cloper@motleyrice.com

CLEVELAND BIOLABS: Litwin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD LITWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND BIOLABS, INC., LEA VERNY, RANDY S.
SALUCK, ALEXANDER ANDRYUSHECHKIN, DANIIL TALYANSKIY, ANNA
EVDOKIMOVA, IVAN FEDYUNIN, and CHRISTOPHER ZOSH, Defendants, Case
No. 2021-0242 (Del. Ch., March 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a registration
statement with materially misleading information at the Securities
and Exchange Commission to promote Cleveland Biolabs, Inc.'s
proposed merger with Cytocom. Specifically, the registration
statement completely omits any financial projections for Cytocom
and further fails to disclose material information regarding the
financial analyses performed by Cassel Salpeter & Co. LLC and
Cassel Salpeter's potential conflicts of interest.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions, Cleveland
Biolabs' shareholders are unable to make an informed decision on
whether to vote in favor of the merger agreement and change of
control.

Cleveland Biolabs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
with a focus on oncology development based in Buffalo, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
         BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
         1204 N. King Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 803-4600

               - and –

         Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
         Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
         Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
         Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 682-3025

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Certify Order in Securities Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 16-6509 (ES) (CLW)
(D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denies Cognizant's motion to certify the
Court's Order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).

Central to the Court's Opinion was the issue whether the factual
allegations in the second amended complaint ("SAC") were sufficient
to impute the scienter of Individual Defendants Gordon Coburn and
Steven Schwartz to Cognizant under the doctrine of corporate
scienter.  The doctrine of corporate scienter allows a plaintiff to
plead an inference of scienter against a corporate defendant
without raising the same inferences required to attribute scienter
to an individual defendant.  This issue has been the subject of two
prior opinions in the case.  As explained in both of those
opinions, "there are currently three approaches that divide the
Circuit Courts of Appeals on this issue, including the narrow
approach followed in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, the broad
approach followed in the Second and Seventh Circuits, and the
middle approach followed in the Sixth Circuit."

Briefly, under the narrow approach adopted in the Fifth and
Eleventh Circuits, a plaintiff must identify an individual
responsible for the alleged misstatement who also possessed the
requisite mental state.  Under the broader approach, courts may
impute the scienter of an individual defendant where "there are
sufficient allegations regarding the pervasiveness of the fraud,
the conscious misbehavior of the particular corporate employees,
and the complicity of the corporate entities to find that the
corporate defendant was aware of or recklessly disregarded the
intentional misconduct."  Lastly, under the middle-ground approach,
an individual's scienter can be imputed to a corporation where,
inter alia, a high managerial agent or member of the board of
directors ratified, recklessly disregarded, or tolerated the
misrepresentation after its utterance or issuance.

Initially, the late Judge William H. Walls considered this issue in
connection with the first amended class action complaint ("FAC").
In the Prior Opinion, Judge Walls rejected the narrow approach and
found that under either the middle-ground approach or the broad
approach, Coburn's scienter may be imputed to Cognizant.  As a
result of this holding, Count I of the FAC -- which alleged claims
under the under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
-- survived against Cognizant only.  Judge Walls also held that
Count II of the FAC -- which alleged claims under section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act -- survived against Coburn only.

Shortly thereafter, Cognizant moved for immediate appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  It argued, inter alia, that the
Court made an outcome-determinative legal ruling by rejecting the
narrow approach followed in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and
that, as a result, there was a controlling question of law to be
appealed.  It also emphasized that reversal on the corporate
scienter issue would dispose of the section 10(b) claim against
Cognizant (Count I of the FAC), and disposal of the underlying
10(b) claim would necessarily dispose of the section 20(a) claim
(Count II).  In other words, the litigation would end completely if
Cognizant prevailed on appeal.

Judge Walls agreed and granted Cognizant's motion. Ultimately,
however, the Third Circuit denied Cognizant's petition for
interlocutory appeal without prejudice because, while it was
pending, the Plaintiffs indicated their desire to desire to file a
SAC.

After the SAC was filed, Cognizant, Coburn and Schwartz moved to
dismiss.  Before briefing was completed, the matter was reassigned
to Judge Salas.  The Court held oral argument on the motions to
dismiss the SAC via videoconference on May 19, 2020.  On June 5,
2020, the Court issued the Opinion denying the motions.

On the issue of corporate scienter, the Court declined to adopt a
pleading standard; instead, the Court evaluated the SAC under the
narrow, broad, and middle-ground approaches and concluded "that
scienter may be imputed to Cognizant under all three approaches to
the corporate scienter doctrine that currently divide the Circuit
Courts."  Because the Court concluded that scienter may be imputed
to Cognizant under any approach, it declined to state (as Cognizant
had requested) that the choice of standard was
outcome-determinative.  The Court did, however, state that it would
entertain any future motion for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  The instant motion followed.

Cognizant urges that "the corporate-scienter pleading standard is a
question of law with significant implications for the litigation,
as well as for similar litigation."

Judge Salas opines that although she agrees with Cognizant that the
selection of the corporate scienter pleading standard may be,
generally speaking, a controlling question of law subject to
substantial ground for difference of opinion, it is not a question
that the Court answered.  Rather, the Court declined to select an
applicable pleading standard and applied all three, including the
strictest approach promoted by Cognizant.  Thus, Cognizant's
arguments for interlocutory appeal, however phrased, are aimed at
(at least in part) getting the Third Circuit to take a premature
look at the Court's application of law to facts.

Recognizing that "interlocutory certification should be used
sparingly and that the District Court should serve as a diligent
gatekeeper to prevent premature and piecemeal appeals," citing Bais
Yaakov of Spring Valley, v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, No. 11-0011,
2013 WL 663301, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2013), Judge Salas declines
to exercise discretion to certify the Court's Order for
interlocutory appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Salas denies Cognizant's motion
for certification to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
An appropriate Order accompanies her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yjctzjur from Leagle.com.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Feltzs Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTONE FELTZS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COX
COMMUNICATIONS CAL., MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
8:19-cv-02002-JVS-JDE (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on May 3, 2021 for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action;

   2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under
Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as common issues of law and

      fact predominate over any individual issues and the class
      action method is superior to individual cases;

   3. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
      employees of Defendants for the period of July 25, 2015
      through the date of class certification who provided
      installation and maintenance services for Defendants as a
      Universal Home Technician In-training, Universal Home
      Technician, Field Service Technician, Field Service
      Representative;"

      -- Rounding Sub-Class 1

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for Defendants as a Universal Home
         Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician, Field
         Service Technician, Field Service Representative and who
         worked at least one day, subject to the Defendants'
         rounding policy and practice from four years prior to
         the filing of this class action through the date of class

         certification;"

      -- Late Meal Break Sub-Class

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for the Defendants as a Universal
         Home Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician,
         Field Service Technician, Field Service Representative and

         who worked at least one day of more than 6 hours with an
         lunch punch out after the 5th hour of work from four years

         prior to the filing of this class action through the date

         of class certification;"

      -- 2nd Meal Break Sub-Class 3

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for the Defendants as a Universal
         Home Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician,
         Field Service Technician, Field Service Representative and

         who worked at least one day of more than 10 hours from
         four years prior to the filing of this class action
         through the date of class certification;"

      -- 12 Hr. Meal Break Sub-Class 4

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for Defendants as a Universal Home
         Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician, Field
         Service Technician, Field Service Representative and who
         worked at least one day of more than 12 hours from four
         years prior to the filing of this class action through the

         date of class certification;"

      -- Wage Statement Sub-Class 5

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for the Defendants as a Universal
         Home Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician,
         Field Service Technician, Field Service Representative,
         from one year prior to filing of this class action through

         the date of class certification, who were provided a wage
         statement by Defendants;" and

      -- Waiting Time Penalty Sub-Class 6

         "All current and former California hourly non-exempt
         employees of Defendants, who provided installation and
         maintenance services for Defendants as a Universal Home
         Technician In-training, Universal Home Technician, Field
         Service Technician, Field Service Representative, from
         three years prior to filing of this class action through
         the date of class certification, whose employment
         terminated and who are a members of Sub-Class 1, 2, 3 or
         4"; and

   4. finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative of the

      class members and certifying him as the class
representative;

   5. finding the Plaintiff's counsel, namely David P. Myers, Jason

      Hatcher, and Cassandra A. Castro of The Myers Law Group,
      A.P.C., as adequate class counsel and certifying them as
      class counsel; and

   6. authorizing the Plaintiff's Counsel to send Class Notice
      pursuant to Rule 23 (in a form to be approved by the Court
      after a conference with counsel for the Defendant). The
      Notice shall permit class members to opt-out of the class if

      they so desire within 30 days of the mailing of the notice by

      sending a written request signed by the class member which
      lists the class member's full name, address, telephone
      number, and last four digits of the class member's social
      security number.

Cox Communications is an American company that provides digital
cable television, telecommunications and Home Automation services
in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cw2aUq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P. Myers, Esq.
          Jason Hatcher, Esq.
          Cassandra A. Castro, Esq.
          THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 919-2027
          Facsimile: (888) 375-2102
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com
                  jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com
                  ccastro@myerslawgroup.com

CROWN ASSET: Khan Files Suit in Maryland Court
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Asset
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Shahid Khan, on his own
behalf and all others similarly situated v. Crown Asset Management,
LLC, Case No. 485220V (Md. Cir. Ct., Montgomery Cty., March 24,
2021).

The case type is stated as "Contract."

Crown Asset Management, LLC -- https://www.crownasset.com/ -- is a
RMAI Certified Receivables Business that purchases consumer credit
account portfolios.[BN]


CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Okays Plaintiff Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE HUERTA, v. CSI
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF
(N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order
that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted as
to the Unpaid Wages Class (Security Time), Unpaid Wages Class
(Controlled Travel Time), Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel
Time), Unpaid Wages Class (Meal Period Time), Termination Pay
Subclass, and Wage Statement Subclass.

The action is certified for the Rule 23(b)(3) Class and Subclasses
as to wage and hour claims brought pursuant to the Cal. Labor Code
and the UCL.

2. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B),

   a. The Unpaid Wages Class (Security Time) is defined as:

      "all non-exempt persons who were employees of or worked for
      CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. on the construction of the
      California Flats Solar Project at any time within the period
      from July 30, 2014 through the date of class certification
      who were not paid for all time waiting for and going through
      the mandatory entrance and exit security process."

   b. The Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Travel Time) is defined
      as:

      "all non-24 exempt persons who were employees of or worked
      for CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. on the construction of
      the California Flats Solar Project at any time within the
      period from July 30, 2014 through the date of class
      certification who were not paid for all time traveling from
      the Phase 1 Security Gate of the Site to when they began to
      be paid and from when they stopped being paid to when they
      arrived back at the Phase 1 Security Gate."
   
   c. The Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel Time) is
      defined as:

      "all non-exempt persons who were employees of or worked for
      CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. on the construction of the
      California Flats Solar Project at any time within the period

      from July 30, 2014 through the date of class certification
      who were not paid for all time traveling from the Phase 1
      Security Gate of the Site to when they began to be paid and
      from when they stopped being paid to when they arrived back
      at the Phase 1 Security Gate."

   d. The Unpaid Wages Class (Meal Period Time) is defined as:

      "all non-exempt persons who were employees of or worked for
      CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. on the construction of the
      California Flats Solar Project at any time within the period
      from July 30, 2014 through the date of class certification
      who were not paid for all the time of their meal periods."

   e. The Termination Pay Subclass is defined as:

      "all member of Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 whose employment with CSI
      Electrical  Contractors, Inc. terminated within the period
      beginning July 30, 2015 to the date of class certification."

   f. The Wage Statement Subclass is defined as:

      "all member of Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 whose received wage
      statements from CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. during the
      period beginning July 30, 2017 to the date of class
      certification."

The Court also entered an order appointing George Huerta as the
class representative; appointing Dion-Kindem Law Firm and the
Blanchard Law Group, APC as co-class counsel; and directing Counsel
to meet and confer concerning the manner, form and content of
notice to be provided to the absent class members, and to submit a
proposal concerning the same to the Court in writing no later than
April 12, 16 2021."

The Court agrees with Huerta and finds a class action here would be
the superior method of adjudication. The alternative to class
action would likely mean an abandonment of claims by most class
members since the amount of individual recovery is relatively
small. As such, the Court finds the superiority requirement met.

CSI is a full-service electrical contractor headquartered in Santa
Fe Springs, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m3diLY at no extra charge.[CC]


CULTURAL CARE: Initial Cert. for FLSA Collective Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDA MALDONADO,
HEATHER LIEBER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., GORAN RANNEFORS, NATALIE JORDAN,
and JENS APPELKVIST, Case No. 1:20-cv-10326-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor
Standards
      Act (FLSA) claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b) --

      a. approving an opt-in class of "all individuals working as
         local childcare consultants or 'LCCs' for Cultural Care,
         Inc. at any time since February 19, 2017";

      b. approving the form of Notice and Consent to Sue; and

      c. directing the defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs'
         counsel, in electronic format, the names, addresses, email

         addresses and telephone numbers of all members of the FLSA

         Class within 20 days;

   2. certifying a class of Massachusetts plaintiffs defined as:

      "all individuals working as local childcare consultants or
      'LCCs' for Cultural Care, Inc. in Massachusetts at any time

      since February 19, 2017;"

   3. certifying a class of California plaintiffs defined as

      "all individuals working as local childcare consultants or  
      'LCCs' for Cultural Care, Inc. in California at any time  
      since February 19, 2017;" and

   4. approving the firm of Gardner & Rosenberg P.C. as class  
      counsel;

Cultural Care Inc was founded in 1998. The company's line of
business includes providing child care services for infants and
children.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u4bTXY
at no extra charge.[CC]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          1 State Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02100
          Telephone: (617) 390-7570
          Facsimile: (617) 972-7983
          nick@gardnerrosenberg.com

CVS PHARMACY: Lokey Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DANIELLE LOKEY filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DANIELLE LOKEY, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04782-LB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff challenges CVS
Pharmacy's marketing of its CVS-branded pain-and-fever medicine for
infants (called Infants' acetaminophen) at a higher price than its
CVS-branded pain-and fever medicine for children (called Children's
acetaminophen), even though the ingredients in the two products are
the same. She claims that this practice violates three California
consumer-protection laws: (1) California's False Advertising Law;
(2) California's Unfair Competition Law; and (3) California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's initial complaint on
the ground that -- as a matter of law -- the labels disclosed the
products' composition and would not deceive a reasonable consumer.
The amended complaint changes the allegations about product
placement in the store and adds allegations about consumer
confusion. CVS moved to dismiss it. All parties consented to
magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The court held a hearing on February
18, 2021.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February
18, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as DANIELLE LOKEY, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 21-15475, in the United States Court of Appeals, March 17,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24,
2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 14, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be filed by May 14, 2021;
  
   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed by June 23, 2021;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed by July 23, 2021; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief.[BN]

CVS PHARMACY: Zamora Brings Suit to Cal. Supreme Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Osiris Zamora filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Osiris Zamora, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. B299375, in the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five.

Zamora purchased a product from CVS, a national retail pharmacy,
that did not make the text of the manufacturer's written warranty
available for review before purchase as required under the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  She brought an action against CVS
seeking injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")
based on the violation of federal warranty law.

In summary judgment proceedings, Zamora declared that she did not
know she had a right to review the warranty before making her
purchase, she would have reviewed the warranty if the CVS had made
it available as required by federal law, and she would not have
purchased the product after she learned the warranty was limited to
replacement parts.

The trial court ruled on the evidentiary objections and the motion
for summary judgment. It sustained CVS's objection to statement
from Zamora's declaration, and overruled CVS' objections to the
other statements in Zamora's declaration and to Zamora's other
evidence. The court granted the motion for summary judgment. It
found CVS presented undisputed evidence that Zamora purchased the
device under the belief that it was covered by a full warranty and
she received everything that she expected under that warranty when
WaterPik sent her a replacement unit for free. Because she received
the expected benefit of her bargain, she suffered no economic loss.
Zamora's declaration did not create a triable issue of fact with
respect to standing.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of CVS on May 10, 2019.
Zamora filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.  On
appeal, Zamora contended her declaration was consistent with her
deposition testimony, and she suffered economic injury as a result
of the unfair competition, because she paid for a product that she
would not have purchased if the seller had complied with the
warranty law.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 17, 2021, the
Court of Appeals of California reversed the trial court's summary
judgment in favor of CVS.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the order entered by the California
Appeals Court.

The appellate case is captioned as ZAMORA vs. CVS PHARMACY, Case
No. S267559, in the California Supreme Court.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Osiris Zamora, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, are represented by:

          James Stephen Kostas, Esq.
          KOSTAS LAW FIRM
          1008 W Avenue M14 Ste A
          Palmdale, CA 93551
          Telephone: (661) 202-2444
          Facsimile: (661) 267-6066
          E-mail: jkostas@kostaslaw.com

Defendant-Respondent CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is represented by:

          Todd Brian Benoff, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          333 S Hope St 16th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: Todd.Benoff@alston.com

CYTODYN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

CytoDyn, Inc. (CYDY)
Class Period: 3/27/2020 - 3/9/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-cydy/

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, wi

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                          About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation’s premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

CYTODYN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against CytoDyn Inc. (OTCMKTS: CYDY) ("CytoDyn") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired CytoDyn common stock between March 27,
2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired CytoDyn
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than May 17,
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/cytodyn-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=cytodyn

CytoDyn is a biotechnology company that has focused on the
development and commercialization of a drug named "Leronlimab"
which has long been promoted as a potential therapy for HIV
patients. Since the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
CytoDyn began aggressively touting Leronlimab as a treatment for
COVID-19. Following CytoDyn's pivot to hyping Leronlimab as a
treatment for COVID-19, CytoDyn's stock price rose exponentially.

The Class Period commences on March 27, 2020, when CytoDyn issued a
press release regarding Leronlimab's use in treating COVID-19
patients entitled "Leronlimab Used in Seven Patients with Severe
COVID-19 Demonstrated Promise with Two Intubated Patients in ICU,
Removed from ICU and Extubated with Reduced Pulmonary
Inflammation." Throughout the Class Period, CytoDyn continued to
tout Leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19 and to pump
up the stock price of CytoDyn while executives aggressively sold
shares. Indeed, while CytoDyn's stock price was sufficiently pumped
with the COVID-19 cure hype, long-term shareholders, including
defendants Nader Z. Pourhassan, CytoDyn's Chief Executive Officer,
and Michael Mulholland, CytoDyn's Chief Financial Officer, dumped
millions of shares.

Following the cash-out by CytoDyn insiders and long-term
shareholders, the defendants' scheme began to unravel. On Friday,
March 5, 2020 after the close of trading, and continuing over that
weekend, CytoDyn issued press releases describing the results of
the Phase IIb/III data on Leronlimab. The press releases had titles
such as "Cytodyn to File Accelerated Rolling Review with MHRA and
Interim Order (IO) with Health Canada for COVID-19" and "Cytodyn's
Phase 3 Trial Demonstrates Safety, a 24% Reduction in Mortality and
Faster Hospital Discharge for Mechanically Ventilated Critically
Ill COVID-19 Patients Treated with Leronlimab." However, hidden in
the press releases was a disclosure that the primary endpoint of
the study—lowering all-cause mortality at Day 28— was not
statistically significant. Following the issuance of its press
releases, CytoDyn was accused of "massaging the data" and squeezing
good news out of a failed study, the results of which CytoDyn
reportedly sat on pending regulatory discussions.

Following the release of the data, the price of CytoDyn's common
stock fell over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9,
2021, the price of CytoDyn's common stock continued to fall,
dropping an additional 19% to close at $2.35.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that CytoDyn's development and marketing of Leronlimab as
a treatment for COVID-19 was not commercially viable.

CytoDyn investors may, no later than May 17, 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. [GN]

CYTODYN INC: Offices of Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the "Company") (OTC: CYDY) common stock
between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). CytoDyn investors have until May 17, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

On August 26, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, despite
earlier representations, CytoDyn was not being considered for
Operation Warp Speed, the federal government's program aimed at
fast-tracking virus treatments. According to a senior
administration official, "CytoDyn had only completed a preliminary
qualification for being included in the initiative."

On this news, the price of CytoDyn share price fell $0.66 per
share, or 17%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at
$3.15, thereby injuring investors.

On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a lawsuit against Iliad Research and Trading L.P.
("Iliad"), CytoDyn's lender, Iliad's principal John Fife ("Fife"),
and certain Fife-related entities. Specifically, the SEC alleged
that Iliad and its related entities operated as unregistered
securities dealers in violation of the federal securities laws by
buying convertible promissory notes, converting the notes into
newly issued shares of stock, then rapidly selling those shares
into the public at a profit.

On November 10, 2020, CytoDyn entered into an amended $28.5 million
Secured Convertible Promissory Note with Fife's company,
Streeterville Capital LLC, a related entity that was not
specifically named in the SEC action against Iliad and Fife.

On this news, the price of CytoDyn's share price closed at $2.02,
representing an 80% decline from the Class Period high.

On March 5, 2020, after the market closed, CytoDyn began issuing
press releases that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing
data for Leronlimab for the treatment of COVID-19. Masked by
positive titles, these releases disclosed that the primary endpoint
for the study (lowering all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.14 per share, or
28%, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn
shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements touting Leronlimab as a potential treatment
for COVID-19 to pump up the CytoDyn's stock price while executives
aggressively sold their shares. The complaint also alleges that
CytoDyn engaged in a wrongful scheme whereby Iliad and other Fife
entities operated as an unregistered securities dealer for
CytoDyn.

If you purchased CytoDyn common stock, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

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

CYTODYN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of CytoDyn Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

CytoDyn Inc. (OTCQB: CYDY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cytodyn-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13888&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Class Period: March 27, 2020 - March 9, 2021

Allegations against CYDY include that: CytoDyn securities were
actively traded over the counter (OTC) in the United States. While
the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this
time and can be ascertained only through appropriate discovery,
Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members
in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class
may be identified from records maintained by CytoDyn or its
transfer agent and/or OTC Markets and may be notified of the
pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar
to that customarily used in securities class actions.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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

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

DAYLIGHT FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hammer Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN HAMMER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAYLIGHT FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV378146 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Mar. 15, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Hammer was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Daylight Foods, Inc. wholesales and distributes food products. The
Company offers fresh fruits and vegetables, and organic products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


DEL'S GRASS: Ibarra Sues Over Unpaid Truck Drivers' Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEL'S GRASS FARM LTD., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00252 (W.D. Tex., March 12, 2021) alleges the Defendant of
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former
employees who worked for the Defendant on an hourly basis and were
not paid overtime at one and one-half times their respective rates
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in each seven day
workweek.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a truck driver on
or about January 2019 through September 2019, and from April 2020
to August 2020. While employed with the Defendant, he only received
his hourly rate of $26.00 for each hour of work regardless of the
number hours he worked. In addition, the Defendant failed to
maintain and preserve payroll records which accurately show the
total hours he worked, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated truck
drivers, the Plaintiff seeks all damages and back wages, liquidated
damages in an amount equal to back wages, legal fees, costs,
post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which he and the
collective action members may be justly entitled.

Del's Grass Farm Ltd. cultivates grasses on more than 2,000 acres
of land in Texas and distributes grasses in all of South Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST | LAZARS | SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net


DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Mey TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DIRECTV, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DirecTV LLC, Adam Cox,
AC1 Communications, IQ Marketing 2 Corp. and Michael Aghari,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00179-JPB-JPM, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at
Wheeling.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited
telemarketing calls and activities, all expenses of this action and
such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Adam Cox and Michael Aghari own AC1 Communications and IQ Marketing
2 Corp., respectively, and are authorized DirecTV Dealers. Mey
alleges that the Defendants sent unsolicited prerecorded
telemarketing calls to her mobile number which is listed on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.

DIRECTV, LLC is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
February 12, 2021, denying its motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Diana Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case
No. 21-1274, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, March 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DIANA MEY, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, STEWART ABRAMSON,
JAMES SHELTON, DAVID VANCE, ROXY VANCE, RUSSELL LOCKE, and THOMAS
STARK, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated, are represented by:

          John William Barrett, Esq.
          Sharon F. Iskra, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  siskra@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.  
          BRODERICK & PARANICH, P.C.
          99 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com  

               - and -

          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
          P. O. Box 3983
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Telephone: (681) 265-3802
          E-mail: rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com   

               - and -

          Benjamin James Hogan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          6 Canyon Road
          Morgantown, WV 26508
          Telephone: (304) 594-0087
          E-mail: bhogan@baileyglasser.com  

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net  

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC is represented by:

          Hans J. Germann, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8792
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com  

               - and -

          Sarah Ann Phipps, Esq.
          Danielle M. Waltz, Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY, PLLC
          1600 Laidley Tower
          500 Lee Street, East
          P. O. Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          Telephone: (304) 340-1071
          E-mail: sarah.a.phipps@jacksonkelly.com
                  dwaltz@jacksonkelly.com  

DME JANITORIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cisneros Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO CISNEROS; and MARUJA CUMBICOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DME JANITORIAL
SERVICES LLC; EH FLOORING SERVICES LLC; and MOTAZ HAYEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05627 (D.N.J., Mar. 18, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as janitors.

DME JANITORIAL SERVICES LLC provides janitorial services to
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  morales@pechmanlaw.com


DUN HUANG: Chen Suit Seeks Collective Action Status Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JINXIONG CHEN a/k/a Jasen
Chen, and CHANYIN LAU, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. DUN HUANG CORP a/k/a Dun Huang Corporation
d/b/a Dun Huang East Village d/b/a Dun Huang Grand Central, YANG
LIU, and SHIYANG LI, Case No. 1:19-cv-11883-GBD-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

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

   2. ordering the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
      this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first
      and last name, last known address with apartment number (if
      applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-
      mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames

      (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and
      position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non-
      managerial employees employed at any time from December 29,
      2016 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to
      the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and

      Consent to Join Form or the date when the Defendants provide

      the name list, whichever is later;

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

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

      the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete

      and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants

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

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

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

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

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

   7. ordering the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice

      in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed

      locations likely to be seen by all currently employed
members
      of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
      throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
      in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
      Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
      newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel

      list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
      undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
      English, and English, Chinese; and

   9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation

      on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
      the Opt-in Period.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]

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

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

EBIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Ebix, Inc. (EBIX)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 2/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 23, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ebix/

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                                About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation’s premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

EGM ELECTRIC: Rondon et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO RONDON, JORGE MARTINEZ, JUAN DAVID PUERTA ALLAN E.
MORALES, BRIAN AGUDELLO, and PARMAESHWAR MOHAN On Behalf Of
Plaintiffs And Similarly Situated Individuals v. EGM ELECTRIC NYC,
LLC, EGM ELECTRIC, LLC, MICHAEL ESPINOSA, and DAVID MUNOZ,  Case
No. 1:21-cv-01880 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2021) alleges that pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals are entitled to
recover from Defendant(s) unpaid wages at the minimum wage rate,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

EGM is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York, with a place of business
located at 326 Hackensack Street, Carlstadt, New Jersey, 07072. The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers and directors and/or
managing agent of the Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          Imran Ansari, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 486-0011
          E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com

EHANG HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against EHang Holdings Limited
("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EH) and reminds investors of the
April 19, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in EHang stock
or options between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/EH.

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

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North
America for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying
passengers; (2) its relationship with its purported primary
customer is a sham; (3) EHang has only collected on a fraction of
its reported sales since its American Depository Shares ("ADS")
began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (4) the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Specifically, on February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research
issued a scathing report concerning EHang entitled: "EHang: A Stock
Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn." In this report, Wolfpack
Research called EHang "an elaborate stock promotion, built on
largely fabricated revenues based on sham sales contracts . . . ."
The report continued that "EH has perpetuated its story with a
collection of lies about its products, manufacturing, revenues,
partnerships, and potential regulatory approval of its purported
main business." Wolfpack Research asserted that it "gathered
extensive evidence including behind-the-scenes photographs,
recorded phone calls, and videos of on-site visits to EH's various
facilities."

On this news, the price of EHang ADS fell from its February 12,
2021 close of $124.09 to a February 16, 2021 close of $46.30 per
share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share or approximately 62.7%.

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

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

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

ELG METALS: Rachal Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES F. RACHAL, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ELG METALS, INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV45861, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
March 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02448 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including
unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest
periods, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, failure
to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide
wages when due, and failure to pay minimum wages.

ELG Metals, Inc. is a mining & metals company located in
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Garrett V. Jensen, Esq.
         Carolina A. Schwalbach, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 622-1661
         E-mail: gjensen@cdflaborlaw.com
                 cschwalbach@cdflaborlaw.com

EMERSON COLLEGE: Ex Student Sues over 'Insufficient' Learning
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Van Buskirk at Berkley Beacon reports that a former student
is seeking a tuition and fee refund in response to Emerson
College's decision to move classes online last spring as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a lawsuit pending in
Massachusetts federal court.

The lawsuit, filed last fall by former visual and media arts
student Ryan Porter, argues that the colleged failed to provide a
sufficient alternative to in-person learning after classes moved
online in Spring 2020. While the court has not set a trial date for
the case, lawyers for the college have requested oral arguments
before Judge Rya Zobel, court documents say.

Porter's suit follows a national trend in which students are
seeking legal actions against higher education institutions for the
decision to transition classes online and send students home at the
onset of the pandemic in March of last year. The lawsuit against
Emerson notes that tuition for one semester typically costs just
under $24,000, a service fee runs $436, and room and board comes
out to just over $9,000.

The text of the lawsuit and related documents are available to the
public and were obtained by The Beacon through PACER, a service
that provides access to federal court records.

"In short, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all paid for
tuition for a first rate education and on-campus, in person
educational experiences, with all the appurtenant benefits offered
by a first-rate college," the lawsuit reads. "Instead, students
like Plaintiff were provided a materially deficient and
insufficient alternative, which constitutes a breach of the
contracts entered into by Plaintiff with the College."

Three lawyers from the Boston-based firm Shapiro Haber, & Urmy, LLP
are representing Porter, along with a lawyer from the New York firm
Leeds Brown Law, P.C. The college enlisted Boston's Holland &
Knight, LLP to represent them according to court documents.

"Emerson has been served with a complaint in this case and has
filed a motion to dismiss," Emerson College spokesperson Sofiya
Cabalquinto said. "More than 300 cases of this type have been filed
by class action lawyers against institutions throughout the country
in the past year. The college has no other comment on the matter."

Lawyers from Shapiro Haber & Urmy did not respond to The Beacon's
request for comment via email and phone calls. Porter could not be
reached for comment over the phone.

The lawsuit seeks to establish a "class," which would include
students who paid tuitions and fees to attend the college for
in-person "educational services and experiences" for the spring
2020 semester, according to court documents. The court would need
to certify the scope of the "class" for other students to have the
opportunity to receive money from a ruling in favor of Porter.

A federal judge ruled in December that Northeastern University
would have to face parts of a class action suit filed by students
seeking tuition refunds for similar reasons as both the Emerson and
Boston University cases, Law360 reported.

The lawsuit said lawyers for Porter may notify students at the
college of legal action through court-approved notification methods
like U.S. mail, email, internet postings, or published notices to
join the suit. The lawsuit also says it is impracticable to bring
the individual claims of every student at the college before the
court, but notes that Porter is "a more than adequate class
representative."

The lawsuit does not list whether other students have joined the
class-action, and it is unclear at this time whether additional
students have joined.

Porter consulted the course catalog before the Spring 2020 semester
and enrolled in classes, according to the lawsuit. He "understood
and believed" that every course would be taught in-person at the
college's Boston campus, the lawsuit said.

The college transitioned classes online on March 10, 2020, and then
three days later, asked students to leave dorms as cases of
COVID-19 first began to rapidly surge in Boston.

Porter argues in the lawsuit that his payment to the college was
contingent on the "understanding and belief" that learning would be
in-person and on campus -- as the course catalog indicated --
rather than in "hybrid" or "online" formats.

"Thus, the in-person nature of the course was part of the benefit
of the bargain, and Plaintiff would not have paid as much, if any,
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at Emerson College
had he known that the course would not, in fact, be taught
in-person," the lawsuit read.

In Porter's case, the college made several attempts over the past
few months to dismiss the  case, according to court dockets. The
latest attempt came on Feb. 10 and Porter's lawyers requested
additional time -- until March 19 -- to respond to the motion.

The college argued in their motion to dismiss the case that
Porter's legal arguments are "impermissible challenges" to the
quality and value of the education he received.

"Plaintiff's claims for damages based on the quality and value of
his education are not actionable and are barred as a matter of
law," the motion read. "Plaintiff's claims also challenge how
Emerson's curriculum should be taught, and therefore constitute
unlawful interference with the college's constitutionally protected
freedom to make its own judgments about how best to perform its
educational mission."

Students have taken similar legal actions at other colleges across
the country and in Massachusetts, including one from a group of
Boston University students. In that suit, filed in the state's
federal court system, students are seeking room, board, and fee
reimbursement following the closure of the institution's campus due
to the pandemic.

A Rhode Island federal court dismissed several claims from students
at three separate universities in the state who also sought tuition
refunds after classes transitioned to remote learning. The
presiding judge said "no plausible reading" of student course
catalogs or policies offered a contractual agreement for in-person
education, according to The Boston Globe.

Like the Rhode Island cases, Porter argues that the college's
failure to provide services for which tuition and fees were
intended to cover constitute a breach of contract, the lawsuit
said. Lawyers for the college say Porter has not alleged a specific
contractual promise that Emerson allegedly breached, court
documents read.

As a result of the pandemic, the lawsuit said online-only learning
options offered to students were "different in practically every
aspect as compared to what the educational experience afforded
plaintiff and the members of the class once was." The lawsuit
alleges a lack of classroom interaction among teachers and students
that typically occurs during in-person instruction.

The lawsuit alleges online formats are not as rigorous as regular
classroom instruction as they do not require "development of strong
study skills."  

Porter also takes issue with the decision to allow students to
choose a pass/fail option instead of receiving a letter grade.
College officials previously said the pass/fail option allowed
students more flexibility as they coped with fear and anxiety as a
result of the pandemic.

That decision, the lawsuit said, allowed for "educational
leniency."

"The ability to receive a pass-fail grade rather than a letter
grade provides educational leniency that the students would not
otherwise have with the in-person letter grading education that was
paid for and expected," the lawsuit said. 'Students, like
Plaintiff, have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. [GN]


EQUITY TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Andreasson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ANDREASSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01029-ELR (N.D.
Ga., March 12, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act  for
its alleged failure to pay proper federal minimum wages to its
truck drivers.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in June 2020 to work as a
non-exempt truck driver.

According to the complaint, the Defendant compensated its truck
drivers on a flat rate basis based upon the mileage driven, at the
rate of 40 cents per mile driven on an assignment regardless of the
number of hours they worked. In addition, the Defendant unlawfully
deducted its truck drivers' expenses and costs from their paychecks
which resulted in an unlawful kickback for the Defendant and caused
its truck drivers' regular hourly rate to fall below the federally
mandated minimum wage in one or more workweeks.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated truck drivers seeking their rightful and
proper minimum wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages,
judgment, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

Equity Transportation Company, Inc. is a trucking and
transportation company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Bachman, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph D. Shelley, Esq.
          GREGORY, DOYLE, CALHOUN & ROGERS, LLC
          49 Atlanta St. SE,
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Tel: (770) 422-1776
          Fax: (770) 426-6155
          E-mail: cbachman@gdcrlaw.com
                  jshelley@gdcrlaw.com


FEDEX CORP: Overpeck Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN OVERPECK; SHANNON
SOBASZKIEWICZ; and KEVIN STERLING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the state of
California on behalf of aggrieved employees, v. FEDEX CORPORATION
and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-07553-PJH (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   "All individuals transporting packages for FedEx Ground in
   California, pursuant to an "Independent Service Provider
   Agreement (ISPA)" and/or "Transportation Service Provider
   Agreement (TSPA)" between FedEx Ground and a "Contract
   Service Provider" (CSP), and while using a vehicle that is
   "operated by FedEx Ground" under the Department of
Transportation
   (DOT) regulations, at any time from December 14, 2014 until the

   date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order certifying the
following two subclasses within the broader Class:

   Pickup and Delivery (P&D) Subclass:

   "All individuals who have performed "pickup and delivery"
   services of the FedEx Ground packages in California, while based

   out of a station or hub of FedEx Ground in California, at any
   time from December 14, 2014 until the date class notice is
   provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)"; and

   Linehaul Subclass:

   "All individuals who have performed Linehaul transports of the
   FedEx Ground packages in California, while based out of a hub or

   station of FedEx Ground in California, at any time from December

   14, 2014 until resolution of this action."

The class and subclass definitions above are intended to exclude
all individuals who also have been Owners, Authorized Officers, or
Business Contacts of any CSP contracting with FedEx Ground.

This case presents the common question of whether FedEx has legal
responsibilities under the employee-protective test in Martinez v.
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010), to provide important employment
protections to the employee-drivers that haul the FedEx Ground
packages to the FedEx Ground customers in vehicles that FedEx
Ground controls as the designated motor carrier.

Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery
services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and
business addresses throughout North America. FedEx Corporation is
an American multinational delivery services company headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee. The name "FedEx" is a syllabic abbreviation
of the name of the company's original air division, Federal
Express, which was used from 1973 until 2000.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxNKaG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
          Deanna Maxfield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
          354 Pine Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 376-1710
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0393
          E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com
                  dm@pasternaklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com

FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Dismiss Martinez's Class Complaint Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Civ. No. 20-1052 SCY/LF (D.N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico denies FedEx's Motion to Dismiss The
Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiff Martinez filed the putative Class Action Complaint for
Unpaid Wages against Defendant FedEx in federal court on Oct. 12,
2020.  The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay premium wages for
overtime hours.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that FedEx
drivers and runners are paid a "day rate" whereby they earn the
same amount of money regardless of how many hours they work in a
day.  This results in employees working more than 40 hours per week
with no premium payment for their overtime hours.

The Complaint preliminarily defines the class as "all current or
former New Mexico FedEx drivers and runners who were paid day rates
without overtime compensation."  The Complaint brings a single
claim for relief under the Minimum Wage Act, NMSA 1978 Section
50-4-19.  The Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction under the federal
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), because the
putative class contains at least 100 members, the parties are
minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million
in the aggregate for the class, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 29, 2020.
It moves to dismiss the class action complaint on two grounds:
First, that its actions as described in the complaint do not
violate New Mexico's minimum wage law; and second, if any
violations exist, the Defendant is not jointly and severally liable
with the independent contractor who actually employs the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff responded in opposition on Jan. 26, 2021.  The
Defendant filed its reply on Feb. 15, 2021. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(c), the parties consented to Magistrate Judge Yarbrough
to conduct any or all proceedings and to enter an order of
judgment.  Briefing is complete.

Judge Yarbrough rejects both contentions of the Defendant.

Regarding the Defendant's first contention Initially, given that
neither the New Mexico legislature nor New Mexico state courts have
provided guidance about what the term "flat rate schedules" means,
the Judge looks to other sources for guidance: The federal
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Handbook.  Two conclusions can
be drawn from the Department of Labor's example of a how payment
for a flat rate hour works.

First, although the payment structure might be most common in the
automobile industry, it could also be applied to other industries.
Another industry could fashion a standardized database assigning a
number of "flat rate" hours to a particular job, and thus introduce
a "flat rate schedule" of compensation based on that database.  As
the Department of Labor notes, this would be considered a
commission and so could qualify for the commission exception to the
FLSA's section 7(a) overtime provision as well as an exemption in
New Mexico's Minimum Wage Act.  Likewise, every case cited by the
Defendant that deals with the definition of "flat rate schedule"
under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act has either assumed, or
explicitly held, that such systems are commission based -- i.e.,
the payment is per job or per unit, rather than per time worked.

The second conclusion that can be drawn from the Department of
Labor's example of a flat rate hour and the existing case law in
the District is that, because an employee's compensation is
commission based, the employee who is paid based on a flat rate
hour does not receive a fixed day rate.  Instead, the employee
receives a percentage of the flat rate dollar assigned to a
particular task.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Yarbrough holds that the Defendant
cites no case, and he has found no case, that holds that a "flat
rate schedule" can be measured per unit of time.  A day rate is
measured per day, regardless of how many tasks or jobs are assigned
within that day, and therefore is different than the per-job or
per-task-unit compensation systems held to be "flat rate schedules"
in the cases and federal guidance discussed.  Moreover, accepting
the definition of "flat rate schedule" the Defendant advances would
require the Court to disregard the New Mexico Supreme Court's
mandate to strictly and narrowly construe exemptions to the Act and
to only apply an exemption when it unmistakably applies.

Turning to the second contention of the Defendant, Judge Yarbrough
agrees with the Plaintiff that the basis for the motion to dismiss
-- no joint and several liability -- is not the relevant legal
question presented in the complaint.  Instead, the relevant legal
question is "whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
FedEx is his statutory employer subject to the obligations of the
New Mexico's Minimum Wage Act."  The motion to dismiss does not
grapple with this question, and the Judge will not consider
arguments raised for the first time in the Defendant's reply brief.
Therefore, this portion of the motion to dismiss is denied on the
ground that it is directed at a theory of liability that is not in
the complaint and that the Plaintiff has explicitly stated he is
not pursing in the case.

For these reasons, Judge Yarbrough denies FedEx's Motion to Dismiss
the Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ack6psw2 from
Leagle.com.


FIVE STAR ADVERTISING: Court Certifies Class in Wendell TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STAR
ADVERTISING, LLC, and JOHNNY LEE, Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-cv-03157-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The case arises out of the receipt of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sent
unsolicited fax transmissions in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lee, a natural person residing in
Castle Rock, Colorado, is the only registered member of Defendant
Five Star, a limited liability company with its principal office at
6247 El Diente Peak Place, in Castle Rock, Colorado.

The Plaintiff states that on Oct. 1, 2019, the Defendants
transmitted a fax advertisement to him.  He Plaintiff states that
the fax advertised the Defendants' goods or products, it was part
of the Defendants' work or operations in marketing their goods or
products, the Plaintiff never invited or gave permission to the
Defendant to send the advertisement fax, and the fax did not
contain an opt-out provision as required by 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff states "on information and belief" that the
Defendants faxed the same unsolicited advertisement to 40 other
recipients without receiving the recipients' permission or
invitation.  He states that Defendant Lee has personal oversight of
Five Star and the drafting and implementation of the fax
advertisements and Five Stars' policies regarding the JFPA.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of the action,
(2) were sent, by the Defendants or on the Defendants' behalf, (3)
a telephone facsimile message substantially similar to Exhibit A,
(4) from whom the Defendants claim they obtained prior express
permission or invitation to send those faxes in the same manner as
the Defendants claim they obtained prior express consent to fax the
Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff estimates that the number of class
members is "in the thousands."

Neither Defendant has made an appearance in the case.  On Jan. 29,
2020, the Clerk of Court entered default as to Five Star, and on
Feb. 5, 2020, the Clerk of Court entered default as to Lee.  On
April 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class.

Judge Brimmer first considers whether the Plaintiff has proposed an
ascertainable class with regards to certification under Rule
23(b)(3).  He finds that the Plaintiff does not supply any evidence
of how plaintiff would identify the other class members given the
default by the Defendants.  While the Defendants should not be
rewarded for failing to appear, if there is no way for the
Plaintiff to identify the class members then the class cannot be
ascertainable.  The Plaintiff has not supplied a reliable and
administratively feasible method for ascertaining class members.
Therefore, Judge denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify with
regard to Rule 23(b)(3) without prejudice.

Next, the complaint alleges that the Defendants faxed the same
unsolicited fax to 40 other recipients without receiving
permission, and that the Plaintiff believes the class members to be
in the thousands.  Because he must deem the well-pleaded facts of
the complaint as admitted, Judge Brimmer finds it sufficient to
satisfy the numerosity requirement.

And because the issues of whether the faxes were advertisements,
who sent them, whether there was an opt-out notice that complied
with the TCPA, the damages the class is entitled to, and whether
the Defendants acted willfully are questions common to the class
and unaffected by the issue of consent, the Judge also finds that
commonality is met.

To the extent concerns about consent determinations are applicable
to typicality, Judge Brimmer concludes that the claims are
sufficiently typical of the class because the proposed class
consists of only those members from whom the Defendants claimed to
have obtained prior permission in the same way the Defendants
claimed to obtain prior permission from the Plaintiff.  Therefore,
the Judge finds that typicality is met.

The Judge has identified no conflict between the Plaintiff and the
putative class, and the Plaintiff's counsel has extensive
experience litigating TCPA class actions such as this one.  The
Plaintiff and his counsel has continued to litigate the case
despite the failure of the Defendants to appear, and the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the
putative class.

Judge Brimmer then finds that the class is sufficiently cohesive
for a class-wide injunctive relief and tailoring to each class
member is unnecessary.  Accordingly, he finds that certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate.

The Plaintiff brings suit for both injunctive and monetary relief.
A hybrid class action can refer to a single case where a plaintiff
seeks both injunctive and monetary damages through certification
under more than one section of Rule 23.  Because the Plaintiff does
not urge the Court to certify a "hybrid" class, Judge Brimmer
declines to do so.

Finally, the Plaintiff's attorneys -- Patrick Peluso and Taylor
Smith of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC -- request to be appointed class
counsel.  the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's attorneys have
sufficient experience handling TCPA class actions,  and their
knowledge of applicable law, as exhibited in the case up to this
point, weighs in favor of their appointment.  Similarly, the
counsel have demonstrated that they have the resources to commit to
the litigation and have continued to prosecute the matter despite
the Defendants' default.  Therefore, the Judge finds that it is
appropriate to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as the class
counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.  He
certifies the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

The class is defined as follows: All persons who (1) on or after
Nov. 6, 2015, (2) were sent, by Defendants or on Defendants'
behalf, (3) a telephone facsimile message substantially similar to
Exhibit A, (4) from whom Defendants claim they obtained prior
express permission or invitation to send those faxes in the same
manner as Defendants claim they obtained prior express consent to
fax the Plaintiff.

The Judge appoints the Plaintiff's attorneys as the class counsel.

The Plaintiff will have 30 days from the entry of the Order to file
any amended motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/9wuv65c from Leagle.com.


FUBOTV INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

fuboTV Inc. (FUBO)
Class Period: 3/23/2020 – 1/4/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fubo/

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                            About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation’s premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of fuboTV Inc. There is no cost to
participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.

fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO)
Class Period: March 23, 2020 - January 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

The FUBO lawsuit alleges that fuboTV Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (ii)
Fubo offering of products was subject to undisclosed cost
escalations; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its only sports
wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve long-term advertising
growth goals and forecasts; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies,
internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable
market into online sports wagering; and as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in FUBO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13891&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

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

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

FUBOTV INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of fuboTV Inc. (NYSE: FUBO) between
March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important April 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the fuboTV class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2038.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 19, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) fuboTV's growth in subscriber
and profitability were unsustainable past the seasonal surge in
subscription levels; (2) fuboTV's offering of products was subject
to undisclosed cost escalations; (3) fuboTV could not successfully
compete and perform as sports book operator and could not
capitalize on its only sports wagering opportunity; (4) fuboTV's
data and inventory was not differentiated to allow fuboTV to
achieve long-term advertising growth goals and forecasts; (5)
fuboTV's valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and
subscription levels; (6) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not
provide the stated synergies, internal expertise, and did not
expand fuboTV's addressable market into online sports wagering; and
(7) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the fuboTV class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2038.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors of fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO). The
case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased FUBO stock or other securities between March 23, 2020 and
January 4, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that fuboTV and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors which included
misrepresentations about fuboTV's ability to grow subscription
levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost
escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability
to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company's
valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports
wagering. Investors learned the truth when a series of research
reports revealed that: (i) fuboTV's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) fuboTV's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) fuboTV could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) fuboTV's data and inventory was
not differentiated to allow fuboTV to achieve its long-term
advertising growth goals; (v) fuboTV's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies
and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's
addressable market into sports wagering.

Interested fuboTV investors have until April 19, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. 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's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV [GN]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Henry Suit Over Baby Foods' Deceptive Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NAJAH A. HENRY, CHANEL J. JACKSON, ALEXIS DIAS, HOLLY BUFFINTON,
and CONSTANCE VENABLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (d/b/a
Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition
North America, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05864 (D.N.J., March 19,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Rhode Island's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of its baby
food products. Contrary to the representations on the products'
label, the products contain heavy metals, including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead at levels above what is considered safe for
babies. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations,
the Plaintiffs were harmed by paying a premium for baby foods that
contain heavy metals.

Gerber Products Company, doing business as Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, and Nestle Nutrition North America, is an
American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
         E-mail: lverderame@edelson-law.com

GLEN PARK: Larson Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unlawful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. MONICA LARSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE,
TILLMAN PINK, JR., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV10715 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, March 19, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code and Public Policy including constructive termination,
failure to timely pay wages upon separation, unpaid wages and/or
commissions, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked as executive director of Glen Park at Valley
Village in Los Angeles County, California from June 2019.

Glen Park at Valley Village is a neighborhood in Los Angeles
County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
         Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
         100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 733-2498
         Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
         E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
                 laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com

GOBRANDS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOBRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02349-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 17, 2021) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.gopuff.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.

GoBrands, Inc. provides on-demand retail and delivery of products.
The Company offers college essentials, party supplies, and
accessories to snacks, frozen foods, and household essentials.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


GOLO LLC: Bubak Files Suit in W.D. California
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLO, LLC. The case
is styled as Vincenzza Bubak, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOLO, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00492-DAD-EPG (W.D. Cal., March
24, 2021).

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

GOLO -- https://www.golo.com/ -- is a weight loss program that
teaches clean eating. It promotes insulin resistance, and how to
keep blood sugar levels manageable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 784-6613
          Fax: (248) 936-2143
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Trenton Ross Kashima
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-2125
          Fax: (619) 762-2127
          Email: tkashima@sommerspc.com


GOOGLE LLC: Sparks Sues Over Online Illegal Gambling Games
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SPARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
5:21-cv-01516-NC (N.D. Calif., March 3, 2021) is a class action
arising from Google's profiting from illegal gambling games
developed by Zynga and offered, sold, and distributed by Google
through its Google Play Store for consumers to download and play.

Google offers, sells, and distributes casino-style slot machines,
casino-style table games, and other common gambling games to
consumers through Google Play which constitutes illegal gambling
pursuant to the law of various states.

The Plaintiff is an adult citizen and resident of the state of
Tennessee.

Google LLC is the primary operating subsidiary of the publicly
traded holding company, Alphabet Inc. GPC GPC provides in-app
payment processing services to Android app developers and consumers
through Google Play. Google requires app developers who distribute
their apps on Google Play to use its billing system if they offer
in-app purchases of digital goods, and to pay a service fee from a
percentage of the purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

GREGORY FUNDING: Gasper Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA L. GASPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00621 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 18, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GREGORY FUNDING, LLC is in the mortgage servicing industry and
provides easy loan management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          Michael A. Smith Jr., Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               -and-

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com


HEMATOGENIX LABORATORY: Wazwaz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hematogenix
Laboratory Services, LLC. The case is styled as Amer Wazwaz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hematogenix Laboratory Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01608 (N.D.
Ill., March 24, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Hematogenix -- http://www.hematogenix.com/-- is a global
cancer-focused life science company serving the pharmaceutical &
biotechnology industry as well as community physicians.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
          420 E Waterside Dr., #3004
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (818) 600-5535
          Email: syed@pricelawgroup.com


HUDAPACK METAL: Bid for Settlement Approval in Kelly Due April 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA KELLY, Plaintiff v. HUDAPACK METAL TREATING
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-0130-bhl (E.D. Wis.), Judge Brett
H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin ordered the parties to file their Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class
Certification for the Purposes of Settlement on or before April 16,
2021.

On March 8, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to the
counsel for the parties after they failed to file dismissal papers
or a status report with the Court as directed.  That Order also
directed the parties to file dismissal papers, a joint status
report, or an amended joint report of their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
plan.  The counsel for the parties promptly responded with an
apology and joint status report indicating that the form of the
settlement agreement has been approved but not yet executed, and
requesting a schedule be set.

Accordingly, the order to show cause is satisfied.  The parties
will file their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval by April 16,
2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/945ht2bm from Leagle.com.


HUDSON HALL: Restaurant Staff Gets NYLL Claims Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK STEWART, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HUDSON
HALL LLC d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, HUDSON HALL HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a
MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, THINK FOOD GROUP, LLC, and JOSE RAMON ANDRES
PUERTA a/k/a JOSE ANDRES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00885-PGG-SL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge G. Gardephe entered an order:

   1. granting certification of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL")
      claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all:

      "current and former non-exempt employees (including but not
      limited to line cooks, cooks, food preparers, stock persons,

      counterpersons, porters, dishwashers, food runners) employed

      by the Defendants any time between January 31, 2014 and the
      signing of this Order";

   2. designating the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   3. approving the proposed notice of this action;

   4. directing the mailing of the notice (including Spanish
      translations) of this action to Class Members;

   5. directing the Defendants, within 10 days of this Order, to
      produce in Excel format the names, titles, compensation
      rates, dates of employment, Social Security numbers, last
      known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known
      telephone numbers of all Class members; and

   6. approving the posting of the notice in Defendants' place of
      business at a public location where employees are most likely

      to view such notice, simultaneously with the mailing of such

      notice.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dccK2b at no extra charge.[CC]


ILLUMINA INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ILLUMINA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-3044-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California has issued
an order:

   a. granting the Class Counsel's unopposed motions for final
      approval of class action settlement;

   b. granting in part and denying in part the application for
      the Class Counsel's attorney's fees, costs, and litigation
      expenses, as well as the Class Representatives' awards; and

   c. granting the Motion for Approval of Fund Disbursement filed
      by Lead Plaintiff Natissisa Enterprises Ltd. and Plaintiffs
      Anton Agoshkov, Braden Van Der Wall, and Steven Romanoff.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Illumina common stock
during the period between July 26, 2016 and Oct. 10, 2016.  The
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claimed that Illumina and Individual
Defendants Francis A. deSouza and Marc A. Stapley violated federal
securities laws by providing investors misleading material
information concerning Illumina's revenue and sales for the third
quarter of the 2016 fiscal year.

Specifically, it is alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that
Illumina lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and, on Oct. 10, 2016, Illumina revealed, in a press
release, that its third quarter revenue ($607 million) was
significantly lower than the Defendants' previous forecast of $625
million to $630 million.  After the press release, Illumina's stock
price fell from $184.85 per share on Oct. 10, 2016 to $138.99 per
share on Oct. 11, 2016.

On Dec. 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Yi Fan Chen and Frontline Global
Trading Pte. filed a class action complaint in the Court against
the Defendants, alleging violations of the Security Exchange Act of
1943 ("SEA").  On Jan. 10, 2017, Plaintiff James McLeod filed a
second, substantially similar class action complaint against the
Defendants in the Court for the same violations.  Subsequently, the
district court consolidated both class actions and appointed
Natissisa as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as lead
counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

On May 30, 2017, Natissisa filed the Amended Complaint alleging
Defendants committed fraud under Section 10(b) of the SEA and SEC
Rule 10b-5 as: (1) Illumina failed to truthfully disclose that the
demand for one of its premier products was decreasing, (2)
Illumina's earning projections were misleading, and (3) control
liability had attached.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion on certain
allegations.  The parties began discovery after the Magistrate
Judge Karen S. Crawford held a case management conference and
issued a scheduling order.  On Sept. 12, 2018, Natissisa moved to
amend the Amended Complaint to include Anton Agoshkov as an
additional named plaintiff.  On Sept. 14, 2018, Natissisa and Anton
Agoshkov moved for class certification.  On Oct. 4, 2018,
Plaintiffs, Braden Van Der Wall and Steven Romanoff, filed a
Complaint against the Defendants.  Upon joint motion of the
parties, the Court granted a stay in the Van Der Wall action
pending the resolution of the class certification motion.

On Dec. 14, 2018, the parties filed a joint request to extend
scheduling order deadlines in order to provide the parties more
time to complete discovery and participate in private mediation.
The Court granted the joint motion on Dec. 18, 2018.  On Jan. 8,
2019, the Court denied Natissisa's motion to amend without
prejudice.

Around Jan. 30, 2019, the parties scheduled a mediation for April
18, 2019.  They participated in mediation on April 18, 2019 and
tentatively agreed to a settlement after a full day of
negotiations.  On April 25, 2019, the Court granted the parties'
joint motion to stay resolution of the class certification motion
due to the settlement.  On May 29, 2019, the Court granted the
joint motion to hold the Court's ruling on class certification in
abeyance in order to (1) allow the parties to finalize necessary
settlement paperwork and (2) allow Plaintiff to file a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On Dec. 18, 2019, the Court conditionally granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and
issued a briefing schedule for filing Motion for Class
Representative Service Awards, Fee and Expense Application, and
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement and Motion for Attorney's Fees on March 2, 2020.  On May
29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the Joint Motion for Judgment.  The
Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Disbursement of Funds on Nov. 3,
2020.

Judge Lorenz incorporates by reference the Settlement Agreement as
outlined in the Conditional Preliminary Approval Order with the
following changes:

      a. The Parties modified the settlement terms, as ordered by
the Court, to identify the cy pres recipient.  The Agreement calls
for any portion of the Net Settlement Fund remaining following
distribution, granted the amount limits the effectiveness of a
redistribution to the Settlement Class, to be donated to Investor
Protection Trust, a 501(c)(3) organization located in Washington
D.C. that serves to educate investors in the United States.

      b. The Notice Program was modified in accordance with the
instructions provided in the Court's Conditional Preliminary
Approval Order and is approved in all respects.

      c. The Parties modified the definition of "Escrow Account" in
the Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to the Court's
instructions.

      d. The Parties have agreed to amend the definitions of
"Effective Date" and "Preliminary Approval Order" set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement to refer to the Conditional Preliminary
Approval Order entered by the Court.

Judge Lorenz evaluates the class certification requirements solely
for purposes of the Settlement in its Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally certifying the
Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3).  There have been no
additional facts raised since that time, therefore, he incorporates
by reference the determination of Rule 23(b)(3) class certification
from the prior Order.

The Judge finds that (i) the relevant factors support a finding
that the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;
(ii) the named Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel have demonstrated
their ability to vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the
class through significant motion practice and discovery efforts;
(iii) the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, by and through their
counsel, have sufficiently investigated the facts and law relating
to the matters alleged in the Amended Complaint; (iv) the content
of the Supplemental Agreement as described in the Motion to be
adequate and reasonable under the circumstances; (v) the strength
of the Plaintiffs' case, risk, expense, complexity, and risk of
maintaining class status throughout trial factors weighs in favor
of approving settlement; and (vi) the Plan of Allocation outlined
above correlates each Settlement Class members' recovery to the
timing of any sales or purchases of Illumina common stock to
calculate each Settlement Class member's Recognized Loss.

Judge Lorenz grants the request for exclusions by Robert Fisher and
the Patrick Reilly Trust, on behalf of Patrick Reilly.  He finds
that the letter from the Patrick Reilly Trust states that Mr.
Reilly passed away on April 4, 2018 and the Patrick Reilly Trust is
now closed, indicating all financial matters have been resolved.
Because the time for claims has passed, the Judge holds that any
potential risk to Defendant Illumina if Patrick Reilly is excluded
from the Settlement Class, is negligible, if it exists.

Regarding attorneys' fees, under the Agreement, the Parties agreed
that the Class Counsel could apply for an award from the Settlement
not to exceed 25% ($3,462,500) of the Settlement Value.  The Class
Counsel has now requested $2,125,332.25 in fees.  The Class Counsel
was also entitled to request reimbursement of out-of-pocket
litigation expenses up to $180,000, that were advanced in
connection with the Consolidated Action.  The Class Counsel has now
applied $169,727.62 in costs and expenses.

Judge Lorenz holds that the requested fees and expenses are within
the range approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement, and are therefore presumptively reasonable.  He
approves the fee request of $2,125,332.25 in attorneys' fees and a
costs for a total amount of $167,727.62.  He denies as moot the
request for $2,000 for travel expenses.

Lastly, regarding the Lead Counsel's requests for Plaintiffs'
incentive awards to Anton Agoshkov in the amount of $25,000; Braden
Van Der Wall in the amount of $1,000; and Steven Romanoff in the
amount of $1,000, Judge Lorenz grants the application for incentive
awards.

For these reasons, Judge Lorenz (i) grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of class action Settlement; (ii) grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Disbursement of Funds; (iii) grants the
Plaintiffs' request for $2,125,332.25 in attorneys' fees; (iv)
grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's request for
expenses, as noted in the amount of $167,727.62; and (v) grants the
Plaintiffs' request for incentive awards.

Judge Lorenz further dismisses with prejudice the Complaint.  Upon
the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement, the
Judgment will permanently bar, extinguish, and discharge any and
all claims, actions, suits, causes of action, or demands by any
person against the Released Parties, whether for contribution or
indemnification or however styled, where the alleged injury
consists of or arises from liability to the Settlement Class or any
Settlement Class Member for a claim arising out of or related to
the allegations in the Consolidated Action.

The class members who requested exclusion, Robert Fisher and
Patrick Reilly, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement or
Judgment of the Court.

Provided it is economically feasible, should any funds remain after
the initial distribution of the class member awards, the parties
will do a second distribution to Settlement Class Members who
received their class member awards.  Should residual funds remain
following a second distribution, or in the event a second
distribution is not economically feasible, the Parties will
distribute the remaining funds, if any, to cy pres recipient,
Investor Protection Trust, a 501(c)(3) organization located in
Washington D.C.

The Court finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering
Final Judgment and, accordingly, the Clerk is directed to enter
Final Judgment forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2c3sh6ey from Leagle.com.


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment on Thomas' Tort Claims Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Indiana University, by and through its Board of
Trustees, Appellant-Defendant v. Jaden Thomas, et al., individuals,
each on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Appellees-Plaintiffs, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-PL-361 (Ind.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reverses the trial court's
order denying the University's motion for partial summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs' tort claims.

Students residing in freshman dormitories on Indiana University's
Bloomington campus filed a class-action complaint against the
University and its Board of Trustees, asserting contract and tort
claims and requesting damages and injunctive relief relating to
mold growth in the dorms.

In October 2018, pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act ("ITCA"),
attorneys representing several named Plaintiffs, including Jaden
Thomas, filed a notice of tort claim with the University on behalf
of those students "and all individuals similarly situated, in
relation to injuries they have suffered, and continue to suffer,
due to their exposure to mold that has infested their residential
dormitories at IU Bloomington," including, specifically, Foster and
McNutt dorms.

The next day, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against
the University for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty
of inhabitability, and declaratory judgment.  The complaint alleged
the existence of a "mold infestation" in "residential dormitories
provided and maintained by" the University that "created a
dangerous and toxic environment for the Plaintiffs and members of
the putative Class."

The Plaintiffs requested damages and declaratory, equitable, and
injunctive relief, including remediation of the mold; they also
indicated "the potential need" to amend the complaint to include
tort claims, depending on the University's response to their tort
claim notice.

Remediation efforts were already underway when the complaint was
filed and ultimately resulted in either temporary or permanent
relocation of students residing in Foster, McNutt, and Teter dorms.
The University converted lounges in Forest and Eigenmann dorms
into temporary living quarters for some of the displaced students.
As a precautionary measure, the University placed high-efficiency
particulate air ("HEPA") filters in Ashton, Wright, Collins, and
Hillcrest dorms, which led to noise complaints by students in those
dorms.  The University also implemented several compensation
programs for students affected by mold.  In short, the University
took steps to remediate the mold and paid over $7 million in
compensation to affected students.

In January 2019, the University denied the Plaintiffs' tort claim
notice on the basis that it had already expended more than
one-point-five times its aggregate statutory liability under the
ITCA in mold-related compensation to students for this event.

Later that month, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include
more named plaintiffs, allegations, and counts.  Several counts
were dismissed, leaving the following eight counts, which are
numbered according to the amended complaint: (1) breach of
contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3)
negligence, (4) negligent failure to warn, (5) constructive fraud,
(6) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (10) money had and
received, and (11) unjust enrichment.

Count 1 alleges that the University contracted with the Plaintiffs
to provide dorms "that were suitable and ready for inhabitation by
students" and that the University breached the contract by
providing rooms "that were infested with mold" and by failing to
"adequately repair or provide a remedy" for allegedly "unsanitary
and dangerous conditions."  Count 3 alleges that the University
"had a duty to use care in inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, and
making repairs and remediations" to the dorms and to communicate
with the Plaintiffs "truthfully and reasonably regarding the status
of the dorms and any safety or health issues contained therein" and
that the University breached that duty by negligently doing (or not
doing) those acts.

Count 10 is expressly pled in the alternative to claims based on
contract and alleges that the University received money either from
the Plaintiffs or from third parties on their behalf and for their
benefit in order to provide academic services and residences to the
Plaintiffs, and that the circumstances are such that the
University, in equity and good conscience, ought not to retain that
money, as the University provided dorms containing mold that harmed
the Plaintiffs and diminished or eliminated the Plaintiffs'
abilities to participate in and/or obtain fair value from the
academic services and college experience that they expected.

The University filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which the trial court denied.  In May 2019, pursuant to Indiana
Trial Rule 23, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify four
proposed classes.  Three of the classes are for litigation of
liability and damages regarding the claims raised in Counts 1, 2,
10, and 11 of the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs designated these classes as the "Moldy Dorms Class,"
i.e., "all residents of Foster, McNutt, and Teter dorms during the
2018-2019 school year"; the "Noise Polluted Dorms Class," i.e.,
"all residents of Ashton, Collins, Hillcrest, and Wright dorms";
and the "Overcrowded Dorms Class," i.e., "all residents of Forest
and Eigenmann dorms."

The Plaintiffs summarized their claims with respect to each class
as follows:

       a. Moldy Dorms Class: "Residents in these dorms received
housing of reduced value and suffered a diminished university
experience due to the presence of elevated mold levels in the
buildings that required intrusive in-room mold remediation efforts,
including the installation of bulky, noisy HEPA filters in their
rooms;

       b. Noise Polluted Dorms Class: "Residents in these dorms
received housing of reduced value and suffered a diminished
university experience due to the presence of elevated mold levels
in the buildings that required the installation of bulky, noisy
HEPA filters in their rooms"; and

      c. Overcrowded Dorms Class: "Residents in these dorms
received housing of reduced value and suffered a diminished student
experience due to overcrowding and the lost use of lounges and
other common areas which were used by students relocated from other
dorms due to the presence of elevated mold levels in the other
buildings."

The Plaintiffs also requested certification of the Moldy Dorms
Class for litigation as to liability regarding the claims raised in
Counts 3 through 6 of their amended complaint; this fourth class is
designated as the "Tort Issues Class."

The University filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion, in which it argued, among other things, that the Noise
Polluted Dorms and Overcrowded Dorms Classes should not be
certified because they are not based on allegations contained in
the amended complaint.

In October 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In January 2020, the court issued
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion as to the Moldy Dorms,
Noise Polluted Dorms, and Tort Issues Classes, and denying the
motion as to the Overcrowded Dorms Class.

In the meantime, the University had filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on all tort claims, which the University defined
as Counts 3 through 6, 10, and 11, on the basis that it had
"already paid more than $7.7 million to students affected by the
alleged mold issues" and thereby exceeded the ITCA's liability cap.
In their response, the Plaintiffs argued that Counts 10 and 11 are
not tort claims and that factual disputes exist regarding how much
money was paid for tort claims and whether those claims arose from
a single occurrence under the ITCA.

In March 2020, after a hearing, the trial court issued an order
denying the University's motion for partial summary judgment.  The
court concluded that Counts 10 and 11 are not tort claims because
the ITCA requires notice of a "loss," and neither claim relates "to
a 'loss' as that term is defined by the ITCA."  It also concluded
that the Plaintiffs' complaint relates to one occurrence, but that
a factual dispute exists regarding whether the ITCA's liability cap
has been met because questions remain as to whether the recipients
of the bursar credits had actually suffered a loss, the amount of
any loss, and whether the recipients had consented to the credits
as a settlement of potential claims.

The University appeals both the certification and the summary
judgment rulings.  The Plaintiffs do not appeal the trial court's
refusal to certify the Overcrowded Dorms Class.

The Court of Appeals first addresses the University's argument that
the trial court erred in granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the Moldy Dorms and Noise Polluted Dorms Classes.  It finds that
The trial court abused its discretion in certifying the Moldy Dorms
and Noise Polluted Dorms Classes because the trial court certified
these classes based on claims not pled in the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  The Appellate Court also refuses to perpetuate the
adage that no good deed goes unpunished.  Accordingly, it reverses
the trial court's certification of the Moldy Dorms and Noise
Polluted Dorms Classes.

The Appellate Court next addresses the University's argument that
the trial court erred in denying its motion for partial summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' tort claims and in concluding that
those claims do not include Counts 10 and 11 of the amended
complaint.  It reviews a summary judgment ruling de novo, applying
the same standard as the trial court.  It holds that the
University's payments to Foster and McNutt residents exceeded its
aggregate liability for the Plaintiffs' tort claims under the ITCA
and that the trial court erred in denying its motion for partial
summary judgment on those claims.

The only remaining question is whether the Plaintiffs' claims for
money had and received and unjust enrichment in Counts 10 and 11 of
their amended complaint are tort claims governed by the ITCA and
therefore subject to summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals
concludes that they are.

Citing Holtz v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Elkhart Cnty., 560 N.E.2d 645,
647 (Ind. 1990), the Appellate Court explains that tort is a legal
wrong committed upon the person or property independent of
contract.  The Plaintiffs characterize their claims for money had
and received and unjust enrichment as quasi-contractual, but those
claims were "expressly pled in the alternative to" their
contract-based claims.  The damages the Plaintiffs, although purely
economic, are the consequence of the University's alleged tortious
conduct.  In essence, then, the Plaintiffs are "claiming a loss of
property, and therefore their claims sound in tort" for purposes of
the ITCA.

Consequently, the Appellate Court reverses the trial court's denial
of the University's motion for partial summary judgment on Counts 3
through 6, 10, and 11 of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint and
remands for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2ufp4djn from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Barnard -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Jeffrey D. Stemerick,
Ann O'Connor McCready -- amccready@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.

Irwin B. Levin -- ILEVIN@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Richard E. Shevitz,
Vess A. Miller, Cohen & Malad, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, William
E. Winingham -- winingham@wkw.com -- Jon Noyes -- jnoyes@wkw.com --
Wilson Kehoe Winingham LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacob R. Cox,
Cox Law Office, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees.


INFINITY Q: The Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha
Fund Institutional Class (NASDAQ: IQDNX) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in IQDNX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-fund-loss-submission-form?id=13870&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
Institutional Class made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief
Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within
the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the
swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be
able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously
reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the
Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a
result, the Prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

Shareholders have until April 27, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

INFINITY Q: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Infinity Q
Diversified Alpha Fund. If you suffered a loss you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund Institutional Class
(NASDAQ:IQDNX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-fund-loss-submission-form?prid=13888&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
Class Period: December 21, 2018 - February 22, 2021

Allegations against IQDNX include that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief
Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within
the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the
swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be
able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously
reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the
Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a
result, the Prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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

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

KALEO HOLDINGS: Cadeau Files Placeholder Bid for Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CADEAU and MICHELLE
CADEAU, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons, v. KALEO HOLDINGS, INC. and KALEO,
INC., Virginia corporations, Case No. 2:21-cv-05151-KM-ESK
(D.N.J.),  the Plaintiffs submit the "Placeholder" motion for class
Certification, contemporaneously with their class action complaint.


The Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions:

   -- Autodialed Class

      "All individuals in the United States who, within the four
      years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, received

      one or more texts to their cellular telephones from
      Defendants through the use of an automatic dialing system and

      who did not provide prior express consent to receive such
      text messages;" and

   -- Autodialed Telemarketing Class

      "All individuals in the United States who, within the four
      years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, received

      calls and/or texts advertising Defendants' property, goods,
      or services to their cellular telephones from Defendants
      through the use of an automatic dialing system and who did
      not provide prior express written consent to receive such
      calls/texts."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)
(holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same time
that they file their complaint" and that "[t]he pendency of that
motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc.,
796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

The Third Circuit held in Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., 819
F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir. 2016), that its prior decisions holding that a
defendant's offer of full individual relief can "moot" a
plaintiff's claim were overruled in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). The Third Circuit also reaffirmed the
"picking off exception to mootness" post-Campbell-Ewald in
Richardson v. Dir. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 829 F.3d 273, 283 (3d
Cir. 2016). Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has not ruled on
whether a "placeholder" motion can prevent a defendant from
"mooting" a plaintiff's claim in some way other than an offer, such
as depositing funds with the court and moving for entry of
individual judgment in the plaintiff's favor. See Campbell-Ewald,
136 S. Ct. at 672 (declining to address this "hypothetical"); cf.
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir.
2017) (finding "no principled distinction between attempting to
force a settlement on an unwilling party through Rule 68, as in
Campbell–Ewald, and attempting to force a settlement on an
unwilling party through Rule 67").

In light of existing Third Circuit precedent, district courts in
this Circuit have typically ruled that "placeholder" motions for
class certification should be "denied without prejudice to be
renewed following class discovery." Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
v. Advanced Data Sys. Int'l, LLC, No. CV 16-3620, 2016 WL 9223921,
at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2016); see also Millers Furniture of Mercer
Co. v. Banner Life Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00557-MRH, 2017 WL
2735596, at (W.D. Pa. June 23, 2017) (ruling that post-Richardson
"placeholder" motion would be "denied without prejudice to refile
at the appropriate juncture in the case").

The Defendants sent the Plaintiffs at least one unsolicited text
message. The Plaintiffs anticipate that the proposed class
definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours
of the class and the advertisements that were sent. Plaintiffs
request leave to submit a brief and other evidence in support of
this Motion after discovery about the class elements.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rAO7kJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

KEY ENERGY: Ward Seeks Unpaid Service Supervisors' Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00838 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Service Supervisor
from approximately July 2016 through November 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly and willfully
carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay its
Services Supervisors overtime compensation. Despite consistently
working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Service Supervisors did not receive compensation
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hors
they work over 40 in a workweek.

On behalf of himself and each Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, all
available penalty wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs, and other legal and equitable relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

Key Energy Services, LLC provides fluid management, ring, well
testing, fishing, coiled tubing, and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Joseph A Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375
          E-mail: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
                  aortiz@fslawfirm.com


KROGER CO: Faces Cochran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
RICKY COCHRAN; and ALAIN BERREBI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO.; and
ACCELLION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01887 (N.D. Cal.,
Mar. 17, 2021) is an action arising out of the Defendant's failure
to secure sensitive information stored on its Accellion FTA (File
Transfer Appliance) product.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a direct and
proximate result of Accellion's inadequate data security, Plaintiff
and Class Members' personally identifying information and personal
medical information have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an
untold number of unauthorized individuals.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of
criminal mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy protecting themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes, the suit says.

Accellion, Inc. provides secure collaboration and managed file
transfer solutions. The Company offers productivity, enterprise
content, file sharing and synchronization and storage, replacement,
and backups and recovery. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               -and-

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

               -and-

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com


LHC GROUP: George Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEENA GEORGE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. LHC
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02760-RM-KMT (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying her Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime claims as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff's proposed collective class is as follows:

   "All individuals who were employed by LHC Group as full-time
   home health Physical Therapist Assistants, Certified
   Occupational Therapy Assistants, and Licensed Practical Nurses
   at any location in the United States during a period from three

   years prior to the entry of the conditional certification order

   to the present."

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant LHC to provide health
care services to patients in their homes. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant wrongfully denied her and other
similarly-situated home health Clinical Assistants proper premium
overtime pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in given workweeks as
required by the FLSA.

LHC Group is a national provider of in-home healthcare services and
innovations, providing healthcare to patients primarily within
their home or place of residence.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ctbwjZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective,
are:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                  mshannon@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of those who acquired Lordstown Motors
Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) securities from
August 3, 2020 through March 17, 2021 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 17, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report on the electric light duty
truck manufacturer entitled "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake
Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno."
According to Hindenburg, the company's claimed 100,000 pre-orders
for its EV truck are "largely fictitious and used as a prop to
raise capital and confer legitimacy." Hindenburg further cited
significant, undisclosed production delays and a prototype that
"burst into flames 10 minutes before the test drive" in January
2021, substantiating claims by former employees that the company is
not conducting the needed testing or validation required by the
NHTSA. On this news, Lordstown shares fell by $2.93 per share, or
approximately 16.5%, from $17.71 per share to close at $14.78 per
share on March 12, 2021.

Then, after the markets closed on March 17, 2021, reports emerged
that Lordstown disclosed that the Company is the subject of an SEC
inquiry for information following the release of the Hindenburg
Research report. Then before the markets opened on March 18, 2021,
Lordstown's CEO, Stephen Burns, appeared on CNBC and stated "We
never said we had orders. We don't have a product yet so by
definition you can't have orders." On this news, Lordstown shares
fell by $2.08 per share, or approximately 13.8%, from $15.09 per
share to close at $13.01 per share on March 18, 2021.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Lordstown Motors Corp ("Lordstown Motors") (NASDAQ:
RIDE) between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lordstown-motors-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13885&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.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be customers who made these
purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or
would not have credible demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii)
Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production
of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Lordstown Motors you have until May 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

MADSKY MRP: Faces Blumenauer Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY BLUMENAUER, individually and one behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADSKY MRP LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-21-005184 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., March 12, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent text message to his
cellular telephone number ending in 7472 beginning on or about
March 10, 2021 in an attempt to promote and advertise its services.
The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing
system" in transmitting text messages without obtaining the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals' prior express
written consent to receive such automated text messages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals in the form of invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
conversion, inconvenience and disruption to their life.

On behalf of himself and on behalf of the Class, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited text messaging activity and prohibiting the Defendant
from using an ATDS without obtaining the recipient's consent, as
well as an award of actual and statutory damages, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary.

Madsky MRP LLC offers a revolutionary program that simplifies the
property restoration process and helps homeowners get back to their
lives faster than ever before. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and –

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Online Grocery App Overcharges Customers, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR INC. d/b/a INSTACART; and DOES
1-10 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-590201 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., Mar. 17, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants' false advertising, marketing and sale of the overpriced
products.

According to the complaint, on April 2020, the Plaintiff made
multiple purchases through the Defendant for the purchase and
delivery of items from the local Stater Bros. While using the
Defendants' Instacart App, the Plaintiff selected specific items he
wanted and was specifically cited the price of those items and was
charged those prices. These selections include produce which was
quoted at a certain rate and for which the Plaintiff was charged a
price per weight unit.

Upon receiving the Plaintiff's delivery from the Defendant, the
Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had allegedly made
substitutions for certain selected products. The Defendants sent an
email outlining the Substituted Goods and price of the goods. Even
though the Defendants substituted certain selected goods for
substituted goods which were cheaper, the Defendants did not refund
this difference in price, the suit contends.

MAPLEBEAR INC. d/b/a INSTACART operates as a same-day grocery
delivery service company. The Company allows customers to select
groceries through an online application platform from various
retailers and have them delivered by personal shoppers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrews Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEDDY BEAR ANDREWS; JOLEEN COOK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAELS STORES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02294
(C.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.

Michaels Stores, Inc. retails art and craft products. The Company
offers books, clocks, lighting, paper, sticker,framing, floral and
wall decor, paper, fabric, wedding, and party products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


MOTHERSHIP ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Arnold Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOTHERSHIP ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A I HEART
CANNA, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00498-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal., Mar.
18, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Mothership Enterprises, Inc., which does business as I Heart Canna,
is a cannabis dispensary located in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


MULTIPLAN CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III (MPLN)
Class Period: 7/12/2020 - 11/10/2020 and/or were holders of
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill") Class A common stock
entitled to vote on Churchill’s merger with and acquisition of
Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries completed in
October 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mpln/


If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                          About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation’s premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Multiplan
Corporation. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Multiplan Corporation F/K/A Churchill Capital Corp. Iii
(NYSE:MPLN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/multiplan-corporation-f-k-a-churchill-capital-corp-iii-loss-submission-form?prid=13889&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021
Class Period: July 12, 2020 - November 10, 2020

Allegations against MPLN include that: (a) MultiPlan was losing
tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a
competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest customers,
UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of the Company's sales
and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue
declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger were not due to
"idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as represented, but rather due
to a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services
and increased competition, as payors developed competing services
and sought alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs;
(c) MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its
services and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in
the lead up to the Merger by insurers, who had expressed
dissatisfaction with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services
and balanced billing practices, causing the Company's to cut its
take rate by up to half in some cases; (d) as a result of (a)-(c)
above, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and
earnings declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing
dynamics following the Merger; (e) as a result of (a)-(d) above,
MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth and to
improve its competitive positioning through pricey acquisitions,
including through the purchase of HST for $140 million at a premium
price from a former MultiPlan executive only one month after the
Merger; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, Churchill III
investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in
the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far less than
represented to investors.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Picou Suit transferred to in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dequavius Picou, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, University of West Georgia, Case No. 1:20-cv-04697,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01527 to the
proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Altman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN
          33228 W 12 Mile Road, Suite 375
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Phone: (516) 456-5885
          Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com

               - and -

          Odis Williams, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ODIS WILLIAMS, PC
          1640 Powers Ferry Road, Building 20, Suite 300
          Marietta, GA 30067
          Phone: (770) 575-4466
          Status: (877) 329-8359
          Email: owilliams@odiswilliamspc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas Edward Lavender, III, Esq.
          FISHERBROYLES, LLP–Atlanta
          945 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2000
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 400-4500
          Email: ted.lavender@fisherbroyles.com

               - and -

          Loretta L. Pinkston-Pope, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          40 Capital Square, S.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
          Phone: (404) 651-9314
          Email: LPinkston@Law.Ga.gov


NEENAH PAPER: Scarfe ERISA Suit Seeks Severance Pay for Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY SCARFE v. NEENAH PAPER, INC. (nka Neenah, Inc.), Case No.
1:21-cv-00901-CC (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2021), is a class action
complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated against Neenah Paper to recover benefits under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), for
breach of unilateral contract, for breach of fiduciary duty and
fraud, and punitive damages.

On December 31, 2018 Neenah sold the assets of its Brattleboro,
Vermont facility to Long Falls Paper, LLC and involuntarily
terminated, in a group termination, its Brattleboro employees.
Pursuant to the Neenah Paper Severance Pay Plan Section section 3.2
it was required to pay severance to Scarfe and its other
employees.

This class action is brought to recover the severance pay that was
not given to Scarfe and the other employees.

Plaintiff Scarfe resides in and is a citizen of the State of
Vermont.

Neenah is a leading global specialty materials company, focused on
premium niche markets that value performance and image.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leslie M. Bassett, Esq.
          PRIDGEN BASSETT LAW
          138 Bulloch Ave.
          Roswell, GA 300075
          Telephone: (404) 844-5884
          Facsimile: (678) 812-3654
          E-mail: leslie@pridgenbassett.com

NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, LLC, ALEIDA CRUZ, WALTER
AFIELD, III, and NEVA BROWNING JEFFRIES, Case No. 8:21-cv-00504
(M.D. Fla., March 3, 2021) is a civil action arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages.

In June of 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that the
Plaintiff's Productivity compensation would be increased from 48%
of Net Collections to 49% of Net Collections beginning on July 1,
2020. The Plaintiff contends that during her employment she was
never paid the base salary or provided the fringe benefits she was
entitled to under the Agreement and that the Defendants never
implemented this increase.

On August 11, 2020, the Plaintiff gave notice of her resignation in
writing and in person, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the
Employment Agreement. Section 11(a) of the Agreement only requires
that the Plaintiff provide 30 days' notice of her resignation.
However, to help the Defendant facilitate a smooth transition, the
Plaintiff agreed to work for a longer period. Thus, Plaintiff's
last day working for Defendants was October 5, 2020. Thereafter,
the Defendants elected to delay timely client billing and not
collect the Plaintiff's clients' co-pays and court costs charged
between August 11, 2020 and October 5, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that NPI has materially breached this
contract by failing to pay her all compensation due therein and by
failing to use reasonable means to collect monies owed by its
patients for services she provided.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Pinellas County, Florida, and a
former employee of the Defendants.

The Neuropsychiatric Institute provides extensive outpatient
Behavioral Health Services in the Tampa Bay Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mandi Clay, Esq.
          THREE THIRTEEN LAW, PLLC
          10312 Bloomingdale Ave.
          Suite 108, No. 115
          Riverview, FL 33578
          Telephone: (813) 530-9849
          E-mail: mandi@threethirteenlaw.com
                  eservice@threethirteenlaw.com

NEW JERSEY: Final Approval of Settlement Sought in J.M. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.M., S.C., A.N., P.T.,
J.L., R.H., "JOHN DOE", "ROBERT DOE", T.W., M.K., and E.A.
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. SHEREEF M. ELNAHAL, M.D., M.B.A., Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Health, in his official capacity, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-17303-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
April 5, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. granting final certification of the class; and

   2. granting final approval of the settlement and awarding
      attorneys' fees.

      Summary of the terms of the Settlement:

      -- The settlement addresses chronic overcrowding problems at
         Greystone by setting a maximum limit of 450 patients in
         the hospital proper and 56 patients for the separate
         cottages on the property. This sets the maximum capacity
         of Greystone at 506, which is consistent with the number
         of patients for which it was designed when built in 2008.


      -- The settlement agreement creates an Oversight Committee
         that will provide balanced accountability to the current
         patients, as well as all future patients. The Oversight
         Committee is charged with monitoring and implementing all

         of the reforms agreed upon in the settlement. The
         Oversight Committee shall remain in existence and
         operation for at least ten years from the date of the
         settlement agreement.

      -- The settlement agreement guarantees certain staffing
         minimums that are of critical importance to patient care.

         The hospital will now be required to maintain an average
         1:15 psychiatric care provider-to-patient ratio on
         admissions units and DD units, and Greystone must have at

         least one psychiatrist assigned per unit in the hospital
         and at least two psychiatrists assigned to the cottages.
         The hospital also must maintain a 1:25 psychiatric care
         provider-to-patient ratio on all other units and
cottages.

      Relating to payment of attorneys' fees:

      -- After the first round of settlement discussions was
         completed in February 2020, the parties reached an
         agreement under which the Defendants agreed to pay up to
         $500,000.00 in attorney's fees, subject to Court approval.


The Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement by Order
dated December 21, 2020, based on preliminary findings that the
proposed class satisfied Rule 23's requirements, that the proposed
settlement was fair and reasonable, and that the form and manner of
the proposed plan of providing notice to all class members was
adequate.

On December 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Defendants alleging constitutional and statutory violations under
the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and New Jersey's
involuntary commitment laws.

The Defendants include CAROLE JOHNSON, Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Human Services, in her official capacity; ELIZABETH
CONNOLLY, Acting Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Human
Services, in her official capacity; VALERIE L. MIELKE, M.S.W.,
Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and
Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official capacity
TOMIKA CARTER, CEO; Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an
individual and in her official capacity; TERESA A. McQUAIDE, Former
Acting CEO, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an individual
and in her official capacity; ROBERT EILERS, M.D., Medical
Director, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Services, as an individual and in his official capacity; HARLAN M.
MELLK, M.D., Chief of Medicine, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; EVARISTO
O. AKERELE, M.D., Medical Director, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; LISA
CIASTON, ESQ., Legal Liaison, New Jersey Division of Mental Health
and Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official
capacity; SWANG S. OO, ESQ., Deputy Attorney General, State of New
Jersey, as an individual and in her official capacity; JAMES L.
FREY, Employee Relations Officer, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; GURBIR
GREWAL, ESQ., Attorney General, State of New Jersey, in his
official capacity; and PHILIP D. MURPHY, M.B.A., Governor, State of
New Jersey, in his official capacity.

the Plaintiffs' notice of motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3frIwLv
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq
          196 Santiago Avenue
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 762-5088
          Facsimile: (973) 453-0338
          E-mail: lconsidine@disabatolaw.com
                  ddisabato@disabatolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Riggs, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
          25 Market Street
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: (609) 376-3200
          Facsimile: (609) 777-4036
          E-mail: Christopher.Riggs@law.njoag.gov

NEW YORK GYPSUM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bray Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BRAY; and JOHN LANDOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK GYPSUM FLOORS
INC.; and STEPHEN P. PHILLIPS, Defendants, Case 7:21-cv-02340
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 17, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Bray was employed by the Defendants as pump operator
while Plaintiff Landor was employed as laborer.

Gypsum Floors of New York Inc operates as flooring contractors. The
Company offers leveling, fire controlling, encasting radiant heat
tubing, sound control mats, and finished flooring services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Customer Rejects 'Offensive' Settlement Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
wcvb.com reports that ridiculous and offensive. That is how a WCVB
viewer described a settlement offer from Nissan following a report
by 5 Investigates.

It is the latest twist in a saga involving a hood latch malfunction
that the car's owner worries is part of a much bigger problem.

It happened without warning while driving down the Mass Pike in
August. Nedim Arapi's friend just happened to be recording a "cool
looking car" in front of them from the back seat, when the hood
flew up.

"Yeah, It's crazy," Arapi said. "Like, what are the chances? It was
insane."

They pulled over and everyone was OK, but his mother was rattled.
"It could have ended very, very badly. I mean, it was very scary,"
said Leslie Schick, who contacted Nissan about her 2012 Maxima and
what appeared to be a malfunctioning hood latch.

After learning that Nissan recalled 1.8 million Altimas in June
because of a "hood latch release issue." Schick became incensed.
She contacted 5 Investigates, unsatisfied with Nissan's response.
The company said it would inspect the car in six to eight weeks,
but it would not reimburse her for a rental car.

Schick ended up getting the latch fixed on her own, but she held
onto the old one.

After 5 Investigates contacted Nissan, the company agreed to
inspect the malfunctioning hood latch, which was sent to Nissan in
October.

Since then, Nissan has stopped communicating with 5 Investigates,
but the company did send a settlement agreement to Leslie Schick,
offering her $500 to reimburse the insurance deductible she paid to
fix the latch. The agreement also requires Schick to release Nissan
from any responsibility and keep the terms of the settlement a
secret.

"I personally find it not just unsatisfactory but pretty
offensive," Schick said.

Schick is not signing anything and said she remains concerned about
the same thing happening to someone else.

Without warning, hood flew open while driving on Mass. Pike
WCVB
Faulty hood latch
"Our intention in doing this, in trying to publicize this was to
prevent other people from being hurt," she said. "And what I've
been trying to do is find out what the issue is with this latch,
does it in any way relate to the recall that they have on another
model."

A class-action lawsuit was filed in California against Nissan last
month on behalf of owners of the recalled Nissan Altimas that have
experienced hood latch malfunctions, calling it a "safety hazard"
that's "caused several crashes."

Last year, Nissan told 5 Investigates: "The Maxima hood latch and
release system is different from that in the previously recalled
Altima vehicles."

Nissan has provided no information about the inspection of Schick's
hood latch to her or 5 Investigates.

"By now I'm just beside myself with anger," Schick said. "You know,
it's the worst kind of customer relations that there can be."

"I just feel like they kind of didn't really take responsibility.
It was kind of just a cop out,"
said Schick's son, Nedim Arapi.

The last time 5 Investigates heard from Nissan was in October,
despite reaching out to the company multiple times.

Schick said Nissan has lost her as a customer for good. [GN]

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Darish & Hymowitz Securities Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, NEIL DARISH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN DYNASTY MINERALS LTD., et
al., Defendants; and CHARLES HYMOWITZ, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN DYNASTY
MINERALS LTD., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 20-cv-5917(ENV),
20-cv-6126 (ENV) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants
Lawrence Kelemen's motion for consolidation, appointment as lead
plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel.

Northern Dynasty is a Canadian mineral exploration company that
operates in the United States.  Its principal mineral property is
the Pebble Project, a collection of 2,402 mineral claims covering
an area of approximately 417 square miles in southwest Alaska.
Northern Dynasty securities are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "NAK."

Defendant Thiessen served as Northern Dynasty's CEO, President, and
Director throughout the Class Period.  Since April 2019, Defendant
Peters has served as Northern Dynasty's CFO.  From August 2008
until April 2019, Defendant Snyman was the Company's CFO.  Until
Sept. 23, 2020, Defendant Collier served as CEO of Pebble
Partnership Limited, Northern Dynasty's subsidiary.  According to
the complaints in both actions, these individuals made false
representations to the public through press releases, statements to
the Canadian Securities and Exchange, and statements before
committees of the Congress of the United States.

On Dec. 2, 2020, Plaintiff Darish filed a putative class action,
Darish v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., et al., on behalf of
investors who purchased publicly traded securities of Northern
Dynasty during the period from Dec. 21, 2017 to Nov. 25, 2020.  The
Darish Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by
Northern Dynasty and its executive officers, Ronald Thiessen, Mark
Peters, and Marchand Snyman, as well Tom Collier, an officer of
Pebble Partnership Limited, a subsidiary of Northern Dynasty.

A separate putative class action commenced on Dec. 17, 2020, by
Charles Hymowitz, alleges that the same Defendants committed the
same deceptive acts during the same Class Period as alleged in the
Darish Complaint, and thereby violated the same laws and
regulations.

The Darish and Hymowitz Complaints are substantially similar.  Both
propose the same Class Period and allege the same causes of action
against the same defendants.  In pertinent part, the two pleadings
rely on the same press releases and public filings as evidence of
the alleged fraud, and reference the same evidence that the share
price dropped upon revelations that the Defendants' previous
statements were misleading.  Both complaints allege that the
governmental announcements on Aug. 24, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 were
disclosures of fraud that resulted in NAK shareholder losses.

Currently pending before the Court are motions for consolidation of
these two cases, as well as competing motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel, filed on Feb. 2,
2021 by the following movants and groups of movants: (1) Antonio
Sierra Hernandez, Jeremy Spears, and Christopher Wu; (2) William
Hackney; (3) Daryl Whitmore; (4) Jim McCormick and Laurent Martel;
(5) Kelemen; and (6) Ryan Manzek and Michael Mooney.

On Feb. 3, 2021, the Hon. Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order
referring the Movants' competing motions to Magistrate Judge Mann.

Notice Requirement and the Filing of Timely Motions

Based on the Dec. 4, 2020 publication date, the 60-day period in
which members of the proposed class could move to serve as lead
plaintiff of the purported class expired on Feb. 2, 2021.
Accordingly, having been filed on or before Feb. 2, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Mann finds that all of the pending motions for
appointment were timely filed with the Court.

Consolidation

Based on her review of the two complaints, Magistrate Judge Mann
concurs that these cases involve common questions of law and fact.
Specifically, the pleadings assert the same causes of action based
on the same alleged deception and resulting loss, over the same
period against the same defendants, and seek similar relief.
Notably, the complaints marshal much of the same evidence in
describing the Company's deception and the revelations thereof.  As
the Judge cannot discern any prejudice to the Defendants from
consolidating these matters, and the substance of the two
complaints is similar, if not identical, it is appropriate to
consolidate them into a single case.

Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

Based on the record before the Court, Magistrate Judge Mann finds
that Kelemen is the Movant remaining in contention who has the
largest financial interest: During the Class Period, Kelemen is
alleged to have suffered losses totaling $636,738.  In their
notices of non-opposition, both the Hernandez Group and Whitmore
referred to Keleman as the Movant with the greatest financial
interest.  Hackney, the other Movant remaining in contention,
suffered losses totaling $210,590.16, and concedes that Kelemen has
a larger financial interest.

Magistrate Judge Mann also finds that Kelemen has made the
requisite preliminary showing with respect to Rule 23(a)'s
typicality and adequacy requirements.  And, based on Kelemen's
submissions, she is satisfied that Kelemen's retained counsel,
Pomerantz LLP, is experienced, competent, and well-qualified to
conduct the class action securities litigation at hand.  Kelemen
maintains a sufficient financial interest in the outcome of the
case to vigorously advocate on behalf of the class and, in his
papers, he denies the existence of any conflicts of interest with
absent class members, and none is apparent to the Court.

Lastly, Kelemen sustained the largest cognizable loss during the
Class Period and no proof has been adduced to show him incapable of
adequately representing the class.  Therefore, at this stage, the
PSLRA's statutory presumption has not been rebutted and Kelemen
alone is the most adequate lead plaintiff.

Approval of Lead Counsel

Mr. Kelemen has selected Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and seeks
the Court's approval of that selection.  Pomerantz LLP has
substantial experience litigating securities fraud class actions.
Submitted to the Court is the firm's 54-page resume, providing a
detailed description of the educational backgrounds and legal
experience of over 40 of the attorneys at the firm.  The firm's
resume also lists multiple securities class action suits filed in
courts within the Second Circuit, as well as numerous others
brought in courts across the nation, in which Pomerantz LLP has
served as either lead or co-lead counsel.  No purported class
members have offered any reason why Pomerantz LLP would be
ill-equipped to serve as lead counsel in the case.

Magistrate Judge Mann concludes, as have other courts in the
Circuit, that based on the firm's experience, Pomerantz LLP is
qualified to serve as lead counsel in securities law cases.
Accordingly, she approves Kelemen's selection of Pomerantz LLP to
serve as lead counsel.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Mann consolidates the
two related cases, appoints Kelemen as lead plaintiff, and approves
Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.  Hackney's motion for appointment of
lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel is rendered moot.

Any objection to the Memorandum and Order must be filed with the
Hon. Eric N. Vitaliano by March 31, 2021, or will be deemed waived.
The filing of an objection, without more, will not stay the
Court's Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/pyahbneu from Leagle.com.


NRA GROUP: Ray et al. Sue Over Deceptive Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN RAY and LEWIS RAY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NRA GROUP, LLC, T/A NATIONAL
RECOVERY AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00644-RDB (D.
Md., March 12, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs were not aware that Plaintiff Lewis Ray has an
alleged debt incurred from the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
on or about October 1, 2018 for the consumption of utilities until
they moved into a new home in 2019. The Plaintiffs only found out
the alleged debt when they checked Plaintiff Lewis Ray's credit
report on or about December 3, 2019 and noticed that the Defendant
had posted a trade line for the alleged BGE debt to his TransUnion
consumer credit report.

Subsequently on or about March 11, 2020, to be able to qualify for
a mortgage, the Plaintiffs contacted NRA together and requested to
remove the negative information pertaining to the alleged debt from
Lewis Ray's credit report. The Defendant's representative offered
the Plaintiffs either to make a one-time payment in the amount of
$1,022.90 to fully satisfy the alleged debt, or pay a monthly
payment but the Plaintiffs have to pay an extra $7.95 per payment
as a "convenience fee." The Plaintiffs agreed to make a one-time
payment. However, the Offer Letter sent by the Defendant to the
Plaintiffs via facsimile did not contain any information about
convenience fee or any charges for using different payment method,
neither in the Defendant's website, the suit says.

Nevertheless, the Defendant attempted to withdraw $1,030.85 from
the Plaintiffs' account at Navy Federal Credit Union on or about
March 13, 2020. But, because the Plaintiffs' account was short by
35 cents, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiffs have to pay a
returned item fee in addition to the $7.95 convenience fee for a
total of $1,045.85.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 by its created false, deceptive or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of a
debt. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the class have suffered a
concrete and legally cognizable injury by not receiving the
disclosures mandated by the Congress under the FDCPA. Thus, the
Plaintiffs bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers seeking for actual and statutory
damages, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

NRA Group, LLC T/A National Recovery Agency, LLC is a debt
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq.
          HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 Severn Avenue, Suite 17
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Tel: (410) 777-5396
          Fax: (410) 777-8237
          E-mail: kat@lawhyland.com


ONTRAK INC: Farhar Sues Over Decline of Securities Market Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FARHAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ONTRAK, INC., TERREN S. PEIZER, and BRANDON H. LAVERNE,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01987 (C.D. Calif, March 3, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ontrak securities between November 5, 2020 and
February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") brought against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The
Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching
model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than
46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak's largest
customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing
Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical
visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings.

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

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

Ontrak is a healthcare company that offers a
Predict-Recommend-Engage platform that organizes and automates
healthcare data integration and analytics. A critical component of
this platform are Ontrak programs, which are designed to provide
healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that
cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

OWNERS INSURANCE: Certification of Missouri Citizen Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE KNIGHT DINER, LLC,
KAREN FREINER, and LARRY LEE HINDS, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-02406-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23:

   1. certifying the action as a class action against the
Defendant
      Owners Insurance on behalf of:

      "Missouri citizens having a policy of insurance issued in
the
      State of Missouri by Defendant Owners Insurance Company, Inc.

      that grants to Owners a right of subrogation;"

   2. appointing White Knight Diner, LLC, Karen Freiner, and Larry

      Lee Hinds as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing The Simon Law Firm, P.C. and Devereaux, Stokes,
      Nolan, Fernandez & Leonard as Class Counsel

Owners Insurance provides insurance services. The Company offers
car, life, home, business, and casualty insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O5YW0M
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony R. Friedman, Esq.
          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          Paul J. Tahan, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  afriedman@simonlawpc.com
                  ptahan@simonlawpc.com

               - and -


          Michael D. Stokes, Esq.
          Gonzalo A. Fernandez, Esq.
          133 S. 11 th Street, Suite 350
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-3743
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5705
          E-mail: lori@stltriallawyers.com
                  gonz@stltriallawyers.com

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: NMSIC Named Lead Plaintiff in Local 464A Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 464A, THE TRUSTEES OF WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS OF LOCAL 464A
- PENSION FUND, THE TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OFFICERS,
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL 464A, THE
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A FINAST FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, THE
TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 464A WELFARE AND PENSION BUILDING INC., and THE
TRUSTEES OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY AMALGAMATED PENSION PLAN FOR ACME
EMPLOYEES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, JAYSON J.
PENN, WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 20-cv-01966-RM-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted New
Mexico State Investment Council's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of lead counsel.

The matter is before the Court on competing motions from United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A, the
Trustees of Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A - Pension Fund,
the Trustees of Retirement Plan for Officers, Business
Representatives and Office Employees of Local 464A, the Trustees of
Local 464A Finast Full Time Employees Pension Plan, the Trustees of
Local 464A Welfare and Pension Building Inc., and the Trustees of
New York-New Jersey Amalgamated Pension Plan for ACME Employees
(collectively, "Local 464A"); and the NMSIC, to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B).

The matter underlying the instant motions is a class action brought
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Pilgrim's Pride common stock between Feb. 9, 2017 and June
3, 2020.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Pilgrim's
Pride, a national chicken producer and distributor, and three of
its officers made materially false and misleading statements
regarding business operations and conspired to fix prices and rig
bids.  After the alleged conduct was revealed during the course of
the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal investigation, the price
of Pilgrim's Pride stock significantly declined, harming investors.
Notification of the putative class action was disseminated via
wire; in response, Local 464A and the NMSIC filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff.

Local 464A and the NMSIC jockey to be appointed lead plaintiff of
the class, arguing that they each satisfy the requirements set
forth under the PSLRA and Rule 23.  In response to the NMSIC's
motion, Local 464A claims that the NMSIC is subject to unique
defenses disqualifying it from appointment as lead plaintiff.  The
NMSIC raises a similar argument in response to Local 464A's motion,
asserting that a unique defense disrupts Local 464A's adequacy to
represent the class.

Judge Moore finds that the NMSIC has the largest financial interest
in the relief sought by the putative class.  Accordingly, based on
the timeliness of its motion and financial interest at stake, the
NMSIC is the most adequate plaintiff should it otherwise satisfy
the relevant requirements of Rule 23.

The Judge also finds that the NMSIC's claims are typical of the
purported class.  It, like other proposed class members, purchased
Pilgrim's Pride stock during the Class period at a price bolstered
by the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, causing
damages when the illegal activity was exposed.  Thus, the NMSIC's
claims are typical as they arise from the same cause and injury.

The NMSIC satisfies the adequacy requirement of Rule 23.  The Judge
finds no evidence of a potential conflict between the interests of
the NMSIC and those of the other class members.  Moreover, this
potential lead plaintiff has retained respected counsel who will
vigorously pursue claims against Defendants on behalf of the
putative class.  Thus, the NMSIC is an adequate plaintiff.  While
both the NMSIC and Local 464A are well-positioned to be appointed
lead plaintiff in the class action, the Judge's determination turns
on the largest financial interest, which belongs to the NMSIC.
Accordingly, he finds the NMSIC is the presumptive lead plaintiff
and is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff to represent the
interests of the purported class.

Lastly, nder the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff will select lead
counsel, subject to the Court's approval.  The NMSIC has selected
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the class.
Robbins Geller has substantial experience in complex securities
litigation and is well qualified and able to vigorously represent
the interests of the putative class.  Accordingly, the Judge
approves Robbins Geller as the lead counsel and its choice of
Shuman, Glenn & Stecker as the liaison counsel.

Based on the forgoing, Judge Moore granted the NMSIC's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel.  He
denied Local 464A's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel.  The Judge appointed (i) the NMSIC as the
Lead Plaintiff, (ii) Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel, and (iii)
Shuman, Glenn & Stecker is approved as the Liaison Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/e4afs8kd from Leagle.com.


PLUG POWER: Faces Smolicek Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
BRANISLAV SMOLICEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER INC.; ANDREW MARSH; and
PAUL B. MIDDLETON, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02402 (C.D. Cal.,
Mar. 18, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual
report due to delays related to the review of classification of
certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets
with certain leases; (2) that the Company was reasonably likely to
report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

Plug Power, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and commercializes
fuel cell systems for electric lift trucks and materials handling
equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ:
PLUG). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased PLUG stock or other securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower to
submit their information. Investors may also email
investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that Plug Power and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
Plug Power would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; and (2) Plug Power was reasonably likely to report
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting.

Interested Plug Power investors have until May 7, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. 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's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

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

PLUM PBC: David Files Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plum, PBC. The case
is styled as Jessica David, Heather Age, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plum, PBC, Case No.
3:21-cv-02059-AGT (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Plum, PBC -- https://www.plumorganics.com/ -- is located in
Emeryville, CA, United States and is part of the Food Wholesalers
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

PNC BANK: Lyons Appeals Consumer Credit Suit Ruling to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William T. Lyons filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM T. LYONS JR., Plaintiff v.
PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02234-SAG, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 14, 2021, Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration, to Strike Class Action Demand, and
to
Stay Litigation.

Plaintiff Lyons filed suit against PNC Bank, N.A., alleging
violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act. The Plaintiff obtained a Home Equity
Line of Credit from National City Bank on Feb. 4, 2005. At the
closing, the Plaintiff and National City signed an Equity Reserve
Agreement, which did not contain an arbitration clause or a class
action waiver. The HELOC set a 10-year loan term and allowed the
Plaintiff to take draws up to a maximum amount of $149,650.

The Defendant previously filed an appeal captioned as William Lyons
v. PNC Bank, Case No. 21-1058, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 13, 2021.

The current appellate case is captioned as William Lyons v. PNC
Bank, Case No. 21-1289, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

The Plaintiff filed this current appeal consolidating Case No.
21-1289 with 21-1058 as cross appeals in relation with the motion
to compel.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
  
   -- Opening/Response brief is due on April 15, 2021; and

   -- Response/Reply brief is due on May 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM T. LYONS, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1900 South Norfolk Street
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: usdc@legglaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
          8737 Colesville Road
          Silver Spring, MD 20910-0000
          Telephone: (301) 448-1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

Defendant-Appellee PNC BANK, National Association is represented
by:

          Matthew D. Lamb, Esq.
          Daniel J. Tobin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          1909 K Street, NW 20006
          Washington, DC 20006-1157
          Telephone: (202) 661-2200
          E-mail: lambm@ballardspahr.com
                  tobindj@ballardspahr.com

PROBUILD COMPANY: Sengvong Class Action Deal Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTINA SENGVONG, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. PROBUILD COMPANY
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02231-MMA-JLB (S.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement and the Class based
      upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Class
      Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff and Defendants (the

      Settlement);

   2. finding that the terms of the Settlement are fair, adequate,

      and reasonable to the Class. The Settlement falls within the

      range of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively
      valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at
      the final hearing and final approval by this Court;

   3. conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a
      "Settlement Class" defined as:

      "All persons employed by the Defendants in California as
non-
      exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class
      Period."

      The Settlement Class Period is defined as: "The period from
      October 15, 2015 through October 3, 2020;" and

   4. finding for settlement purposes only, that class
      certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)

      is appropriate; and

   5. finding, subject to the Final Approval hearing, that the
      proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate,

      and in the best interests of  the Settlement Class.

ProBuildsupplies building materials.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sx2KHj at no extra charge.[CC]

RAY MOLES: Colores Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FILEMON COLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RAY MOLES FARMS, INC., Case No. VCU
285947, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in the County of Tulare to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on March 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00310 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California wage laws.

Ray Moles Farms, Inc. is a farm business located in Fresno,
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Thomas E. Campagne, Esq.
         Justin T. Campagne, Esq.
         Campagne & Campagne
         Airport Office Center
         1685 North Helm Avenue
         Fresno, CA 93727
         Telephone: (559) 255-1637
         Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
         E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com

RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein FDCPA Class Suit Goes to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHANIE KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 21-000122-CI, was removed from the Florida County Court in
and for Pinellas County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 22, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:21-cv-00678 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act by engaging in the practice of
overshadowing a consumer's right to dispute and request
verification of an alleged debt within the 30-day time period.

Receivable Management Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency based
in Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Chantel C. Wonder, Esq.
         GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         601 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 109
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 523-9700
         Facsimile: (813) 377-3505
         E-mail: cwonder@grsm.com

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Lordstown Motors
Corp. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Lordstown Motors Corp (NASDAQ:RIDE)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/lordstown-motors-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13889&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Class Period: August 3, 2020 - March 17, 2021

Allegations against RIDE include that: (i) the Company's purported
pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be customers
who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such
purchases and/or would not have credible demand for Lordstown's
Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to
commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the
first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into
flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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

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

RESORT SALES: Albin Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORREST ALBIN and
KATHERINE ALBIN, et al., v. RESORT SALES MISSOURI, INC. and
SPINNAKER RESORTS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-03004-BP (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that class shall be
defined as:

   "All persons who, between December 2, 2014 to present, while in
   Missouri, signed Spinnaker Resorts, Inc.'s "Interval Ownership
   Purchase Agreement" and paid Spinnaker Resorts, Inc. a fee for
   preparing documents."

The Plaintiffs also ask that they will be appointed class
representatives, and that their attorneys Mark Parrish and Raymond
Salva, Jr. of the Boyd Kenter Thomas & Parrish, LLC law firm be
appointed as lead class counsel.

Resort Sales is a health, wellness and fitness company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpaEB6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Parrish, Esq.
          Joshua A. Sanders, Esq.
          Raymond Salva, Jr., Esq.
          Erica Fumagalli, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1099
          221 West Lexington Avenue, Suite 200
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 471-4511
          Facsimile: (816) 471-8450
          E-mail: mparrish@bktplaw.com
                  jsanders@bktplaw.com
                  rsalva@bktplaw.com
                  efumagalli@bktplaw.com

REVIVAL RUGS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revival Rugs, Inc.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Revival Rugs, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02537 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021).

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

Revival Rugs -- https://www.revivalrugs.com/ -- sells new,
handwoven rugs and curates unique, vintage rugs, all online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBERTSON'S READY: Ellsworth FCRA Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JARRELL ELLSWORTH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2028682, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on March 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00487 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Business and Professions
Code by failing to provide applicants with proper disclosures
before procuring their consumer reports and failing to provide
notice about adverse actions taken based in whole or in part on
their consumer reports.

Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd. is a building material company based in
Corona, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Glenn L. Briggs, Esq.
         STANLEY G. STRINGFELLOW II, Esq.
         KADING BRIGGS LLP
         100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 450-8040
         Facsimile: (949) 450-8033
         Email: gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com
                sgs@kadingbriggs.com

SANEPPAS BAR: Faces Bailey Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BAILEY, Plaintiff v. SANEPPAS BAR & GRILL CORP., SANEPPAS
HOLDING CORP., SANEPPAS JERK CHICKEN EXPRESS INC. II, SANEPPAS JERK
CHICKEN EXPRESS INC. III, SANEPPAS JERK CHICKEN EXPRESS INC. IV,
and JASON HUSSEY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01342
(E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
related damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a grill worker and
floor supervisor from April 2019 through October 21, 2020.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees against the Defendant for
willfully and intentionally failing to pay them overtime wages at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours they
worked over 40 in a workweek. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not
receive overtime compensation from April 2019 through August 2020
despite generally working 6 days per week from 11:00 am through
8:00 pm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff began receiving overtime pay
and pay checks after August 2020. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
provide him with a written notice of rate of pay and failed to keep
proper payroll records, the suit says.

The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants owned by Jason Hussey,
who exercises control over the day-to-day operations of the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP P.C.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Tel: (212) 344-9022
          Fax: (212) 344-0301


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Misclassifies Employees, Gibbs Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CONNIE GIBBS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a
Foreign For-Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02153-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., March 12, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendant since in or
around November 2016 as a salary paid employee and held the
position "Disability Representative Senior" beginning in or around
August 2020.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he
frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
compensated for her overtime hours worked at one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay. Purportedly, the Defendant willfully and
inaccurately misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees as exempt from overtime pay, and willfully
failed to keep records as required under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees demanding
judgment against the Defendant to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, an injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from
withholding future payment of overtime compensation, liquidated
damages in an amount equal to unpaid overtime, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court finds just and equitable.

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. provides claims and
productivity management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ
          533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Tel: (407) 622-6544
          Fax: (407) 622-6545
          E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                  dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney


SPOKEO INC: Website Uses Personal Info in Ads, Greene Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01957-ODW-PVC (C.D.
Calif., March 3, 2021) is a class action suit arising after the
Plaintiff discovered that Spokeo uses his name, age, city of
domicile, and the identity of his relatives in advertisements on
the Spokeo website to advertise and/or actually sell the
Defendant's products and services.

Plaintiff Greene believes that it is reasonable for others to
identify him because the Defendant's advertisements include
accurate details about him.

Mr. Greene says that he never provided Spokeo with consent to use
any attribute of his identity in any advertisement or for any
commercial purposes. He is not and has never been a Spokeo
customer. He has no relationship with Spokeo whatsoever, he adds.

The Defendant owns and operates a website that sells "background
reports" on people to the general public. The Defendant sells its
reports on its website: www.spokeo.com. Upon accessing Spokeo's
website, the public-at-large is free to enter the first and last
name of a particular individual via a search bar on the homepage.
After entering this information, any public user of Spokeo's
website is provided with a listing of search results. Each search
result corresponds to an actual person that Spokeo has located who
matches the name provided by the public user.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, 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

STAPLES INC: Bonahoom's Warranty Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER BONAHOOM, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. STAPLES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1942 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part Staples' motion
to dismiss.

Plaintiff Bonahoom brings the putative class action against
Defendant Staples, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, in Illinois and across the country, who purchased the
Defendant's "Power Bank" portable charges.  Bonahoom alleges that
Staples advertised Power Bank charges in a false, misleading, and
deceptive manner, and that the chargers do not function as
advertised.

Staples sells models with advertised capacities of 2,200 mAh, 5,000
mAh, 10,000 mAh, and 20,000 mAh.  Bonahoom asserts that Power Bank
chargers deliver only about 70% of that advertised capacity.

Mr. Bonahoom himself purchased a Power Bank charger from a Staples
retail store in Chicago in August of 2018 for $9.99 plus tax.  His
charger had an advertised capacity of 5,000 mAh and claimed that it
produced "Up to 2x Charges."  Bonahoom found that it did not work
as advertised, delivering only 3,400 mAh.  He also found that it
was not capable of refilling his cell phone's battery two times or
"2x."  After testing other Power Bank models Bonahoom concluded
that this was a widespread problem.

Count I alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 502/1, et seq. ("ICFA")
and "materially identical" consumer fraud statutes in all fifty
states.  Count II alleges breach of express warranties.  Count III
alleges violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301 et seq.  Count IV alleges unjust enrichment.

Staples has moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and to dismiss certain claims for
lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).  It first argues that
the Complaint should be dismissed, in part, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) because Bonahoom does not have standing to assert claims
that rely on the laws of states outside of Illinois and products
that he did not purchase.  Staples next argues that Bonahoom's
Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because he
has failed to adequately plead the elements of his claims.

Judge Rowland grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  She denies the motion as to Counts I and IV.
She dismisses without prejudice Counts II and III.

Count I of the Complaint alleges that Staples violated the ICFA "as
well as other materially identical consumer fraud statutes enacted
by states throughout the country."  Staples argues that Bonahoom's
Complaint should be dismissed to the extent that he seeks to
represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, because he was only
injured by the violation of Illinois consumer protection laws and
therefore only has standing to represent the claims of Illinois
consumers. Bonahoom responds that he has not personally "alleged
any claims under other states laws" but is seeking to represent a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased this product.  He
asserts that the Court, like others, should consider this issue
when it is presented at the class certification stage.

Judge Rowland opines that Bonahoom has standing for purposes of
Count I and the questions concerning Rule 23 requirements are best
left for another day.  She also finds that because Bonahoom has
adequately alleged deceptive statements, unfair conduct, and an
actual injury, his ICFA claims survive.

First, Bonahoom argues persuasively that "any ordinary consumer
specifically purchased Defendant's products to be able to charge
his electronic devices -- he did not purchase them to have a
portable battery pack with some internal capacity regardless of how
much battery charge they actually provided."  Second, while
Bonahoom makes a few conclusory allegations of "unfair" conduct
that "offends public policy, and has caused and continues to cause
substantial injury to consumers," he also makes numerous detailed
factual allegations of false advertising and overcharging
consumers.  Lastly, Bonahoom did allege that the charger he bought
was defective, insofar as it "failed to provide adequate charging
for his cell phone."

Regarding Count II, Staples argues that Bonahoom failed to
adequately plead the terms of any express warranty and failed to
make any demands that Staples perform under the terms of a
warranty.

Judge Rowland opines that Bonahoom's allegations about the
existence of an express warranty and the breach of that warranty
are adequate for the same reasons his ICFA allegations were
adequate.  Moreover, the fact that Staples admits in its briefs to
knowing that a Power Bank charger stores 5,000 mAh is not proof
that it knows how much power the charger delivers.  Bonahoom does
not qualify for an exception to the notice requirement.  Count II,
which alleges breach of express warranty, is dismissed.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq.,
creates a federal cause of action for breach of a written warranty
arising under state law.  Therefore, the requirements are identical
to those of the express warranty claim.  Since Judge Rowland has
dismissed Count II, Bonahoom's express warranty count, his federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty count is dismissed as well.

Regarding Count IV, Judge Rowland notes that in Illinois, to state
a cause of action based on a theory of unjust enrichment, a
plaintiff must allege that the defendant has unjustly retained a
benefit to the plaintiff's detriment, and that defendant's
retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of
justice, equity, and good conscience.  Staples argues that its
retention of a benefit from the sale of the Power Bank charger was
not unjust because Bonahoom has not alleged any misrepresentations
or deceptive advertising.  But, as the Judge has already
determined, Bonahoom did plead sufficient facts, taken as true, to
show deceptive advertising and unfair conduct under the ICFA.
These same allegations support a claim of unjust enrichment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vdd5jr6f from
Leagle.com.


STARCHILD INTERVENTIONS: Faces Gonzalez-Arellano Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE GONZALEZ-ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARCHILD INTERVENTIONS and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV10947
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide
employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment
changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and
failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a quality assurance
specialist from on or about February 7, 2020 until on or about June
29, 2020.

Starchild Interventions is a health care provider based in
California. [BN]

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

SYNGENTA CORP: B & H Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
B & H FARMING, TYCHE AG, LLC. CERES AG, LLC, and CEDAR DRAW, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION; BAYER CROPSCIENCE INCORPORATED;
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; CORTEVA INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
CARGILL, INCORPORATED; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INCORPORATED; CHS INCORPORATED; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.;
GROWMARK, INCORPORATED; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INCORPORATED; TENKOZ
INC.; andFEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00121-REB (D. Idaho, Mar. 15, 2021) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a scheme to defraud in which they deprived farmers of a
free and open market and artificially increased the price of Crop
Inputs, such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides,
herbicides, and insecticides, by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy
to boycott electronic platforms, like Farmers Business Network,
which sought to bring price transparency, increased information
about Crop Inputs, and increased competition to the market. From
this scheme to defraud, the Defendants have caused millions of
dollars of damages in supra-competitive prices, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Defendants allegedly dominate all levels of the Crop Input
market. Through a coordinated enterprise in which they all
participated, either directly or indirectly, Defendants have
established a secretive supply-chain process using authorized
licenses, commissions, rebates, and incentives to keep Crop Input
prices inflated at supra-competitive levels and deny farmers access
to relevant market information. This opaque Crop Input market
prevents farmers from comparison shopping, making better-informed
purchasing decisions, and discovering deceptive seed relabeling
practices, the suit contends.

Syngenta Corporation provides crop protection products. The Company
offers seed care products, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides,
seed treatments, plant activators, growth regulator, and
rodenticides. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vaughn Fisher, Esq.
          Jennifer Hanway, Esq.
          FISHER HUDSON SHALLAT
          950 W. Bannock St., Ste. 630
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 345-7000
          Facsimile: (208) 514-1900
          E-mail: vaughn@fisherhudson.com
                  jennifer@fisherhudson.com

               -and-

          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com


UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of I.P. FLSA Suit Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled I.P., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00095-PEC, in the United States
Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the
government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and
regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of
appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. In their complaint,
Plaintiffs allege that they are "essential employees" or "excepted
employees," terms which refer to employees who "were required to
report to work and perform their normal duties, but were not
compensated for their work performed." The Plaintiffs further
allege that, in addition to being excepted employees required to
work during a shutdown, they were also "classified as FLSA
nonexempt Federal Air Marshal[s]." As a result of being categorized
as nonexempt, excepted employees, the Plaintiffs were required to
work during the shutdown, but were not paid minimum or overtime
wages on their regularly scheduled paydays in violation of the
FLSA.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order dated December 1,
2020, denying its motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as I. P. v. U.S., Case No. 21-134,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March 15,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance was due March 29, 2021; and

   -- Certificate of Interest was due on March 29, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents I. P., A. C., S. W., D. W., P. V., M. R., R.
C., K. W., B. G., and R. H., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lauren Reznick, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt
          Garden City, NJ 11530
          Telephone: (855) 566-2355
          E-mail: lr@belllg.com  

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Sean Janda, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-3388

UNITED STATES: Mismanages Freedmen Minor Trust Funds, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, personal Representative of the Estate of
George W. Curls, Sr., and of the Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals; and the HARVEST INSTITUTE FREEDMAN FEDERATION, LLC; on
behalf of itself and all persons similarly situated v. SCOTT de la
VEGA Acting Secretary of the Interior; and TARA MAC LEAN SWEENEY
Assistant Secretary -- Indian Affairs, Case No. 1:21-cv-00565
(D.D.C., March 3, 2021) is a class action lawsuit under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who are allottees
under the Curtis Act of 1898 and subject to the provisions of
Section 6 of the Act of May 27, 1908, 34 Stat. 312, which retained
restrictions against alienation on certain lands allotted to
Freedmen minors, who were enrolled members of the Five Civilized
Indian Tribes.

This action concerns losses due to breach of fiduciary duties owed
to the Plaintiffs and mismanagement of trust funds owed to
Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs seek an accounting of these funds.

The Act of May 27, 1908, imposed specific and detailed fiduciary
duties upon the Secretary of Interior to preserve and protect the
interests of minor Freedmen allottees in funds from any source and
from leases on land allotted to Freedmen minors and to take all
available actions to prevent dissipation or deterioration of these
allotments and funds through carelessness, negligence or
exploitation of Freedmen minors.

Plaintiff Tanner-Brown is the personal representative of the Estate
of George W. Curls, Sr., a Freedman who by reason of his interest
in restricted allotments under the Curtis Act of 1898, the
ante-bellum Treaties of 1866, lost or mismanaged trust funds, has
standing to sue the United States for breaches of trust related to
losses and mismanagement of trust funds derived from his allotted
land.

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural
resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
          341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6528
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com

UNITED STATES: Writ of Mandamus Petition in Graca v. Souza Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AIRES DA GRACA; CONROY LEWIS; CYRIL OKOLI;
DARLIN ALBERTO GUILLERMO; DIMITAR DASKALOV; EDSON MARTINS; EMMANUEL
LOPEZ; FLAVIO PRADO JUNIOR; FRED KAYITARE; GABRIEL DE LA PAZ; JOAO
AMADO; KEITH WILLIAMS, Petitioners v. STEVEN J. SOUZA, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of the Bristol County House of
Correction, Respondent, TAE D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as
Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the
Boston Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; THOMAS
M. HODGSON, in his official capacity as Bristol County Sherriff,
Respondents, Case No. 20-2117 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit denies the detainees' petition for a writ of
mandamus.

The petitioners are immigration detainees primarily held at the
Bristol County House of Correction ("BCHOC").  The Respondents
include state correction officials and federal U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officials who secured petitioners' detention
after they were picked up, usually after commission of criminal
felony offenses, and found not to be legally in the United States.

The petitioners are class members in a habeas class action filed
against ICE and certain government officials on March 27, 2020.
The habeas petition requested relief for immigration detainees held
at BCHOC who were "at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the
lethal virus that is sweeping the globe and that feeds on precisely
the unsafe, congregate conditions in which the Plaintiffs are being
held."  When the habeas petition was filed, there were
approximately 148 detainees held at BCHOC.

The habeas petition stated that the immigration detention
facilities were overcrowded, housed a high proportion of people
especially vulnerable to COVID-19, offered detainees limited access
to hygiene products, and did not allow for social distancing.  It
alleged that the Defendants violated the petitioners' Fifth
Amendment rights to due process by exposing them to an "imminent
risk of physical, emotional and mental harm" and violated Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, see 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), by
exposing the petitioners with underlying medical conditions to
COVID-19 and thus preventing them from participating in the removal
process by reason of their disability.  Among other things, the
habeas petition sought immediate release of the petitioners to the
population at large or "placement in community-based alternatives
to detention."  The petitioners also moved for a temporary
restraining order and class certification.

On April 2, 2020, the district court held a hearing, grouped the
detainees into five subclasses based on their criminal histories
and medical conditions, and provisionally certified these
subclasses.  The next day, it held another hearing at which it
requested that the parties submit a list of fifty detainees
applying for bail by April 4, 2020, and a list of ten bail
applications per day starting on April 7, 2020.  The parties did
not agree on a list of fifty detainees by April 4, 2020, so the
court created its own list and set hearing dates beginning on April
7, 2020.

On April 8, 2020, the district court issued a memorandum and order
holding that the petitioners had standing to bring their claims and
certified the petitioners' proposed class of "all civil immigration
detainees who are now held at BCHOC."  It said it would "follow the
light of reason and the expert advice of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in aiming to reduce the population in the
detention facilities so that all those who remain (including staff)
may be better protected," and that it would use its "inherent
authority" to "order bail for several Detainees and to consider
bail applications for others."  In considering bail applications,
the court said it would prioritize releasing non-violent detainees
and in fact did so.

The district court conducted hearings on many detainees' bail
applications throughout April.  By April 28, 2020, it had granted
bail to 42 detainees and denied bail to 19.  By May 5, 2020, 82
detainees remained at BCHOC, about a 45% reduction from the
original 148 detainees.

On May 7, 2020, the district court granted the class' motion for a
preliminary injunction.  It ordered that no new immigration
detainees be admitted to BCHOC, that all current detainees be
tested for COVID-19, and that all staff who come into contact with
BCHOC detainees also be tested.  On May 12, 2020, the court issued
a memorandum of decision providing its reasoning for its issuance
of the preliminary injunction.

On Nov. 5, 2020, the class moved for reconsideration of the court's
denial of bail to some of the petitioners.  The district court
denied the motion on Dec. 18, 2020.

The five remaining detainees who continue to pursue a writ of
mandamus before the Court -- Aires Da Graca, Flavio Prado Junior,
Conroy Lewis, Joao Amado, and Fred Kayitare -- filed their petition
on Nov. 25, 2020.  They had been denied bail in April 2020.  The
district court did not explicitly state reasons for denying bail to
these detainees, but all of them have criminal histories showing
that they were convicted of committing violent crimes.

Claiming that the district court erred in denying their bail
applications despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the detainees
petition for a writ of mandamus.

The First Circuit explains that the All Writs Act allows federal
courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law."  Before mandamus can be granted, the petitioners must show
that there is no other adequate means to attain their desired
relief and that they have a "clear and indisputable" right to
issuance of the writ.  Further, the court issuing the writ, acting
within its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances.  Mandamus comes in two
varieties: supervisory mandamus and advisory mandamus.  The
petitioners argue for both types.

Supervisory mandamus "is available when the issuance (or
nonissuance) of a district court order presents a question about
the limits of judicial power, poses some special risk of
irreparable harm to the party seeking mandamus, and is palpably
erroneous."  
The First Circuit finds that at least one of the necessary
conditions for supervisory mandamus is not met in the case, so it
does not discuss the others.  It states that the petitioners have
made no showing that the district court "palpably" erred.  The harm
that the petitioners originally complained of was "unconstitutional
overcrowding" during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Remedying overcrowding does not require releasing every detainee on
bail.  In addition, each of the petitioners, as the district court
knew, had committed serious, violent crimes, many of which were
felonies.  Based on their criminal histories, it was reasonable to
deny bail to these petitioners because they each posed dangers to
the community and/or were flight risks.  Hence, there is no basis
for supervisory mandamus relief.

Advisory mandamus is available in rare cases where the standard for
supervisory mandamus is not met.  It is appropriate only where
there is an unsettled issue of law "of substantial public
importance," where the issue is "likely to recur," and where
"deferral of review would potentially impair the opportunity for
effective review or relief later on."

The First Circuit holds that these standards were not met.  First,
issuing a writ of advisory mandamus to determine whether the
pandemic is an exceptional circumstance is inappropriate because
the question is a factual one, not a legal one.  Second, it was
reasonable for the district court to conclude that these
petitioners were unlikely to succeed on their habeas petitions
because of their criminal histories.  And the court properly
recognized that reducing the detainee population at BCHOC by
granting bail to some detainees would mitigate whatever exceptional
circumstances existed due to the COVID-19 pandemic for the
remaining detainees.  The petitioners would not have been admitted
to bail even under the standard they say the court should have
used, and there is no reason to exercise our discretion to grant a
petition for advisory mandamus.

In light of the foregoing, the First Circuit denied as without
merit the petition for a writ of mandamus.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5bvykuzs from Leagle.com.

Sameer Ahmed -- sameer1980@gmail.com -- with whom the Harvard Law
School Crimmigration Clinic was on brief, for petitioners.

Christina Parascandola, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, with whom Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Jeffrey S. Robins, Deputy Director, Office
of Immigration Litigation, William C. Silvis, Assistant Director,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Michelle M. Ramus, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Thomas E. Kanwit,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Fitzgerald, Assistant
United States Attorney, were on brief, for respondents.


US SECURITY: De La Cruz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO REYES DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN VALDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
DBA US SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00691 (S.D. Tex.,
March 3, 2021) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees owed to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Mr. Valdez pays his employees the same
hourly rate of pay for all of their hours worked, including
overtime hours worked.

Defendant Juan Valdez owns and operates US Security Investigations,
a private security company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond Ave, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522-9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com

VALLEY PROTEINS: Underpays Raw Materials Drivers, Hollis Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS, HERMAN PURVIS, and VERAKA STURDIVANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. VALLEY PROTEINS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00112 (W.D.N.C., March 19, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated drivers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as full-time raw materials
and finished goods drivers.

Valley Proteins Inc. is an animal by-product rendering and
recycling company, with its principal place of business located at
151 Valpro Road, Winchester, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                                   
            
         
         Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
         Charlotte Smith, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
         1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
         Cary, NC 27513
         Telephone: (919) 741-8693
         Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
         E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                 csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

VANPORT WAREHOUSING: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Delane Jackson, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. Vanport Warehousing, Inc.,
Case No. 2021CH00768 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01618 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Vanport Warehousing -- http://www.vpwhse.com/-- provides
warehousing, transportation and transloading services for third
party shipping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS RYAN
          35 E. Wacker Drive, #650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 726-3400
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Johner Taylor Wilson, III, Esq.
          Helena Lee Burton Wright, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          222 West Adams Street, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 837-4306
          Email: JT.Wilson@dinsmore.com
                 helena.wright@dinsmore.com


VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Velodyne Lidar, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

VLDR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ:VLDR)

VLDR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020
- February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 3, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13890&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Velodyne
Lidar, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors
had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor
in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2)
the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
miragenews.com reports that junior doctors in Victoria have filed
the first of several class actions claiming that health providers
have underpaid them millions of dollars in overtime.

The doctors at Peninsula Health earning between $79,000 and
$146,000 a year said they work an average 16 hours unpaid overtime
a week and that the excessive hours are creating risks to
patients’ health and safety.

The Federal Court action, which seeks backpay and penalties, is the
first of at least six actions expected to be lodged against
Victorian health providers in the coming months and covering some
10,000 junior doctors in the state.

Dr Karla Villafana-Soto, a junior doctor, said the doctors’ first
priority was always to their patients but that "excessive workloads
and poor staffing by health services have resulted in junior
doctors having to pick up the slack to ensure proper patient
care".

"This is a wake up call to the Victorian public health network that
must stop relying on tired and underpaid junior doctors to prop up
a broken system," she said.

Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation Victorian president
Dr Roderick McRae, whose members are part of the action, said
crippling fatigue was placing patients at risk.

"Fundamentally this is a systemic failing across our health system.
Unpaid labour is ingrained into the business model and it must
stop," he said.

Health service providers in Victoria are covered by an enterprise
agreement that says interns, residents, medical officers and
registrars are required to work 38 to 44 hours a week and beyond
that is overtime pay.

Lawyer Hayden Stephens, who is running the cases in conjunction
with Gordon Legal, said it was not unusual for junior doctors on at
least $40 an hour to work 20 or 30 per cent more than their weekly
ordinary hours.

However, he claimed health providers were hiding behind
pre-approval requirements for overtime that doctors often can’t
comply with during emergencies.

There was also a culture in the sector, he said, where doctors
making overtime claims are seen to be inefficient.

"What we’re seeing for several years is these doctors are
required and authorised to work hours in addition to ordinary hours
with many of those hours unpaid," he said.

"This is nothing more than a cohort of junior doctors seeking pay
for hours they’ve actually worked."

Survey found junior doctors work an average 16 hours overtime a
week with some working up to 25 hours, mostly without pay.

Chief Medical Officer of Peninsula Health Dr Shyaman Menon said the
company “respects the rights of all staff, including the receipt
of any payments to which they are entitled”.

"Our junior doctors are the future of our organisation and we
acknowledge the important contribution they make across all our
hospitals and healthcare sites."

An Australian Medical Association Victoria Hospital survey found
junior doctors work an average 16 hours of overtime a week with
some often working up to 25 hours extra a week, mostly without
pay.

The Victorian class action follows another action led by Hayden
Stephens & Associates, this time in conjunction with Maurice
Blackburn, against NSW Health over junior doctors’ unpaid
overtime.

Unpaid excessive hours has become a hot issue in traditionally
prestigious white collar professions in recent years,

For the past 12 months top-tier law firms have been forced to
backpay junior lawyers thousands of dollars each because their
lengthy hours dragged their salaries below minimum rates in the
award.

Unions are also gearing up to organise technology workers,
including at video game developers and big tech giants like Google,
over claims of unpaid overtime.[GN]

VIVINT SOLAR: Li Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to C.D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ZHAOER LI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, and DANA
RUSSELL, Case No. 2:19-cv-06165, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Utah on March 22, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Utah assigned Case
No. 2:21-cv-00171-DBP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and/or misleading statements with the Securities
and Exchange Commission about Vivint Solar's business, operations,
and prospects in order to artificially inflate the prices of Vivint
securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019.

Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company with its
principal executive offices located in Lehi, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

                 - and –

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 377-1181
         Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

W.S. BADCOCK: Manuel TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Corine Manuel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. W.S. Badcock Corporation D/B/A
Badcock Home Furniture & More, a Florida corporation, Case No.
21-CA-001428-0 was removed from the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange
County, Florida Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on March 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-00531-RBD-EJK to
the proceeding.

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

Badcock Home Furniture & more -- https://www.badcock.com/ -- is a
chain of over 370 company and dealer owned furniture stores in
eight states across the southeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley Francis Kinni, Esq.
          JOHNSON, CASSIDY, NEWLON & DECORT, P.A.
          2802 N. Howard Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Phone: (813) 699-4862
          Fax: (813) 235-0462
          Email: bkinni@jclaw.com


WASHINGTON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schumacher Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA SCHUMACHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR JAY
INSLEE, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-5535 MJP (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a Class and Appoint the Freedom Foundation as Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiffs are Individual Providers ("IPs") who care for
disabled or elderly individuals enrolled in Washington's
Medicaid-funded homecare program.  The Defendant, the Service
Employees International Union 775, represents the Plaintiffs in
collective bargaining with the State of Washington.

Prior to July 2014, the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA")
between the State and the Union generally required all IPs to pay
Union dues or nonmember fees, unless they had a bona fide religious
objection.  Following the Supreme Court's decision in Harris v.
Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), which found these mandatory, "fair
share" dues violated the First Amendment rights of non-members, the
State and the Union renegotiated their CBA so that IPs who did not
wish to join the union or pay union dues could opt out of doing
so.

In 2018, however, in Janus v. AFCME, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448
(2018), the Supreme Court concluded that this opt-out arrangement
for deducting non-mandatory union dues from public employees is not
constitutionally permissible.  Following the Supreme Court's
decision in Janus, the State of Washington and the Union stopped
deducting fees unless the IP granted affirmative consent to such
deductions.  A Class of IPs consisting of those "who, during the
period Feb. 11, 2011 through Feb. 11, 2019, paid dues or fees to
SEIU 775 through payroll deductions without a signed Union
membership/dues authorization card in effect at the time of the
deduction was certified by this Court in April 2020.  The Class
settled for $3.25 million.

In the case, the proposed Class consists of approximately 84 IPs
who opted out of the Court-approved settlement in Routh.  The
Plaintiffs define the putative class as: All individuals: 1) who
are or were Providers as defined in the complaint; 2) from whom the
State has deducted union dues and/or dues-equivalent fees and
remitted them to SEIU 775; 3) who did not provide clear, prior,
affirmative consent for such deductions or union membership; 4) who
objected to union membership and the payment of any union
dues/fees; and 5) who were subjected to the Defendants' scheme
outlined in RCW 41.56.113(1)(b)(i) and CBA art. 4.1.  The class
includes everyone who comes within the class definition at any time
within the relevant statute of limitations.

The four named Plaintiffs allege that they did not sign Union
membership or dues deduction agreements, are not Union members, did
not consent to withdrawal of Union dues or fees from their wages,
and object to positions the Union "maintains during collective
bargaining, as well as issues and candidates supported by the
Union."  Yet some members of the proposed Class have participated
in Union activities, signed Union cards, and are current Union
members.  Six potential Class members opted out for personal
financial concerns.  Four opted out because they planned to work as
IPs only for a short time.  One opted out because she had minimal
time to participate in the Union and another because she was not
interested in Union activities.  Some who opted out did so after
participating in member-only activities.

The Plaintiffs now move to certify a Class that includes all these
individuals and to appoint the Freedom Foundation as the Class
counsel.  The Union objects, arguing, inter alia, that the
Plaintiffs are not adequate Class representatives and the Freedom
Foundation's troubling history of purchasing stolen information
about IPs means neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel are
adequate Class representatives.

Judge Pechman agrees.  She finds that the Plaintiffs and their
counsel have pervasive conflicts of interest with members of the
proposed class and therefore cannot represent the Class without
serious risk of harm to absent members.

First, many members of the proposed Class have taken actions
showing Union support, even after opting out of paying dues.  Of
the approximately 84 IPs who fall within the proposed Class
definition, 19 signed Union membership cards after objecting to
payroll deductions; 12 are current Union members; six explained
that they opted out solely for personal financial concerns; four
opted out because they planned to work as an IP only for a short
time longer; and one opted out because she did not have time to
participate in Union activities.  The Plaintiffs, Union opponents,
cannot adequately represent members of the proposed class who
support the Union and its goals.  These two groups have potentially
divergent aims.  The first wants to weaken and if possible, destroy
the union; the second, a free rider, wants merely to shift as much
of the cost of representation as possible to other workers, i.e.,
union members.

Second, based on the Foundation's recent history of stealing the
private information of IPs, the Judge cannot appoint the Foundation
to represent these same individuals.  She finds that the Freedom
Foundation cannot obtain access to Class information or conduct
discovery on behalf of the Class when doing so would allow it to
obtain the very same information it was just sanctioned for
stealing.  Further, the Foundation's conspiracy with their former
client -- which ended in his criminal conviction -- coupled with
the Foundation's anemic explanations for their conduct towards him,
do not give the Court confidence that the Foundation's attorneys
understand their ethical obligations to clients.

Finding that Plaintiffs and their counsel have not demonstrated
that they can adequately represent the proposed Class, Judge
Pechman denies the Plaintiffs' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7sjru8 from Leagle.com.


WELK RESORT: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in Ashcraft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John E. Ashcraft, v. Welk
Resort Group, Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey entered an order denying
Ashcraft's motion for class certification and related relief.

Judge Dorsey said, "I conclude that considerations of fairness and
judicial economy dictate that I deny Ashcraft's certification
motion without analyzing its merits. I speak of fairness to both
the parties in this case and the parties in the hundreds of other
cases before the court. As Experian summarizes in its response to
Ashcraft's certification motion, "[r]ather than conserving
resources, [p]laintiff's proposed classes would require extensive
fact-finding into each consumer's bankruptcy, the nature of each
consumer's dispute, the documents submitted with each consumer's
dispute, and the actions taken by Experian and the furnisher in
response to each consumer's dispute." My 27-page summary-judgment
order, which is the product of many hours spent poring over the
disputed evidence relevant to Ashcraft's individual claims,
animates Experian's arguments. It also confirms that any additional
time spent on these issues would squander the court's finite
resources. Indeed, the lack of a court record expressly stating
that Ashcraft's debt to Welk Resort was discharged in bankruptcy
and ambiguity of Ashcraft's dispute letter, combined with the
incredibly overbroad classes that he seeks to certify, make it
apparent that even if Ashcraft could meet Rule 23(a)'s four
requirements -- a long shot – he cannot show, as he must under
Rule 23(b)(3), that "the questions of law or fact common to class 4
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

Plaintiff Ashcraft contends that consumer reporting agency (CRA)
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), and Nevada's consumer-reporting statutes when
it failed to reasonably reinvestigate Ashcraft's dispute about his
account with Welk Resort Group, Corp. and later reported inaccurate
information about that account. Ashcraft alleges four claims for
relief against Experian.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39pcWKj at no extra charge.[CC]


WELLPET LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Zeiger Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant WellPet LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled DANIEL ZEIGER, Plaintiff, v. WELLPET LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

Defendant WellPet makes premium-priced dog food that it holds out
to be healthy, nutritious, natural, and high quality. According to
Plaintiff Zeiger, three WellPet dog foods actually contain small
amounts of arsenic, lead, and bisphenol A ("BPA"). He alleges, on
behalf of himself and several proposed classes, that WellPet misled
consumers by failing to disclose the presence of these substances
and by making claims on the products' packaging that would lead
reasonable consumers to believe the substances were not present.

The case concerns three dog food products manufactured and marketed
by WellPet as part of its "Wellness" line: Complete Health Adult
Whitefish & Sweet Potato, Complete Health Grain Free Adult
Whitefish & Menhaden Fish Meal, and CORE Ocean (with Whitefish,
Herring Meal and Salmon Meal). Zeiger's broad theory is one of
misrepresentation. He alleges that WellPet marketed the Wellness
Products as "premium dog food" at a "premium price" that held
itself out as "natural and nutritious." In reality, he claims, the
Wellness products contain lead, arsenic, and BPA, the presence of
which WellPet did not disclose to consumers.

Zeiger filed the suit in September 2017 on behalf of himself and a
proposed class. In December 2019, Zeiger moved to file a third
amended complaint, which the Court denied for failure to show
diligence and for the prejudice to WellPet.

The operative complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) negligent
misrepresentation, (2) violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (3) violation of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), (4) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), (5) breach of express warranty under
California law, and (6) breach of implied warranty under California
law.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge William H. Orrick has entered an order:

      a. grating in part and denying in part both the parties'
motions to exclude;

      b. grating in part and denying in part WellPet's motion for
summary judgment on Zeiger's individual claim;

      c. denying without prejudice Zeiger's motion to certify a
23(b)(3) class; and

      d. granting Zeiger's motion to certify a 23(b)(2) class.

The Defendant petitions for permission to appeal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) the said order by Judge
Orrick.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Zeiger v. WellPet LLC,
Case No. 21-80016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, March 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DANIEL ZEIGER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com  

               - and -

          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: scruzhodge@litedepalma.com   

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          Steven M. McKany, Esq.
          Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: smckany@robbinsarroyo.com
                  arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
                  notice@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist,Esq.   
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

              - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendant-Petitioner WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L. L. P.
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com

WELLS FARGO: June 25 Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------
Securities and Exchange Commission released a statement on Wells
Fargo & Company:

On February 21, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order
(the "Order") against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the
"Respondent"). In the Order, the Commission found that from 2012
through 2016, the Respondent violated the federal securities laws
by misleading investors regarding the success of the core business
strategy of the Community Bank operating segment, its largest
business unit. At all relevant times, Wells Fargo was a publicly
traded financial services corporation with common stock registered
under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and quoted on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker:
WFC). According to the Order, Wells Fargo, among other things,
failed to disclose to investors that the Community Bank's sales
model had caused widespread unlawful and unethical sales practices
misconduct that was at odds with its investor disclosures regarding
needs-based selling, and that the publicly reported cross-sell
metric included significant numbers of unused or unauthorized
accounts. The Commission found that Wells Fargo violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to the Order, the Respondent paid a $500 million civil
money penalty to the Commission. In the Order, the Commission
established a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 so the civil penalties paid by the
Respondent can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Wells Fargo
Fair Fund").

On March 10, 2020, the Commission appointed Miller Kaplan Arase LLP
as Tax Administrator for the Wells Fargo Fair Fund to handle its
tax obligations. On May 21, 2020, the Commission appointed the Fund
Administrator to assist in developing and executing the Plan. On
January 11, 2021, the Commission approved the Plan.

Who is Potentially Eligible for Compensation: To be eligible for a
payment from the Wells Fargo Fair Fund, class members must satisfy
certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the
Plan. Those criteria include the following: 1) class member must
have purchased or acquired Wells Fargo common stock, traded on the
New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol WFC, during the
Recovery Period; 2) the approved transactions must calculate to an
Eligible Loss Amount as calculated under the Plan and the
Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $10.00; and 3) class
member is not an Excluded Party as defined in the Plan.

How to File a Claim: Class members can complete and submit an
online Claim Form or obtain a physical Claim Form by visiting the
Wells Fargo Fair Fund's website at www.WellsFargoFairFund.com. If
class members choose to submit their Claim Form online, they must
submit it on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on
June 25, 2021.

To submit a Claim Form by mail, class members must submit it to the
Fund Administrator at the following address by first class mail,
postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, received) no later than
June 25, 2021:

          Wells Fargo Fair Fund
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          Fund Administrator - 6989
          P.O. Box 1369
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-1369

How to Obtain Relevant Documents or Additional Information: Copies
of the Plan, the Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available at
www.WellsFargoFairFund.com. Class member may also obtain a copy by
calling 1 (855) 225-1888 or by emailing the Fund Administrator at
info@WellsFargoFairFund.com. Information on the Wells Fargo Fair
Fund is also available on the Commission's public website at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/wells-fargo-company.htm.


WHITE HOUSE: Haldy Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MERCEDES HALDY, MOES 1 through 1,000, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHITE HOUSE BLACK
MARKET, INC., CHICO'S FAS, INC., and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive,
Case No. 30-2021-01184247-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
22, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00540-DOC-JDE to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all earned
wages, failure to pay all earned overtime wages, failure to permit
paid 10-minute rest periods, failure to provide 30-minute meal
periods, failure to timely pay all earned wages and compensation,
failure to pay all earned wages and compensation upon termination,
failure to provide lawful wage statements, failure to indemnify,
violation of the California Wage Theft Prevention Act, and unfair
business practices.

White House Black Market, Inc. is an American women's clothing
retailer headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is an American women's clothing and accessories
retailer headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Jessica R. Perry, Esq.
         Julia C. Riechert, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         1000 Marsh Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Telephone: (650) 614-7400
         Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
         E-mail: jperry@orrick.com
                 jriechert@orrick.com

                - and –

         Mariam Bicknell, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1100
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 567-6700
         Facsimile: (949) 567-6710
         E-mail: mbicknell@orrick.com

WORKHORSE GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Workhorse Group, Inc. (WKHS)
Class Period: 7/7/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wkhs/

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                          About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation’s premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS) ("Workhorse") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities
between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021

Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/workhorse-group-class-actionlawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=workhorse
     
Contact:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500

Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United
States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation
Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear
acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package
delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the
NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3
billion.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that USPS was going
to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV, and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had
concealed the fact that – as revealed by the postmaster general
in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric
vehicle – electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be
impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, the
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Workhorse investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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

WORLDWIDE WHOLESALE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Wholesale
Floor Covering, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Worldwide Wholesale Floor Covering, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02538
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021).

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

Worldwide Wholesale Floor Coverings --
http://www.worldwidefloors.com/-- provides flooring products. The
Company offers carpet, rugs, orientals, wood, laminate, vinyl,
ceramic, marble, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



XOOM ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xoom Energy LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Xoom Energy
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00117 (W.D.N.C., March 22, 2021).

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

XOOM Energy, LLC -- https://xoomenergy.com/en -- through its family
of companies, is a retail electricity, renewable and natural gas
provider in over 90 deregulated markets across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Phone: (919) 960-1545
          Fax: (919) 882-8763
          Email: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com


ZUORA INC: Roberts Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY ROBERTS, v. ZUORA,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-05702-SI (N.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Susan Illston entered an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
      publicly-traded common stock of defendant Zuora, Inc. during

      the period from April 12, 2018 to May 30, 2019 and who were
      damaged;"

   2. appointing Lead plaintiff New Zealand Methodist Trust
      Association as class representative; and

   3. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as class counsel.

On December 4, 2020, court-appointed lead plaintiff New Zealand
Methodist Trust Association filed a motion for class certification,
appointment of class representative, and appointment of class
counsel. A hearing on MTA's motion is scheduled for April 9, 2021.
Under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this
matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and
vacates the April 9, 2021 hearing date.

Zuora is an enterprise software company that creates and provides
software for businesses to launch and manage their
subscription-based services. Zuora's applications are designed to
automate recurring billing, collections, quoting, revenue
recognition, and subscription metrics.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwKhFi at no extra charge.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***